Proof of cause of gravity

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of particle-wave duality and how it is caused by the motion of particles in the fabric of space. The pressure towards us from the fabric of space produces gravity, and this is the mechanism behind the acceleration due to gravity. This understanding also explains why apples fall. The conversation also mentions an article published in Electronics World, which reviews and extends the mathematical proof for the mechanism of gravity and resolves problems with general relativity. It is proposed that this model can be used to rigorously test the consequences of this physical fluid model for the fabric of space. The conversation also mentions the fixed 377 ohms impedance of the vacuum to electromagnetic energy, which suggests that the fabric of space is a non-particulate
  • #141
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Yes Brad, clearly you are schooled in the manners in which this is taught, so tell me Brad, what if reality is doing it in a manner that neither of those two propositions explain.

Tell me Brad, what if atoms half the way into the Earth are focusing 70% of their Gravitational energy towards the center, and not 50%in/50%out. what if that if actually the path of it's operation?

Do you leave the door in your mind open enough to accept even so little as the possiblity? (cause that is how you learn to explore!)

Aside from that, a "center of gravity" is a conceptual thing, being a concept does NOT gaurantee that it is a reality, nor does it gaurantee that it works that way!

Yeah Sure! IF atoms or gravity behaves like that, you are right.

And IF I have a millions bucks, I can go on a long vacation.

Fact is I don't have a million.

And fact is, gravity and atoms don't behave like that.

You are just assuming something out of the ordainry for which you don't have proof. Why would atoms and gravity behave any different in the inside of the earth?

Unless YOU come with proof of that, we don't believe you!

So, better start digging that hole...!
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #142
Originally posted by heusdens
Yeah Sure! IF atoms or gravity behaves like that, you are right.

And IF I have a millions bucks, I can go on a long vacation.

Fact is I don't have a million.

And fact is, gravity and atoms don't behave like that.

You are just assuming something out of the ordainry for which you don't have proof. Why would atoms and gravity behave any different in the inside of the earth?

Unless YOU come with proof of that, we don't believe you!

So, better start digging that hole...!

The manner of operation of gravity is known, only superficially, how it works inside matter, well, let's put it this way, gravity is well known for being a "Summing Force", always ADDS to itself, so my belief is probably more well founded then yours.

See. it could be as simply as the manner of operation permits that, if you went to the center of the earth, the Acceleration, due to Gravity, could remain the same as at the surface, and could be measured as such, if you could eliminate the counteracting thermal energy.

If so much was/is known about gravity, then why am I the first person to tie/connect gravitational energy to the 4 States of Matter?

Male you a different deal, if I prove it, you dig the hole!

PS. you mention "We won't believe you", did you poll them to get permission/right to express their opinions, for them?
 
  • #143
BTW Heusdens, you mention "gravity and atoms", most of what I have heard about gravity and atoms is that atoms have gravity because they have mass, but that it is too small to measure at that level.

So it is quite possible that the method of activity/actions of "atomic level gravity" is different, than is currently, unknown actually.

Thanks... have you started diggin yet, you might just need the head start in time as it's a long ways down.
 
  • #144
Well seeing as the center of gravity no longer exists according to you, I guess if I balance this book at the center of gravity it will not stay balanced.

*does so*

Oops...it is balanced.

If there were no center of gravity orbital mechanics would become very unstable, and there would be no center of gravity in any mutli-body system either (which there are and we take advantage of many times in satellite operations by placing them in these zero net force locations so that we don't have to haul up propellent as well). Mr. Parsons, you obviously need to do some careful thought experiments and learn some real physics, or you need to get a shovel and start digging. Do some searches for information about this phenonmena. Gravitational energy is symmetric and atoms cannot make 70% go one way and 30% the other. If that was the case the inverse square law would not hold, and indeed, atoms would be much more unstable than they are, as would molecules. Thus far we have shown gravity is classical in the micro-scale size, and even once we enter the realm of the atomic size it should still operate more or less classically. Quantum gravity effects don't come into play until about the size of quarks.
 
  • #145
Originally posted by Brad_AD23

"...And once we get into the Atomic scale..."

OOoooooops, you mean you aren't there yet??

Well, when you get there, you'll know, cause you'll see my tracks!


Hey, what an incredible analogy, the balancing a book (as having a center of gravity, Obviously at Zero G as you have so far insisted is the 'truth'!) as an analogous entity, to the gravitational effects upon the core of a 6.6 Sextillion ton planet.

