Where is most "gravity", inside or out?

Iskcon: Can I interpret your silence regarding my response to you as a tacit admission that you acknowledge that you were incorrect?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I did not say new space is created, it reads new outside space has been created. should have bolded it. Once you have more outside, and fill it with more gravity, which masses are bound to do, there is more gravity outside. New outside space was created out of inside space by vacating it.

shrinkage means reducing volume , surfacewithout changing the mass, weight. that why use the synonym "compression" because no "evaporation" loss through evaporation or radiation is involved. The shrinking globe is different from the one covered by origins's graph, which shows inside gravity of different radii, but constant density.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quit trolling.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think even you could still contribute to the open questions of overlapping gravity at the center, and in a shrinking entity like a developing galaxy, the same space that was previously in the inside ending up with stronger gravity once at the outside.
Do you see red when you look at your graph now?

 

You are obviously trolling or just not smart enough to carry on a reasonable conversation. You have been told 10? 20? 30? times that using the ambiguous term gravity makes answering your questions impossible, but you continue to do it anyway. So again you are either trolling or not smart enough to frame a reasonable question. Either way you are a waste of time.

 

There is a saying there are no bad questions, only wrong answers. Science does not lead to final answers but to better questions. so,
If anybody is really interested in the subject matter, they can always give us the benefit of the doubt and give 2 0r 3 quick answers, specifying which aspect of gravity they mean. thereby identifying what I could have meant by gravity. like
in the above red area of your modified graph, the shell volume of ~0.8R thickness, having less gravity while on the inside, but showing more, when it became the outside, during the compression. W0uld that be gravity's strength, potential , the field, the curvature of spacetime, slope, or all of the above? I dont know, and dont want to start another protracted wrangling about words! does it matte even? because the question can be understood by the willing.
and an answer enlightening, even if the questioner is ignorant.
thank you.

 

Of course there are bad questions.

No science answers questions.

The answers already have been given and you have not understood them (apparently). Since you do not even understand the definition of the terms you are using your confusion is understandable.

We have to guess what you are talking about? This is not Jeopardy.

That area is red because the enthalpy has been sublimated.

Look at the Hamiltonian of the Taylor series to understand the quantumness of the space time.

So your point is what does the meaning of words have to do with communication? Got it.

You believe if I try hard enough I can divine what you mean even if your words to not identify what you mean?

I don't think anyone has any idea what you are talking about. My proof is that you have been given the answer to your questions multiple times and you still think you have not received an answer.

Wait! I got it! When you say you have 'not received an answer', that really means you have received and answer and you are satisfied with the answer.
Well how about that - I can figure out what you mean.

 

Quite.

There is no excuse at all for nebel not knowing by now that you can't ask quantitative questions about "gravity", as he does, unless you distinguish between force and potential.

There is no excuse at all for nebel not knowing by now that the potential at the centre of the Earth is a minimum, which is not zero.

There is no excuse at all for nebel not knowing by now that gravitational time dilation is related to potential, not force.

There most certainly ARE silly questions. Anyone who has raised a child knows this. Good examples are when the same question is asked over and over again even when the answer has been given, or when it has been pointed out that the question as put has no meaning.

Strewth.

 

It would be presumptuous of me to use terms I do not understand, and add to the confusion if I misapplied them, so I use generic terms like gravity, inside volume and refer to colours, slopes of lines on a chart. its a good start.

here is an example of what I do not understand a do not understand the meaning of those words, most of all it is hard to understand why you would use them, seriously!. the added lines are coloured red to distinguish from the colours you used in the original, origin, no more no less. and to distinctively show,that during compression, stronger gravity is developed in the volume that changed from inside to outside. more outside with more gravity.

I thought my proposition, question in the OP was quite simple, understandable by all, because written by a simpleton.
Nice that subtleties like time dilation and Hamiltonians were brought to bear on the subject, that never entered my mind, shows how fruitful, educational these discussions are even I am too nebulously minded to get it all. thank you.

 

yes, true, there are even questions based on logical fallacies. I remember one from the 1930s about a stone so big that the maker mighty enough to make it, could not move it. The most silly questions might be the most revealing, in that sense I meant no questions are bad, some positive good will come from all of them.

perhaps the meaning is at a more primitive level, than the ivory tower excellence can imagine? you have to excuse me. thank you.

 

Wait, I thought I was the big waste of time around here? Hey nebel, quit stealing my style of argumentation!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

By far, the biggest presumption is that, rather than ask questions, you persist in making hypotheses.
That is not the way to learn.

If you want to learn about gravity, then, when we say 'don't use that made up term' ... don't use that made up term.

 

As I said, understanding of Gravity is an ongoing quest in the most qualified circles, not just little nebel. To avoid confusion I will leave an open space after the word gravity, and leave it for you experts to fill in proper term like g- force, g-potential, g-field strength, etc, and then it will be a win win situation for all viewers

You missed scoring a big brownie point in your style, someone brought over an item from the "dual nature of G" thread.

 

Well, what you interpret is not under my control. But my silence was mainly because you took no stand.

Origin in #268 while responding to nebel

Later on I could figure out that he was referring to potential, so his statement is true with a simple hurried mistake (Actually magnitude is highest with a negative sign, so in principle it is the lowest keeping the standard definition of potential in mind.)

You responded to this post in #269, moaning that you did not add potential blah blah, suggesting that you agreed with origin's point of view that potential is the highest at the centre.

then in #332 you explicitly backed out from this.

And you offered no value (qualitative or quantitative) yourself. You are kind of drifting without substantial contribution in contrast to origin and exchemist, thats why I stayed away from responding to you.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

University of Warwick. "Double star system flips planet-forming disk into pole position." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 January 2019. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190114114231.htm>.
While both images do not look alike, they represent the same situation, an interior space, approximately spherical***, a Gauss/ Faraday cage, a central void devoid of matter and a possible volume with zero gravity(-----)
***Noted here that James R established that he shell theorem strictly applies only to perfect spheres., and this not one of them. but,
with no visible mass detected around the barycentre and inside the of the ring, The near zero gravity zone would extend a long way, verifying that there is occasions when there is
more gravity----- outside then in. Thank you Dave for the help.

 

Yeah I was wrong in what I said. At the bottom of the gravity well it takes the maximum amount of energy to escape. At the bottom of the gravity well the potential is zero, at an infinite distance the potential is at a maximum. The deeper the gravity well, the higher the potential as measured at an infinite point.

You are wrong about NotEinstein, he is a knowledgeable poster.

 

Whoa careful. It is convention to set the GPE to zero at infinity and treat any infalling from there as negative potential, relative to that zero. That is how the integration works out and it makes sense, given that one needs, in defining a zero, to define it such as to be the same value for an object escaping from any potential well, regardless of its depth.

 

I give up. I have no idea what I am talking about.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Maybe we're too hard on old nebel then........

 

Is that your goal, scoring brownie points? Because it certainly isn't mine.