The Dual Nature of Gravity

[nebel]

Gravity or the the tensioning of spacetime is like a residue force, that a mass deposits at a given point in space and time. Even if that mass vacates space near that point, by contracting for example, , that residue, the gravity, or tugging force stays stably behind at that location. Case in point:
When matter contracts into a black hole singularity, the gravity as a residue condition, stays in place outside., even into the distance. However:
Gravity becomes a projected force, similar to light, when it emanates from any body, even obeying the square over distance law, but
In an entity, a spiral galaxy for example, that is being shaped by energy, being stretched into a rotating disk;-- . As such a disk forms, and flattens, --then, seen edge on, the light from such a disk would become more intense.
At a stage of this flattening process, where a near "black disk" with near zero thickness develops, the outer stars would obscure the light from the inner, hidden background ones. (ignoring obscuring dust lanes) Brightness would only reach a certain limit.
Not so with gravity! which passes through,and projects, penetrates through intervening matter. Remarkably like "Dark Matter"! so:
There would be intense gravitational force projected out in the plane from the disk. therefore,
Gravity at the perimeter, in the extended plane of a disk, does not strictly obey the square over distance law, but remains stronger, approaching the character of a 2 dimensional laser, retaining more of it's its intensity with distance. so:
a) can gravity be a residue like it is around a black hole? and
b) be a projected force , laser-like, outside the perimeter of a very thin disk? or
c) both, in the in-between conditions we live in? Janus-like? and
d) could Dark Matter in the "halos" be really mimicking gravity in its residual form? and
e) could it really be Projecting Gravity that acts like DM as its penetrates our baryonic matter ?
f) could the greater than usual outer orbital velocities in galaxies be caused by gravity as projected in more concentrated form? not subject to the square over distance law?
refutations welcome.

 

[NotEinstein]

Gravity or the the tensioning of spacetime

What do you mean by "the tensoring of spacetime"?

is like a residue force,

How so?

that a mass deposits at a given point in space and time. Even if that mass vacates space near that point, by contracting for example, , that residue, the gravity, or tugging force stays stably behind at that location.

No, it doesn't. Instead of originating from that point, it now originates from wherever the mass that was there before moved to. It doesn't "stay behind"; it moves with its mass.

Case in point:
When matter contracts into a black hole singularity, the gravity as a residue condition,

How so?

stays in place outside., even into the distance.

Just like it did before the contracting, you mean? So it's nothing special.

However:
Gravity becomes a projected force,

How so?

similar to light,

False; light is not a force.

when it emanates from any body, even obeying the square over distance law, but
In an entity, a spiral galaxy for example, that is being shaped by energy,

That is too vague to have any meaning.

being stretched into a rotating disk;-- . As such a disk forms, and flattens, --then, seen edge on, the light from such a disk would become more intense.

Perhaps, but there is also an obscuring effect due to the dust being concentrated as well. Have you done calculations to show the brightening effect wins?

At a stage of this flattening process, where a near "black disk" with near zero thickness develops,

Wait, I thought you said the light would become more intense, not less?

the outer stars would obscure the light from the inner, hidden background ones. (ignoring obscuring dust lanes)

Ah, so you are aware of the dust. Any reason why you think it can be ignored?

Brightness would only reach a certain limit.

True, but only until you start squishing stars together.

Not so with gravity! which passes through,and projects,

What do you mean by "projects"?

penetrates through intervening matter.

Light does that too; you just have to pick the right wavelengths.

Remarkably like "Dark Matter"!

And neutrino's. What's your point?

so:
There would be intense gravitational force projected out in the plane from the disk. therefore,
Gravity at the perimeter, in the extended plane of a disk, does not strictly obey the square over distance law,

Gravity always obeys the square over distance law. If you think it doesn't, you're wrong.

but remains stronger, approaching the character of a 2 dimensional laser,

...You probably want to look up what a laser is.

retaining more of it's its intensity with distance.