I see you have a little, what? dyslexia with scales??

Other then that, I'm really glad you don't believe me...actually!

Thanks!
 
  • #146
Ah the hubris of the defeated...can't seal your arguments so let's resort to attacking the other guy.

I have been operating on any scale, and yes, that is called a transistion statement.

Maybe if you read my anaology a bit closer, you'll understand it. IF there was no center of gravity in the book, then it would be impossible to balance (hence when applied to orbits, there would be no stable orbit). At the book's center of gravity because the gravitational forces are equally balanced, if they weren't, it would imply an imbalance and lead to the book shifting around, again unbalanced.

So I say again, learn what you are talking about here. No where at all is it even remotely disputed that what the rest of us say is not true. And no, this isn't one of those "Well that thinking keeps new ideas down." This is the most basic of all things, and if it were not so, then all of our obrital mechanics and satellites orbiting, or in centers of gravity would not function as they should. Evidence favors us.
 
  • #147
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Ah the hubris of the defeated...can't seal your arguments so let's resort to attacking the other guy.

Let's see, I sort of made fun of your badly woven analogy, including a remark that you seemed to be missing scale knowledge, as clearly you even admit you have "no atomic scale theory", at least I do!

And I could very easily seal the argument, from a greater base, and foundation, of human knowledge then you realize. Just that, for some time now, I have been unwilling to place a complete TOE on the net, as author, my perogative.


I have been operating on any scale, and yes, that is called a transistion statement.

Maybe if you read my anaology a bit closer, you'll understand it. IF there was no center of gravity in the book, then it would be impossible to balance (hence when applied to orbits, there would be no stable orbit). At the book's center of gravity because the gravitational forces are equally balanced, if they weren't, it would imply an imbalance and lead to the book shifting around, again unbalanced.

Most of the orbiting masses are round/spherical in shape, hence playing with the idea of a center of gravity in a box shape, a book, seems rather inane, as to equate it to "no stable orbit"

So I say again, learn what you are talking about here. No where at all is it even remotely disputed that what the rest of us say is not true. wanted to place a huge Bwahahahah in here, what a con job that statement is, "No where is it remotely disputed..." and no where is it proven either, (explitive deleted!) what kind of a RUBE falls for lines like that? And no, this isn't one of those "Well that thinking keeps new ideas down." This is the most basic of all things, and if it were not so, then all of our obrital mechanics and satellites orbiting, or in centers of gravity would not function as they should. Evidence favors us.

evidence favors me, as you have none, as what you cite, here as evidence, is outside gravitational activities, NOT INSIDE, But apparently you cannot tell the difference!

Have a nice evening, I, God willing, will!
 
  • #148
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
The manner of operation of gravity is known, only superficially, how it works inside matter, well, let's put it this way, gravity is well known for being a "Summing Force", always ADDS to itself, so my belief is probably more well founded then yours.

See. it could be as simply as the manner of operation permits that, if you went to the center of the earth, the Acceleration, due to Gravity, could remain the same as at the surface, and could be measured as such, if you could eliminate the counteracting thermal energy.

If so much was/is known about gravity, then why am I the first person to tie/connect gravitational energy to the 4 States of Matter?

Male you a different deal, if I prove it, you dig the hole!

PS. you mention "We won't believe you", did you poll them to get permission/right to express their opinions, for them?

Gravity is a force vector, which can be (including all the other forces) sum to zero. That is why there is weighlessness.


And your hypothese can be easily disprooved by measuring force of gravity at some depth, it should drop the deeper we get.
 
  • #149
There is no difference. Gravity is gravity be it inside OR outside. As I said before 2 times now, and for the 3rd time, take some classes in the basics.

And I could very easily seal the argument, from a greater base, and foundation, of human knowledge then you realize. Just that, for some time now, I have been unwilling to place a complete TOE on the net, as author, my perogative.

That is rich.
 
  • #150
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
evidence favors me, as you have none, as what you cite, here as evidence, is outside gravitational activities, NOT INSIDE, But apparently you cannot tell the difference!

You are very very disorganised mentaly, based upon these statements.
Your very own statement was that there was no proof (which also means lack of disproof) for the center of gravity of Earth having a balancing (all force vectors of gravity, as with respect to the gravity excerted by the atoms of Earth themselves, and not the outside universe, there balance to exactly cancel themselves out, creating weithlesness at the exact center of gravity) force of gravity.

