# The Dual Nature of Gravity

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by nebel, Dec 23, 2018.

1. ### nebelValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,616

DaveC426913 said:
"According to the general theory of relativity, gravitational time dilation is copresent with the existence of an accelerated reference frame. An what causes, justifies the exception is the center of a concentric distribution of matter, where there is no accelerated reference frame, yet clocks are still supposed to tick slowly. "
Obviously the scientist that who wrote it, confirmed that indeed theren is no "noaccelerated reference frame in the center", talking relativity. so:
there is no gravity, and therefore there should be no slowing down of the clocks through time dilation (or lengthening of pendulums). nor in the newtonian model of origin's graph. --but
the green line shows a slowing of the clock. so :
given zero gravity at the center, what justifies, causes the exception, results contrary to the normal outside effect proven in satellites?
One suggestion was that overlapping gravitational fields, , pulling in different directions do cancel the effect, but continue to co-exist, ( in the realm of relativity so to speak) giving gravity a different dual nature?

3. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,707
Please either stay on-topic (i.e. stop breaking forum rule E3), or stop cross-posting (i.e. stop breaking forum rule E2).

5. ### nebelValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,616
thanx did nor know of these rules, and how this applies.

7. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,484
What? No.

Take an object of typical density, and say, 4000 miles in radius.
Pick a point inside it, say, 3000 miles from the centre.
The gross gravitational force is the sum of the gravitational force of every single atom everywhere in the body.
It just happens that some of those vectors (magnitude AND direction) point in opposite directions (which result in a lower net gravity).

The gross effect of every atom is accounted for. They're just competing - resulting in a smaller net force, not a smaller gross force.

8. ### nebelValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,616
thank you for that re-definition, will run with that. later.

9. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,707
And once again you demonstrate how morally bankrupt you really are: you accepted these rules when you signed up!

10. ### nebelValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,616
Yes, ignorance of the law will not shield one from the consequences of a misstep caused by a lack of knowledge recall, but moral judgements you mete out, really should be reserved for a higher authority. now,
is there anything special about gravity frozen in strength as an entity contracts, and the local strength of the field that keeps getting stronger?

11. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,707
No, everybody ought to make moral judgements. Morality is something we all have a duty in practicing; both trying to be morally good ourselves, and correcting others when they are not.

12. ### nebelValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,616
there is a difference between giving a correction, as pointing out a misstep, and calling people thieves that post un - attributed graphs, calling ignoramuses as morally bankrupt. These are not corrections, but condemnatory personal judgements. but a good mind like you can do better, : so, help us,
where were we:
In a shrinking body, how do you reconcile the replacing of the lower inner gravity, with higher outer and surface gravity in the same space, identical shell? (post# 58) a mistake here?
gravity in the outside becoming fixed, like a residue, whereas the inside gravity can be either a measured zero or the deepest well? still subject to change, in shape too?

Last edited: Jan 12, 2019 at 4:12 AM
13. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,707
You are right. It's only when that person also lies about the copyright status of that graph, and lies about what the creator of the graph would want, all the while claiming that he is in full support of giving creators the credit they deserve, that it shifts from ignoramus to something more severe. A hypocrite of that magnitude (for me) crosses the line of Hanlon's Razor.

Note that that person is now also, once again, willfully misrepresenting what happened by leaving all these other things out, further confirming the "morally bankrupt" call.

They started out as corrections, but the person didn't accept them. No, the person started lying and continued lying to try and justify their actions.

Who is this "us"? All the other people in this thread seem to have quite a good understanding of what's going on. There's only one person proving unable to grasp what teens learn in school.

What gravity? Force? Potential? Field strength?

So once again the person provides further evidence of his moral bankruptcy: while pretending to ask for help, he is willfully ignoring all the help he received earlier, multiple times, by multiple people. I guess because he doesn't like the help that he received?