Please show the calculations you made that demonstrate this.

so:
a) can gravity be a residue like it is around a black hole? and

No, because gravity is not a residue. Additionally, the black hole is still there, so there's nothing residual about it.

b) be a projected force , laser-like, outside the perimeter of a very thin disk? or

No, it's not "projected", and not "laser-like".

c) both, in the in-between conditions we live in? and

No.

d) could Dark Matter in the "halos" be really mimicking gravity in its residual form? and

No, because there is no "residual form" of gravity.

e) could it really be Projecting Gravity that acts like DM as its penetrates our baryonic matter ?

No, because gravity doesn't get projected. And gravity is a force, so it can't be like DM, which is matter.

f) could the greater than usual outer orbital velocities in galaxies be caused by gravity as projected in more concentrated form?

No, because gravity doesn't get projected.

not subject to the square over distance law?

Gravity always obeys the square over distance law, so no.

refutations welcome.

Refutation given.

 

[nebel]

What do you mean by "the tensoring of spacetime"?

The gravity effect on spacetime is usually shown as a well, well that is only a model, based on graphs of gravity's strength. I prefer to see it as internal tension, pull, like happens in our muscles.
so does gravity. and I wrote tensioning.

No, it doesn't. Instead of originating from that point, it now originates from wherever the mass that was there before moved to. It doesn't "stay behind"; it moves with its mass.

In a shrinking body, as the material in the surface R perimeter position vacates it, and moves inward, The surface gravity will now increase past the heights gs, but the already existing slope, gravity strength will remain as it is. Even if the mass shrinks to near zero size, enters a singularity, that original gravity will remain as a residue of past glory. Remaining as part of the new higher surface value reality.

 

[nebel]

Just like it did before the contracting, you mean? So it's nothing special.

I am not introducing new facts about gravity, just another way of looking at it, classifying it. . When you think about it, there is something special about a force, condition that lingers, while the cause has moved.

False; light is not a force.

Of course not, but it travels at the same speed, and obeys the ^2/d law, I said, meant "like " not "is"

Perhaps, but there is also an obscuring effect due to the dust being concentrated as well. Have you done calculations to show the brightening effect wins?

I refer you to the Olbers' Paradox. If all the star light clearly seen edge on in a galaxy, it would indeed by bright, adding up.

Wait, I thought you said the light would become more intense, not less?

When I said "Black Disk", I meant it in conjunction, contrast to a black hole the point singularity, a virtual planar singularity, a near black disk. In such a body there would be very little surface gravity, but maximum gravity outside the rim. , which after all, is in direct line with all the mass.

What do you mean by "projects"?

Project, the verb like in projector, sending out and through( the Netherlands projected it's Naval power to Java.

And neutrino's. What's your point?

see #e

Gravity always obeys the square over distance law. If you think it doesn't, you're wrong.

of course it does, but if the small entities that do so are all lined up and confined to a disk, let us say just an atom thick, very little reaches up from the plane, zero at the center, but all accumulate in the radial direction reaching max at the edge, and then outward.

.You probably want to look up what a laser is.

a you are right, I used a bad comparison, but said "approaching" gravity, even if emanating from a sharp disk, or end of a wire , would not have the focussed narrow confinement of a laser light beam , unless you could create ex nihilo a "black string, "black disk" ( because of having no residual gravity before contraction).

 

[nebel]

No, because gravity is not a residue. Additionally, the black hole is still there, so there's nothing residual about it.

quote: "-When matter falls into the event horizon it becomes isolated from the rest of space and time and has, effectively, disappeared from the universe that we exist in.-" Phislinks.com and that does not even mention the point singularity with no dimensions in space at all. It is a residue, because the original gravity strength, before it started on it's inward journey left it there, even after contracting only slightly.

I'll leave the DM analogy for now, because it is secondary to the "Dual Aspect of Gravity" proposition. I mentioned it in passing, because misunderstood gravity is an alternate cause to explain measured velocities, blamed on DM. Yes Neutrinos project through us unimpeded at "c". thank you.

No, because gravity doesn't get projected. And gravity is a force, so it can't be like DM, which is matter.

True, Gravity as such is a fundamental effect of Matter or it's alter ego Energy, which is fundamental, uncreated ; but does get projected in that changes in its density travel at the speed of light. see LIGO. et al.

Refutation given

summing up, sometimes, contradictions, are just that, but not refutations. thank you.