So, on other words, you now claim YOU BEEN AT THE CENTER OF EARTH AND MEASURED A NON-ZERO FORCE OF GRAVITY?
So what was the amount of the force and direction of this force then?

It simply can't direct to any specific direction, cause all directions would be equally likely. That just argues for why the force there should be zero.

And , please, don't come up with the quantum effects of gravity, since as we know, nothing happens inside the Earth that urges us to take into account quantum gravity!

Nuclear fusion processes, for instance, do NOT occur inside earth, neither we are on a NEUTRON star, so any out of the ordinary behaviour of gravitation is not expected inside earth.

This in fact means that all gravitational effects happening inside of earth, are no different then that happen outside of earth, which have been explored profoundly and deeply.

Have a nice evening, I, God willing, will!

Calling upon 'Divine interventions' or the 'superatural' will not be of much help to you, to save your argument.

Better start digging that hole...
 
Last edited:
  • #151
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
The manner of operation of gravity is known, only superficially, how it works inside matter, well, let's put it this way, gravity is well known for being a "Summing Force", always ADDS to itself, so my belief is probably more well founded then yours.

Gravity is a vector force. If you sum those forces up, it could give a resultant force of zero. So, you are simply wrong there!

For instance, consider a simple two body problem, in empty space.
There is exactly one point, in between the two bodies, the line that connects both centers of gravity, in which all gravitational forces are cancelled.

Now consider just a perfectly spheric object, made out of a material that has overall the same density. The force of gravity is directed towards the center of gravity, both outside the sphere and inside the sphere. Outside the sphere gravity drops proportional to 1/r^2.
Inside the gravity is proportional to r. And therefore zero at the center of gravity.


See. it could be as simply as the manner of operation permits that, if you went to the center of the earth, the Acceleration, due to Gravity, could remain the same as at the surface, and could be measured as such, if you could eliminate the counteracting thermal energy.

No, it could not. Cause when you would dig for instance 100 km. then all of the outside surface of depth 100 km, would no longer contribute to the nett force of gravity at that depth, since the combined forces of gravity cancel out each other.
Remember the are VECTOR forces, which have a direction and magnitude.
 
  • #152
Originally posted by heusdens
Gravity is a vector force. If you sum those forces up, it could give a resultant force of zero. So, you are simply wrong there!

For instance, consider a simple two body problem, in empty space.
There is exactly one point, in between the two bodies, the line that connects both centers of gravity, in which all gravitational forces are cancelled.

Now consider just a perfectly spheric object, made out of a material that has overall the same density. The force of gravity is directed towards the center of gravity, both outside the sphere and inside the sphere. Outside the sphere gravity drops proportional to 1/r^2.
Inside the gravity is proportional to r. And therefore zero at the center of gravity.

No, it could not. Cause when you would dig for instance 100 km. then all of the outside surface of depth 100 km, would no longer contribute to the nett force of gravity at that depth, since the combined forces of gravity cancel out each other.
Remember the are VECTOR forces, which have a direction and magnitude.

That is simply what you are stating, but you have no proof of that (other then the math, and that alone is NOT proof!)

Please stop the condescentions as the person you are talking to is NOT a child!

That is what you keep saying, you can repeat it until the server dies storing the page, and that will still NOT make it any 'truer', cause, as I have repeatedly attempted to explain to you, the reality of the Earth's structure does NOT allude to a 'zero gravity state' at it's center, even though, conceptually it is the "Center Of Gravity" of the Planet.

The explanation of the 'why' of that, is currently unknown to the rest of you, I suppose, so, for now, it gets left that way.
 
  • #153
Originally posted by heusdens
You are very very disorganised mentaly, As evidenced by your spelling?? based upon these statements.
Your very own statement was that there was no proof (which also means lack of disproof) for the center of gravity of Earth having a balancing (all force vectors of gravity, as with respect to the gravity excerted by the atoms of Earth themselves, and not the outside universe, there balance to exactly cancel themselves out, creating weithlesness at the exact center of gravity) force of gravity.

So, on other words, you now claim YOU BEEN AT THE CENTER OF EARTH AND MEASURED A NON-ZERO FORCE OF GRAVITY?NO, and NO WHERE DOES ANYONE SEE ME SAYING THAT, just you trying (stupidly) to force yourself upon me, little else...
So what was the amount of the force and direction of this force then?