Just re-read the thread(s), and you have your answers. That you are apparently not mentally capable to remember them doesn't mean I have an obligation to repeat them.

Last edited: Jan 12, 2019 at 11:14 AM
exchemist likes this.
14. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,484
Gravitational force is dependent on only two factors: the mass involved, and the distance from it. Contraction has no effect.

Take a body of mass m, radius r.
The gravitational force at a distance from the centre of 2r, will will m/2r^2.
The gravitational force at a distance from the centre of r, will will m/^2.

Now shrink that body to r/2.

The gravitational force at a distance from the centre of 2r, will will m/2r^2.
The gravitational force at a distance from the centre of r, will will m/^2.
(Exactly the same)

Gravity is not "frozen", simply: changing the size of the body has no effect on g, since it is dependent only on total mass and distance from cetnre.

15. ### nebelValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,616
well, that is the point of this pseudo thread. The outside g is not any more affected by the shrinking of the body, it is "frozen", is like a "residue"or "crust" so to speak, left behind, even if the body disappears from sight into a black hole singularity.
well, will not the surface gravity force of that 1/2 radius size body of the same mass be 4 times that of the 1R original?
To tackle any of my remaining misunderstandings I am calling back this image, courtesy origin#:

Your above equation deal with the situation of the gravitational force (which could have been the former surface force) on the blue line, at R -2R marks, but
please note in the interior, 1/2 R, the situation is still open in case of shrinkage, ( In case of expansion, the outside surface gravity will just go, retreat along the blue line, resuming the residue. ).
Please pay attention to the vertical green line at ~ .8R The uncompressed mass at that interior green point had a "surface" gravity of only 80% of the outside gs force.
Upon compression, that 20% deficit is turned into an 80% surplus at the same radius of .8R.
so: does not the same mass project more gravity into the space when that volume changes from inside to outside status?
In a shrinking or vacillating mass, the outside gravitational force can be considered as fixed, as a sort of shell or residue, whereas the inside gravity remains flexible, it changes, increases with shrinkage.or? thank you.
# attribution always to satisfy the sensibilities of not einstein.

Last edited: Jan 13, 2019 at 3:42 AM
16. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,484
It's not frozen or left behind.
Gravity acts at a distance. As long as the mass is there, it will be felt.

Mass does not "project" gravity.

Have you heard the term GIGO? Garbage in, garbage out. As long as you use meaningless terms, you will get meaningless answers.

17. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,707
Yes, it's solely for my sensibilities, because you don't care about the law, you don't care about the forum rules, and you don't care about that one graph creator. Gosh, what a nice human being you are!

18. ### nebelValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,616
exactly, and once in space outside the surface of a shrinking entity, distance more than 1R above, it acts as if it has become unchangeable. Whereas compressing the sphere to half it's radius will increase the gravitational force fourfold.
massive mass change events project the impact on the gravitational field outward at "c"! like light is projected out from that event. therefore focussing all instruments into that target area.for a followup. and:
how about the inside gravity. (red lines) gravitational force increasing with the square of the decreasing radius? changing, but outside, blue line conservative, conserved as it is?

Last edited: Jan 13, 2019 at 11:47 AM
19. ### nebelValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,616
yes, referring back to the graph above.
Before the 20% stage of the contraction discussed, (red), surface gravity was at 1, inner gravity at the target radius was o.8. During the compression, surface gravity rose to ~ 1.8 because the mass was acting through a shorter and shorter distance/radius. so,
The new surface gravity is double what the inside gravity was at that point.
More outside space has been created, at^3, filled with stronger gravity force, adding to the unchanging, conserved gravity measurable outside there.(curved blue)

20. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,707
I see nebel is ignoring me. I suppose that means he knows I'm right.

21. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,484
The link to the image is busted. We can't see what you're referring to.

22. ### nebelValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,616
posts 58 # 72 show it,

Last edited: Jan 13, 2019 at 8:32 PM

Messages:
10,484