 

[NotEinstein]

The gravity effect on spacetime is usually shown as a well, well that is only a model, based on graphs of gravity's strength. I prefer to see it as internal tension, pull, like happens in our muscles.
so does gravity. and I wrote tensioning.

Ah, I misread that as "tensoring", sorry.

What you are describing is more commonly referred to as "stretching", or perhaps "curving". I'm pretty sure gravity doesn't cause what would be classified as a tension in spacetime.

In a shrinking body, as the material in the surface R perimeter position vacates it, and moves inward, The surface gravity will now increase past the heights gs, but the already existing slope, gravity strength will remain as it is.

If you are talking about the slope on the outside: you are right. However, since there was never any mass there in the first place, that space isn't being vacated. If you are talking about the slope on the inside: you are wrong. Your own graph posted later demonstrates that: just duplicate the graph, re-scale it so the duplicate has a smaller value of R (but still the same mass), and see the difference happening in the inside slope.

Even if the mass shrinks to near zero size, enters a singularity, that original gravity will remain as a residue of past glory.

It's not a residual: as long as the mass is still there, the gravity is just doing business as usual.

Remaining as part of the new higher surface value reality.

(That's the graph I referred to earlier.)

I am not introducing new facts about gravity, just another way of looking at it, classifying it.

From what I can tell, all you are doing is simply mangling words.

When you think about it, there is something special about a force, condition that lingers, while the cause has moved.

​

Force does not "linger" in any meaningful way. For example, instead of shrinking the mass, move it. Does the force linger now too?

(Note that you just used the word "moved", when you really meant "shrunk". Please use words correctly; it's confusing when you don't.)

Of course not,

Then why did you compare the two?

but it travels at the same speed,

True, but all massless particles do.

and obeys the ^2/d law,

Photons do not obey the ^2/d law.

I said, meant "like " not "is"

Next time when comparing two objects that are of such a different nature, you should make it more explicitly what properties of them you are comparing.​

I refer you to the Olbers' Paradox. If all the star light clearly seen edge on in a galaxy, it would indeed by bright, adding up.

Sure, but you are assuming a dustless galaxy. How many of those are there?​

When I said "Black Disk", I meant it in conjunction, contrast to a black hole the point singularity,

A galaxy is not a black hole, and the two aren't even remotely similar. What are you talking about?

a virtual planar singularity,

What is a "virtual planar singularity"?

a near black disk. In such a body there would be very little surface gravity, but maximum gravity outside the rim.

Right outside the rim IS the surface gravity. Your sentence doesn't make any sense; can you please rephrase it?

which after all, is in direct line with all the mass.

Sure, so the surface gravity on the outer rim is also very large, contrary to what you just said.​

Project, the verb like in projector, sending out and through( the Netherlands projected it's Naval power to Java.

Ah, more word mangling. That term isn't used like that in physics; its mathematical meaning is typically used there. Please pick another word to represent this notion, because your choice of word here is extremely confusing.​

see #e

Ah, OK.​

of course it does, but if the small entities that do so

What "small entities"?

are all lined up and confined to a disk, let us say just an atom thick, very little reaches up from the plane, zero at the center, but all accumulate in the radial direction reaching max at the edge, and then outward.

Then gravity still obeys the ^2/d law, as you just said. What's your point?​

a you are right, I used a bad comparison, but said "approaching" gravity,

So once again you used a vague word, and didn't specify what you meant. Again, next time, be more clear.

even if emanating from a sharp disk, or end of a wire , would not have the focussed narrow confinement of a laser light beam , unless you could create ex nihilo a "black string, "black disk" ( because of having no residual gravity before contraction).

​

Again, what is "residual gravity"?

And no. Gravity obeys the ^2/d law. There might be ways to construct a laser-like beam of gravity, but it won't happen on the outside of static configurations.

quote: "-When matter falls into the event horizon it becomes isolated from the rest of space and time and has, effectively, disappeared from the universe that we exist in.-" Phislinks.com and that does not even mention the point singularity with no dimensions in space at all.

Sure, no spatial dimensions, but there are still three parameters in play:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem
1) Mass
2) Electric charge
3) Angular momentum

It is a residue, because the original gravity strength, before it started on it's inward journey left it there, even after contracting only slightly.