It simply can't direct to any specific direction,It does, it aims for the center, what did you think it did? cause all directions would be equally likely. That just argues for why the force there should be zero.

And , please, don't come up with the quantum effects of gravity, since as we know, nothing happens inside the Earth that urges us to take into account quantum gravity! HUH? another attempt at your Hubris??!

Nuclear fusion processes, for instance, do NOT occur inside earth, And no doubt you have the proof of that too(?) neither we are on a NEUTRON star, so any out of the ordinary behaviour of gravitation is not expected inside earth.

This in fact means that all gravitational effects happening inside of earth, are no different then that happen outside of earth, which have been explored profoundly and deeply.A statement, but not a shred of proof! Quelle Idiot!

Calling upon 'Divine interventions' or the 'superatural' will not be of much help to you, to save your argument. Apparently you cannot even read, as what you seem to believe is only what you would like to see, not as I wrote, that's life!

Better start digging that hole...

Heusdens, your reflection, in a mirror..."You are very very disorganised mentaly"

As for digging a hole, already have and am easily willing/able to bury you in it!
 
  • #154
Just a quick, passing, thought, if this "gravity all balances out to zero" hypothesis, that you would seem to be expounding as 'veritas', is in fact true, then why/how the heck is there any gravity on the planets surface?

Why isn't it zero'd out, in balance, just like you seem to wish to be doing, at it's center??

Simply question!

P.S. Sorry Heusdens for the 'Condescentions' remark, it should have been posted towards Brad_AD23, get that Brad_AD23?


Have a nice day, God willing, I will!
 
  • #155
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
We started the argument on this center of Earth's gravity, where Earth's gravity is effectively zero, by your statement that I have no proof of that.
You now seem to say that at the CENTER of GRAVITY the force vector of GRAVITY is directed towards the CENTER.
Unless you think that Earth's gravity has more then one center, I am perfectly able to imply that a vector force at a specfici point that directs towards the very same point, is simply zero.

And for the rest your arguments do not interest me. If you seem to think that Earth contains a nuclear reactor (where does the radiation go?) then that is just that. I don't mind whatever you belief in, as long as it makes you happy.
 
  • #156
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Just a quick, passing, thought, if this "gravity all balances out to zero" hypothesis, that you would seem to be expounding as 'veritas', is in fact true, then why/how the heck is there any gravity on the planets surface?

Why isn't it zero'd out, in balance, just like you seem to wish to be doing, at it's center??

Simply question!

P.S. Sorry Heusdens for the 'Condescentions' remark, it should have been posted towards Brad_AD23, get that Brad_AD23?


Have a nice day, God willing, I will!


READ THE DAMN PROOF NEWTON GAVE FOR THIS!
 
  • #157
Originally posted by heusdens
We started the argument on this center of Earth's gravity, where Earth's gravity is effectively zero, by your statement that I have no proof of that.

You now seem to say that at the CENTER of GRAVITY the force vector of GRAVITY is directed towards the CENTER.

Unless you think that Earth's gravity has more then one center, I am perfectly able to imply that a vector force at a specfici point that directs towards the very same point, is simply zero.

And for the rest your arguments do not interest me. If you seem to think that Earth contains a nuclear reactor (where does the radiation go?) then that is just that. I don't mind whatever you belief in, as long as it makes you happy.

You may imply anything you want, but for as long as I have known things in science, an Implication is NOT a proof!

As for the force vector at the center, it must be towards the center, and NOT zero.

The radiation is heat, and guess what, the center of the Earth is heated, radioactively heated.

When Venus had her 'makeover', back about the dawn of Homo Sapiens, it would have been a "fusile thermal eruction", probably very high energy waves, gamma perhaps, sustained, and as it flowed out of the surrounding rock, it heated the surface, in passing, giving her that nice 'un-pockmarked' face, she now has. Such an air about her as well.
 
  • #158
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
As for the force vector at the center, it must be towards the center, and NOT zero.

Not only you did not understand something about the proof of Newton, but now it comes up neither you undestand what a VECTOR is.

GO BACK TO SCHOOL!

Read a damn physics course book!
 
  • #159
Hmm I thought I suggested that learning thing.
 