So this is false; the gravity is not "residual", because the mass has not disappeared. You have misinterpreted that (admittedly not clearly written) phislinks-quote.

Perhaps you should try to learn the science behind gravity, instead of making all kinds of bad claims based on what you read on some arbitrary internet site.

(For the record, the link is: https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae262.cfm nebel typo'd the domain badly.)

I'll leave the DM analogy for now, because it is secondary to the "Dual Aspect of Gravity" proposition.

I'm afraid to ask, but what "Dual Aspect of Gravity proposition"?

I mentioned it in passing, because misunderstood gravity is an alternate cause to explain measured velocities, blamed on DM.

Sure, that used to be the case. Then things like the Bullet Cluster were discovered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence
It's quite clear that a mere modification of gravity cannot explain all the effects associated to dark matter, so trying to explain away dark matter by merely modifying gravity is an undertaking doomed to fail.

Yes Neutrinos project through us unimpeded at "c". thank you.

Actually, no. Neutrino's don't travel at "c", because they have mass.

True, Gravity as such is a fundamental effect of Matter

More correctly, of mass.

or it's alter ego Energy, which is fundamental, uncreated ;

Are you saying energy is fundamental, uncreated, or that energy is fundamental, uncreated?

but does get projected in that changes in its density travel at the speed of light.

Please give your definition of the word "projected", because this explanation of it makes no sense to me.

see LIGO. et al.

Are you talking about gravitational waves? If so, why not just say you are talking about gravitational waves?

summing up, sometimes, contradictions, are just that, but not refutations. thank you.

In basic logic and in basic science, pointing out a contradiction is enough to send a theory to the garbage heap. In other words, any contradiction found automatically turns into a refutation. Please learn how science and logic work.

 

[nebel]

Wait, I thought you said the light would become more intense, not less?

When I said "Black Disk", I meant it in conjunction, contrast to a black hole the point singularity, a virtual planar singularity, a near black disk. In such a body there would be very little surface gravity, but maximum gravity outside the rim. , which after all, is in direct line with all the mass.

Nature has a way to create very fine disks with a better than 1/60 million thickness to diameter ratios, but invoking near a "black disk" to illustrate a hypotheses might push this threat into alternate/pseudo classification

No, because gravity is not a residue. Additionally, the black hole is still there, so there's nothing residual about it.

so, in case of the shrinking globe toward the possible singularity. is the gravitational field out the same with each smaller radius. or is it re-created with each "increment"? if it is of constant strength, can it not be considered a fossil even?
nebel said: ↑
gravity penetrates through intervening matter. light does not

Light does that too; you just have to pick the right wavelengths.

I doubt any frequency even gamma radiation penetrates protons or quarks. but the effect of gravity is felt through them, added. Or does the gravitational field bend around these particles?

 

[NotEinstein]

Nature has a way to create very fine disks with a better than 1/60 million thickness to diameter ratios,

Yes, gravity combined with mechanics can produce quite interesting results.

but invoking near a "black disk" to illustrate a hypotheses might push this threat into alternate/pseudo classification

Erm, you are the one that invoked this in your opening post? Perhaps you should have posted this thread in the Fringe section in the first place then?

so, in case of the shrinking globe toward the possible singularity. is the gravitational field out the same with each smaller radius.

Your grammar is bad; I don't understand what you are asking?

or is it re-created with each "increment"?

You might say the gravitational field is "continually renewed". I don't know what each increment has to do with it?

if it is of constant strength, can it not be considered a fossil even?

What do you mean by "fossil"?

I doubt any frequency even gamma radiation penetrates protons or quarks.

Actually, they do. If the wavelength of the photon is large enough, it can't easily be stopped by the small particles. You do end up with things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering

but the effect of gravity is felt through them, added.

Yes, obviously.

Or does the gravitational field bend around these particles?

Why would the gravitational field bend around the particles? How is that even relevant to what we are talking about?

 

[nebel]

Your grammar is bad; I don't understand what you are asking?

sorry,for my sloppiness, fix that for you: ( inclined and [] are corrections)
"so, in the case of the globe, shrinking toward the possible singularity, is the identical gravitational field left behind out there, the same? but only new [above # gs) with each smaller radius?. or is it re-created [in total to infinity]with each "increment"or increase?.-- If it is of constant, unchanged condition strength, can it not be considered a fossil, even?"
yes, I agree with you, "fossil" could be the wrong analogy, but it applies to light, to pictures we receive from the past about stars for example, These stars are not there anymore, gone, just like the dinosaurs, the light is only like the imprint, the fossil.
In a shrinking globe,(to use Origen's graph), the gravitational field would be made up of 2 field sections of different age, the one below #gs and the new, evolving above.
I dare to call the old, retained one a residue.
you apparently disagree, calling for the whole to be re-created constantly, like gravitons in a permanent re-melt?

 

[nebel]

If you are talking about the slope on the outside: you are right. However, since there was never any mass there in the first place, that space isn't being vacated.

of course. because gravity is a surface, an outside phenomenon. (see "is there more gravity inside or out?") if the space inside, just left of #R is vacated of it's content, it's mass compressed toward the intersection of the axes, then the curve has to climb, indicating new, greater gravity that is now projected into that empty space, the new "outside". (sorry dont have the skills to manipulate that curve.) so:
During that global shrinking, you have the static residue right, right? and the newly projected gravity field and force.to the left.

 

[nebel]

What you are describing is more commonly referred to as "stretching", or perhaps "curving". I'm pretty sure gravity doesn't cause what would be classified as a tension in spacetime.

Tensioning of spacetime is hard to illustrate, not like a rising hill or sloping pit, the rolling balls into a funnel, really fun. But when you think of that denting rubber sheet, the rubber has really more pull, tension force near the ball, it is that local linear strength of pull that is really increased by gravity, there is no slope. --that is just a model,
What is happening as a globe shrinks, with the same mass, the inward, gravitational pull at the surface becomes stronger, as if another thicker layer of tensioned rubber had been added, more gravity projected out from the surface of the shrunken mass, to fill that vacated space. Newly grown, stronger, projected gravity left of #R is added on to the existing, unchanged residual portion remaining to the right of #R. Analogy?
Thinking of one of my tree trunks, injured near the root, and growing a thicker Burl to cover, strengthen that spot. Fibres in old root staying buried in place remain residual , new wood projected out in the healing burl . Yes, roots are holding trees up by gravity-like tension. (most of the time).
The word stretching implies increased lengths, and that is not the happening with increased gravity, The space does not get larger, more likely is shortened; no, It is the internal pulling force of gravity that is increased. A stretched rubber sheet, tensioned without getting bigger, more coils packed in.

 

[NotEinstein]

sorry,for my sloppiness, fix that for you: ( inclined and [] are corrections)
"so, in the case of the globe, shrinking toward the possible singularity, is the identical gravitational field left behind out there, the same?

An identical gravitational field is always the same, so your sentence is still meaningless.

but only new [above # gs) with each smaller radius?.

What is "# gs"?

or is it re-created [in total to infinity]with each "increment"or increase?.

A gravitational field is constantly generated/renewed. Re-created is even worse wording than I just used.
But yes, if a mass is moved the gravitational field will react to that. Whether it's "the same" gravitational field as before but altered, or whether it's a completely new gravitational field is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

If it is of constant, unchanged condition strength, can it not be considered a fossil, even?"
yes, I agree with you, "fossil" could be the wrong analogy, but it applies to light, to pictures we receive from the past about stars for example,

That's horribly unscientific language; you simply mean "very old".

These stars are not there anymore, gone, just like the dinosaurs, the light is only like the imprint, the fossil.

Yes, I get the analogue, but I would still suggest using proper scientific language if you want to discuss this in the science sections of this forum.

In a shrinking globe,(to use Origen's graph), the gravitational field would be made up of 2 field sections of different age,

Fields don't have ages in any meaningful way, so you are wrong.

the one below #gs and the new, evolving above.

Again, what is this "#gs"?

I dare to call the old, retained one a residue.

Which is both wrong, and bad wording.

you apparently disagree, calling for the whole to be re-created constantly,

Yes, because that's what happens in the maths.

like gravitons in a permanent re-melt?

I never mentioned gravitons, so I don't know what made you think that?

of course. because gravity is a surface,

Gravity is not a surface, it's a force.

an outside phenomenon.