  • #160
Aristarchus of Samos worked out the solar system theory, but the greater complexity of Ptolemy's earth-centred universe with all of its unexplained, complex epicycles was more intellectual than the facts. Mathematical junk always wins. People respect it.

If it is unintelligible, unproven, speculative, and claims to be a theory, then it will be publishable, praiseworthy, and worshipped like a religion. If it is fact, it is buried for 1000 years.

:wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #161
UHHH right. Or it could just be that your idea doesn't hold any water at all for the known facts of the universe. Again as has been said, pressure gradients cannot cause the bending of light around massive objects, and your equations do not lend themselves to that at all. Nor would they be able to take into account any quantum gravity at all because they require your space to be continuous.

I can't vouch for you, but I know that all physicists have a thorough understanding of the mathematics they deal with and if it led to silly things like epicycles, it would be tossed out and couldn't make the predictions that agree with experiment as well as they do.
 
  • #162
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
UHHH right. Or it could just be that your idea doesn't hold any water at all for the known facts of the universe. Again as has been said, pressure gradients cannot cause the bending of light around massive objects, and your equations do not lend themselves to that at all. Nor would they be able to take into account any quantum gravity at all because they require your space to be continuous.

I can't vouch for you, but I know that all physicists have a thorough understanding of the mathematics they deal with and if it led to silly things like epicycles, it would be tossed out and couldn't make the predictions that agree with experiment as well as they do.


Find the error in it if you claim it is wrong. There is no pressure gradient, because gravity is a pushing effect. What causes apples to fall is not a gradient in pressure. It is shielding from an all-round pressure which pushes inwards equally from all directions except those shielded by the presence of mass. Light is pushed just as an apple is.:smile:
 
  • #163
Originally posted by heusdens
Not only you did not understand something about the proof of Newton, but now it comes up neither you undestand what a VECTOR is.

GO BACK TO SCHOOL!

Read a damn physics course book!


No more bad language please! If textbooks are so great anyway, why do they not tell you the cause of gravity already. It would have saved me spending my life researching the subject!:smile:
 
  • #164
Originally posted by heusdens
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
We started the argument on this center of Earth's gravity, where Earth's gravity is effectively zero, by your statement that I have no proof of that.
You now seem to say that at the CENTER of GRAVITY the force vector of GRAVITY is directed towards the CENTER.
Unless you think that Earth's gravity has more then one center, I am perfectly able to imply that a vector force at a specfici point that directs towards the very same point, is simply zero.

And for the rest your arguments do not interest me. If you seem to think that Earth contains a nuclear reactor (where does the radiation go?) then that is just that. I don't mind whatever you belief in, as long as it makes you happy.


Great argument, but a pity that the more fundamental question of the cause of gravity is being neglected!
 
  • #165
Pushed by what? Light has no substance (no photons do not count as substance). Also, if this thing pushes all objects inwards, that is itself a fault. Pressure things follow certain rules, and as such somewhere in the universe there must then be a rift where there is no pressure, because an omni-directional field of pressure will create it. I can't have pressure pushing from the right, and from the left and not have some spot where the two originate where there is no pressure pushing at all.
 
  • #166
Lets see, when you measure gravity, 'external' from the generating body, the gradient used is 1/r2, when it is measured 'facially' (at the generating bodies surface) it becomes 1/r, so when you would want to measure it 'inside' the generating body, the requisite gradient would be 1/sq.rt of r, (One over the square root of 'r', so sorry I don't know how to make the square root sign!) hence you will find an 'ad reducio' factor that will permit the densities of rock that the planet has.

Gravity is a summing force, it sums all matter such that the matter will "act as one".

If you have 3 balls that are gravitationally attached to each other, a fourth ball that is gravitationally attracted to it ,is attracted to the sum of the masses of the 3 balls, not the sum of the masses reduced by factor of cancelation of gravitational energy, it doesn't work that way. Provably.

By the way Heusden, I did go to school, (high school and university [some] physics) continued studieing for years after that.

Just cause that theory made it into a movie doesn't prove that it is the right answer, just that it was the most current thought, but it does not account for the measured properties of the Earth properly, nor the measured properties of the rest of the mass in the universe, for that matter. (no pun intended?)

The center of the Earth has a very large steel ball forming in it, from the siesmic evidence, and the heat that that ball contains, would blow it apart if it were not for the generated gravitational pressure that contains it.