As the graph clearly shows, gravity is also an inside phenomenon, so you're wrong.

(see "is there more gravity inside or out?") if the space inside, just left of #R

What is "#R"?

is vacated of it's content, it's mass compressed toward the intersection of the axes, then the curve has to climb, indicating new, greater gravity that is now projected into that empty space,

(Once again the bad "projected" wording.)

the new "outside". (sorry dont have the skills to manipulate that curve.) so:
During that global shrinking, you have the static residue right, right?

(Once again the bad "residue" wording.)

and the newly projected gravity field and force.to the left.

Look, if you can't be bothered to learn the proper language, then why should anybody be bothered to spend the effort to learn yours?

Tensioning of spacetime is hard to illustrate, not like a rising hill or sloping pit, the rolling balls into a funnel, really fun. But when you think of that denting rubber sheet, the rubber has really more pull, tension force near the ball, it is that local linear strength of pull that is really increased by gravity, there is no slope. --that is just a model,

Exactly, it's a model. Please provide evidence that this aspect of the model correctly described what happens in GR.

What is happening as a globe shrinks, with the same mass, the inward, gravitational pull at the surface becomes stronger, as if another thicker layer of tensioned rubber had been added,

This is clearly where the model breaks down; it is no longer useful because you have to introduce nonsensical things like thickening of the rubber. What you are doing no longer related to GR; you are doing rubber-model-physics.

more gravity projected out from the surface of the shrunken mass, to fill that vacated space.

It's actually the same amount of gravity, since there was no increase in mass. So no, you are wrong.

Newly grown, stronger, projected gravity left of #R

Again, what is "#R"?

is added on to the existing, unchanged residual portion remaining to the right of #R.

Residual, #R... Can you please use the proper scientific terms, because it's impossible to understand what you are saying.

Analogy?
Thinking of one of my tree trunks, injured near the root, and growing a thicker Burl to cover, strengthen that spot. Fibres in old root staying buried in place remain residual , new wood projected out in the healing burl . Yes, roots are holding trees up by gravity-like tension. (most of the time).

How about you stop (ab)using analogues, and start using the proper scientific terms to describe what you mean? You are, after all, in the science section of the forums.

The word stretching implies increased lengths, and that is not the happening with increased gravity,

Except you just clearly insinuated the rubber stretches. You have just yourself implicitly stated that the rubber model fails to describe this case properly.

The space does not get larger, more likely is shortened; no, It is the internal pulling force of gravity that is increased. A stretched rubber sheet, tensioned without getting bigger, more coils packed in.

A rubber sheet that is stretched, without getting bigger? Please give your definitions of "stretched" and "without getting bigger", because clearly at least one of the two does not conform to standard English.

 

[nebel]

Erm, you are the one that invoked this in your opening post? Perhaps you should have posted this thread in the Fringe section in the first place then?

I did not know where this would lead and I suggested as much. Moderators will see to it

Again, what is this "#gs"?

What is "#R"?

#R Is the radius in the graph above.
#gs refers to origin's graph above, the heights of the maximum surface gravity point , In the case of the contracting globe, to the right of which the gravity curve remains the same, as a residue, to the left, a new, higher gravity has to appear, as if projected out from the now denser mass.
Point being, one does not have to demolish the whole gravity field to add that new stronger field near the now smaller surface.

I never mentioned gravitons, so I don't know what made you think that?

If the graviton hypothesis were valid, a picture would emerge, where gravitons, if stationary, would remain in their position to the tight, and below of #gs, #R. a graviton residue, I introduced the idea, because it would introduce a substance analogy already thought about and useful in this discussion. gravitons would correspongd to the amount, the proportion of photons present at a given distance.

Gravity is not a surface, it's a force. As the graph clearly shows, gravity is also an inside phenomenon, so you're wrong.

The straight slope shows the gravity declining from the surface maximum. because at any given point, no outside mass in a series of stacked globes, contributes to the gravity strength at that point in the inside. . Only enclosed mass generates, projects gravity. (please see Shell Theorem). Gravity is projected to the outside from the surface, never inwardly.

(Once again the bad "projected"" residue" wording.)

I know, but for the lack of an alternative, I use them to highlight what I mean, differently.

Exactly, it's a model. Please provide evidence that this aspect of the model correctly described what happens in GR.

Sorry, I have stick with the models, analogies. I prefer to see gravity as a pulling force in space, an internal strengthening of the pull. perhaps more strands of rubber added as you approach the surface. (We used to add strands on our aeroplane model rubber motors). Gravity packs more muscle near the surface. There are no slopes anywhere out there, but there is more pull. imho.

This is clearly where the model breaks down; it is no longer useful because you have to introduce nonsensical things like thickening of the rubber. What you are doing no longer related to GR; you are doing rubber-model-physics.

sorry, forget about the "added pull" analogy. As the globe compresses, by pressure from the outside inwardly, as seen in Origen's graph, with reduced radius, the slope will have to climb, covering more surface. implying more gravity near the surface.
thank you, we are coming to a significant point .

 

[nebel]

It's actually the same amount of gravity, since there was no increase in mass. So no, you are wrong

from Google, can I refer you to quora?
"If a black hole has a definite mass, why does its gravity increase ...
May 10, 2018
Gravity is related to mass, so why does a star's gravity increase ...
Jan. 25, 2017"
More results from www.quora.com;
My OP, origin's graph extension seem to imply, that more gravity is generated* in the vacated space above a compressing globe, while the existing gravity field remains the same**
* projected into the vacated space from the surface. ** like an inert residue .

Except you just clearly insinuated the rubber stretches. You have just yourself implicitly stated that the rubber model fails to describe this case properly.

I meant that the "rubber sheet and ball" representation is unnatural. The idea of stretched rubber having more pull is good. There is more gravity pull near the surface, Except that the ball pulling down the rubber sheet into the sloping pit has no such direct feature in nature.
fact is, the existing , residual gravity field to the right of #R is not stretched tighter by the addition of the new gravity appearing above, or projected out the vacated space opening up by the compression.

 

[nebel]

A rubber sheet that is stretched, without getting bigger? Please give your definitions of "stretched" and "without getting bigger", because clearly at least one of the two does not conform to standard English.

The area of the rubber sheet gets bigger because the globe is shrinking. The area or gravity is added is in the center.
The ball on a rubber sheet sinking into a funnel is one gravity illustration, and I like it, when balls are rolled into the cavity, simulating orbits, acceleration. but it implies a super or ur-gravity to pull the ball and sheet down.
I prefer the thought experiment, where the rubber sheet remains in a plane, same area, fixed at the perimeter, and the mass on the table, the ball in the centre is becoming smaller, thus stretching the sheet from the center, more inner stretch giving more pull. Even that can be bettered, when
One thinks of more gravity, more densely packed gravity being present near the surface, as it is the result of more densely packing matter exerting or projecting it's influence,
thank you for exposing this crucial aspect of the PO model:
In a globe, does the outside gravity at a given distance remain the same, no matter what happens to the size of the spherical central mass inside? In other words , Is the distant gravity gradient like an unchanging residue? or is the whole sheet re-tensioned throughout with the newly expanded size.? is there now more gravity at the perimeter because the globe was shrunk? is the vacated space filled with "new gravity" projected out from the denser mass? is it really a rubber sheet, or more like weaving new tensioned space fabric into the center?
thank, you, for grappling up with my wording , it might not get better as I entered my 89st.

 

[NotEinstein]

I did not know where this would lead and I suggested as much. Moderators will see to it

Are you sure? Have you contacted them?

#R Is the radius in the graph above.

What does that pound-sign mean?

#gs refers to origin's graph above, the heights of the maximum surface gravity point ,

What does that pound-sign mean?

In the case of the contracting globe, to the right of which the gravity curve remains the same, as a residue, to the left, a new, higher gravity has to appear, as if projected out from the now denser mass.
Point being, one does not have to demolish the whole gravity field to add that new stronger field near the now smaller surface.

Nobody can "demolish" a gravity field, because gravity fields cannot be demolished in any meaningful way. Please use proper scientific wording, because you are making no sense.

If the graviton hypothesis were valid, a picture would emerge, where gravitons, if stationary, would remain in their position to the tight,

False; gravitons would be massless, and thus travel at the speed of light. Why are you making such obviously ignorant claims?

and below of #gs, #R. a graviton residue, I introduced the idea, because it would introduce a substance analogy already thought about and useful in this discussion. gravitons would correspongd to the amount, the proportion of photons present at a given distance.