BTW heusdens, you state that I do not know what a 'vector' is, but if you go back in YOUR postings you used the term in the same manner as I did, so.....well, "What you see in 'others', is really the truth as it arises from within you!

Have a nice day guys!
 
Last edited:
  • #167
Dear Physics, how the hell did you guys come up with 1/r and r-1/2?? Gravity obeys the inverse square law no matter which frame you are measuring from. It is always 1/r2.
 
  • #168
So gentlemen, this site tells of the density of the Earth, http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/dynamicearth/internal/density.htm" [Broken] that helps us to know that the measurable density of the rocks must be greater within the planet as to ensure that the average density works out properly.

Further to that, as this is a physics forums, I will not need to prove this, the simple reality is that anyone who has even a slight knowledge of Fusion reactions will tell you that it requires tremendous Pressure (and temperature) to initiate.

In the theory that you seem to be expounding to me, that you would wish me to swallow a true, the center of gravity of any given gravitational object is comletely absent of any pressure what-so-ever, hence the Sun, that huge ball of firely gas in the sky, would NOT be fusing!

It could NOT be fusing as, you would want me to believe, there is NO gravitational pressure at it's center, hence it cannot be fusing.

Anyone care to try again?

Ps, please, do not try to tell me that it is "the weight of all of the material above it that is presssing down upon it" that is creating the requisite pressure, BECAUSE that weight, is only 'weight' BECAUSE of gravity!...otherwise, it would be weightless, and therefore incapable of pressuring anything!

Have a nice day guys!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #169
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Pushed by what? Light has no substance (no photons do not count as substance). Also, if this thing pushes all objects inwards, that is itself a fault. Pressure things follow certain rules, and as such somewhere in the universe there must then be a rift where there is no pressure, because an omni-directional field of pressure will create it. I can't have pressure pushing from the right, and from the left and not have some spot where the two originate where there is no pressure pushing at all.

E=mc^2. Light has energy, has mass. If you read some textbooks, you find the useful info that 'light has no rest mass'. However, since light is never at rest, that statement is about as useful as the pseudo-scientific string theory, which predicts nothing at all despite millions of dollars of funding. You think that there are no epicycles in string theory fiddling. It is all ad hoc trash. You may try to say that my work is trash on the basis that my budget comes out of my salary, and that so many people in science cannot all be wrong. In that case, you are disproven by DNA sequencing. There is not the slightest evidence that everyone in the world suddenly, in 1600, had the same mutation - preventing them from all making the same errors.

In fact, DNA evidence is that over 99.8% of human DNA data is similar. So scientifically, there is every reason why superstitions are commonplace everywhere, why mistakes are repeated, why people are over awed at things which they do not understand like tensor calculus.

Your statements about photons not constituting substance is false on the basis that radiation pressure, electromagnetic radiation pressure, has been demonstrated. The momentum of light is equal to its energy divided by the velocity of light, p = E/c. If that fact does not suggest to you that light has substance, then bye bye sir.
 
  • #170
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Dear Physics, how the hell did you guys come up with 1/r and r-1/2?? Gravity obeys the inverse square law no matter which frame you are measuring from. It is always 1/r2.

Wrong again. The gravitational potential goes as 1/r. The inverse square law is gravitational acceleration and force.

Work energy E equals the force multiplied by distance r moved in direction of the force, E = Fr. Consequently when you have gravity F = mMG/r^2, then your energy E = Fr = mMG/r.

However, this playing with potential energy, which is done in textbooks in the absence of the mechanism of gravity, is trivia.

The textbooks carry a lot of mathematical play in order to set questions with which to prepare students for exams. They do not carry the answers to fundamental questions.

Euclid's Elements of Geometry, written 300 BC, full of complex geometric diagrams and proofs, still looks impressive today. Despite the fact that Euclid made a false fifth assumption, about parallel lines reaching to infinity, which prevented general relativity being investigated for 2200 years. How impressive are textbooks?
 
Last edited:
  • #171
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So gentlemen, this site tells of the density of the Earth, http://earth.leeds.ac.uk/dynamicearth/internal/density.htm" [Broken] that helps us to know that the measurable density of the rocks must be greater within the planet as to ensure that the average density works out properly.

Further to that, as this is a physics forums, I will not need to prove this, the simple reality is that anyone who has even a slight knowledge of Fusion reactions will tell you that it requires tremendous Pressure (and temperature) to initiate.

In the theory that you seem to be expounding to me, that you would wish me to swallow a true, the center of gravity of any given gravitational object is comletely absent of any pressure what-so-ever, hence the Sun, that huge ball of firely gas in the sky, would NOT be fusing!

It could NOT be fusing as, you would want me to believe, there is NO gravitational pressure at it's center, hence it cannot be fusing.

Anyone care to try again?

Ps, please, do not try to tell me that it is "the weight of all of the material above it that is presssing down upon it" that is creating the requisite pressure, BECAUSE that weight, is only 'weight' BECAUSE of gravity!...otherwise, it would be weightless, and therefore incapable of pressuring anything!

Have a nice day guys!

We have already explained you this.

1. The force of gravity, working on all the matter of for instance the sun, cause a built up of pressure. The pressure is built up from the core to the center of gravity, cause the pressure sums up the gravity forces above it.
2. The force of gravity however runs down from the core downto the center, and becomes in the center effectively zero.

No force of gravity in the center, just means that the built up of pressure, effectively halts there. But since all matter above it feels the force of gravity, this means that the pressure there is at the maximum. And not zero.

The pressure is just the sum of gravitational forces of all matter above a certain point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #172
Ah, misreading. The gravitational potential energy, yes that is 1/r. The gravitational force, is 1/r2. They way it was said, it sounded as though we were still talking bout the force when Parsons said 1/r inside bodies. And actually he was referring to force. So my post is correct.
 
  • #173
Originally posted by heusdens
We have already explained you this.

1. The force of gravity, working on all the matter of for instance the sun, cause a built up of pressure. The pressure is built up from the core to the center of gravity, cause the pressure sums up the gravity forces above it.
2. The force of gravity however runs down from the core downto the center, and becomes in the center effectively zero.

No force of gravity in the center, just means that the built up of pressure, effectively halts there. But since all matter above it feels the force of gravity, this means that the pressure there is at the maximum. And not zero.

The pressure is just the sum of gravitational forces of all matter above a certain point.

If the pressure halts at the center, then No fusion.

If the gravity runs down to zero, then no matter, if matter, the no zero cause matter generates gravity...period.

If you do a shell game of matter, you find that the matter on the outer shell well exceeds the amount of matter towards the middle, hence if your scenerio worked there would be no matter at the center, it would be hollow. (it isn't!)

Aside from that, as I have pointed out, mathematically you can find a zero point, but in reality there is none, because gravity is the pressurization of both energy, and matter, by matter.

The core of the Earth is a large steel ball, pressurized by gravity and heated by the pressurization that gravity generates.

Further to that gravity, as I have pointed out, is a part of a thermal cycle that absorbs energy, the graity part, and shortwaves (compresses) it to thermal+ wavelengths, which re-emits as heat, from the center.

In order for that to occur, gravity must hold sway right to the very center of the core of the earth.

In order for your scenario to work, the greatest pressure would be at the half way point, which makes no sense, what-so-ever. Aside from that, it will not account for the rock density problems that we know are real.

Believe whatever you want, but remember the 'Sunshine' as that is the proof that I have that, fusion takes place there, in the center of the core of the Sun.

BTW if the force of gravity runs down towards the center, then the density of the rock, would have the greatest densities of rock at the surface, which, last time I, or anyone else, looked, IS NOT THE CASE!

There is also the cases of core colapse in Steller Novas, wouldn't happen if the center was at zero as the rest of the matter flies off of the surface due to the thermal expunging on energy while the core remains intact.

P.s. it is the core collapse that generates the expunging heat, so how can the core, with a zero g center, initiate the colapse?

Explain please...cause I don't think you can cause your responce is wrong! (only works in the movie not in reality!)

Brad, 1 over the square root of r, inside.
 
  • #174
Not quite sure how you get a shell. There will be more matter above it, but remember, this is 3d so there is just enough across it to counteract the pull it feels above it. It still sums out to zero.
 
  • #175
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
If the pressure halts at the center, then No fusion.

If the gravity runs down to zero, then no matter, if matter, the no zero cause matter generates gravity...period.

If you do a shell game of matter, you find that the matter on the outer shell well exceeds the amount of matter towards the middle, hence if your scenerio worked there would be no matter at the center, it would be hollow. (it isn't!)

Aside from that, as I have pointed out, mathematically you can find a zero point, but in reality there is none, because gravity is the pressurization of both energy, and matter, by matter.

The core of the Earth is a large steel ball, pressurized by gravity and heated by the pressurization that gravity generates.

Further to that gravity, as I have pointed out, is a part of a thermal cycle that absorbs energy, the graity part, and shortwaves (compresses) it to thermal+ wavelengths, which re-emits as heat, from the center.

In order for that to occur, gravity must hold sway right to the very center of the core of the earth.

In order for your scenario to work, the greatest pressure would be at the half way point, which makes no sense, what-so-ever. Aside from that, it will not account for the rock density problems that we know are real.

Believe whatever you want, but remember the 'Sunshine' as that is the proof that I have that, fusion takes place there, in the center of the core of the Sun.

BTW if the force of gravity runs down towards the center, then the density of the rock, would have the greatest densities of rock at the surface, which, last time I, or anyone else, looked, IS NOT THE CASE!

There is also the cases of core colapse in Steller Novas, wouldn't happen if the center was at zero as the rest of the matter flies off of the surface due to the thermal expunging on energy while the core remains intact.

P.s. it is the core collapse that generates the expunging heat, so how can the core, with a zero g center, initiate the colapse?

Explain please...cause I don't think you can cause your responce is wrong! (only works in the movie not in reality!)

Brad, 1 over the square root of r, inside.


You are constantly confusing two distinct things: gravity and pressure.

Like I said, pressure is building up from the core to the center.
But this building up is actually getting slower as you get deeper, cause the force of gravity there, decreases, down to zero.
THAT MEANS THAT ALL THE WAY DOWN, PRESSURE INCREASES. The maximums pressure is at the center. Becase there, the CUMULATIVE force of all the matter on which gravity acts, is excercised.

Why don't you just look up Newton's proof of this? It simply shows that the shell above a certain radius r, excerts a force of gravity which exactly cancels out, and therefore the net force of gravity is equal to the force of the mass of radius r.
 
Last edited:
<h2>What is gravity?</h2><p>Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass are brought towards one another. It is a fundamental force of nature that is responsible for the motion of planets, stars, and galaxies.</p><h2>What causes gravity?</h2><p>The current accepted theory is that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. The presence of mass or energy warps the fabric of spacetime, creating a gravitational field that pulls objects towards each other.</p><h2>How was the cause of gravity discovered?</h2><p>The concept of gravity has been studied and theorized by scientists for centuries. The most famous theory is Newton's law of universal gravitation, which was proposed in the 17th century. However, the understanding of gravity has evolved with the development of Einstein's theory of general relativity in the early 20th century.</p><h2>Can the cause of gravity be proven?</h2><p>While the concept of gravity has been proven through various experiments and observations, the exact cause is still a topic of debate and ongoing research. Theories such as general relativity and quantum gravity attempt to explain the cause of gravity, but there is still much to be discovered and understood.</p><h2>How does the cause of gravity affect our daily lives?</h2><p>The cause of gravity is essential in understanding the motion of objects and the behavior of the universe. It allows us to predict and explain phenomena such as planetary orbits, tides, and the formation of galaxies. Without gravity, life as we know it would not exist.</p>

What is gravity?

Gravity is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass are brought towards one another. It is a fundamental force of nature that is responsible for the motion of planets, stars, and galaxies.

What causes gravity?

The current accepted theory is that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. The presence of mass or energy warps the fabric of spacetime, creating a gravitational field that pulls objects towards each other.

How was the cause of gravity discovered?

The concept of gravity has been studied and theorized by scientists for centuries. The most famous theory is Newton's law of universal gravitation, which was proposed in the 17th century. However, the understanding of gravity has evolved with the development of Einstein's theory of general relativity in the early 20th century.

Can the cause of gravity be proven?

While the concept of gravity has been proven through various experiments and observations, the exact cause is still a topic of debate and ongoing research. Theories such as general relativity and quantum gravity attempt to explain the cause of gravity, but there is still much to be discovered and understood.

How does the cause of gravity affect our daily lives?

The cause of gravity is essential in understanding the motion of objects and the behavior of the universe. It allows us to predict and explain phenomena such as planetary orbits, tides, and the formation of galaxies. Without gravity, life as we know it would not exist.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
10
Views
373
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
193
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Back
Top