And the fact gravitons would be massless makes your entire idea wrong.

Please learn at least the basics of what you are talking about before actually talking about it.

The straight slope shows the gravity declining from the surface maximum. because at any given point, no outside mass in a series of stacked globes, contributes to the gravity strength at that point in the inside. . Only enclosed mass generates, projects gravity. (please see Shell Theorem). Gravity is projected to the outside from the surface, never inwardly.

Right, and now consider each and every atom at a small spherical object, "projecting" gravity. And there we go, gravity is being "projected" towards the center of the large mass. If you knew how the derivation of the Shell Theorem works, you would've know that.

Please stop making such obvious ignorant claims in the science section of this forum.

I know, but for the lack of an alternative, I use them to highlight what I mean, differently.

The fact you don't know of the alternatives, and are apparently incapable of looking them up, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Sorry, I have stick with the models, analogies.

And that's why you are often wrong, because you don't know when the model/analogue breaks down.

I prefer to see gravity as a pulling force in space, an internal strengthening of the pull.

What do you mean by "internal strengthening"?

perhaps more strands of rubber added as you approach the surface. (We used to add strands on our aeroplane model rubber motors). Gravity packs more muscle near the surface. There are no slopes anywhere out there, but there is more pull. imho.

You are trying to patch up a broken model by introducing all kinds of complexities, leading to all kinds of ad-hoc changes. Why not simply apply Occam's Razor, and stick to the standard Newtonian gravity model?

sorry, forget about the "added pull" analogy.

Erm, it's you that's bringing it up all the time, not me.

As the globe compresses, by pressure from the outside inwardly, as seen in Origen's graph, with reduced radius, the slope will have to climb, covering more surface.

This is obviously false: the surface of a compressing globe gets smaller, not larger.

implying more gravity near the surface.

More gravity what? More gravitational force? More gravitational field(s)? More gravitational strength?

thank you, we are coming to a significant point .

No, you are coming to a significant point. Science passed that point hundreds of years ago, and has been moving forwards since then. What you are describing here is treated in full mathematical glory in the first year of a university physics degree.

It's fine that you are way, way behind, and trying to catch up, but don't pretend anybody but you is "coming to a significant point" here.

from Google, can I refer you to quora?
"If a black hole has a definite mass, why does its gravity increase ...
May 10, 2018

This link confirms what I said: "If you compare a Star or a Black Hole with the same mass, the Gravitation will be exactly the same at the same distance."

Gravity is related to mass, so why does a star's gravity increase ...
Jan. 25, 2017"

This link's top answer opens with: "A star’s gravity doesn’t increase when it collapses to a black hole."

So... you didn't read it, did you? You just dumped that question into the search field, and copy-pasted its results. That is extremely intellectually dishonest behavior.

More results from www.quora.com;

QED. You are a lazy, intellectually dishonest person. I thought when you posted this thread in the science section, you perhaps had bettered your life, but clearly, I was wrong. As I still have no need for such willful ignorance in my life: bye.

 

[nebel]

What does that pound-sign mean?

In Origen's graph, the symbols are what I use, but when using them, I prefix the pound sign to show it is not referring to a value or an entity in an equation. #= designation, like post#3

False; gravitons would be massless, and thus travel at the speed of light. Why are you making such obviously ignorant claims?

If gravitons exist, and travel at "c", supposedly back and forth, (not endlessly streaming out of matter), they are and behave somewhat like photons, and the number of them would in any given point obey the square over distance law, so when seen in an instant, temporally as stationary, they mirror the light situation. good shared characteristics. imho

Right, and now consider each and every atom at a small spherical object, "projecting" gravity. And there we go, gravity is being "projected" towards the center of the large mass. If you knew how the derivation of the Shell Theorem works, you would've know that.

With due respect, gravity is never projected acting or is projected toward the center of the mass. True, all pointers center on the " Center of Gravity", the balancing point of all the material, but there is no gravity there. Gravity of any hollow shell is all on the outside, projected out from the outer surface only; zero gravity is on the inside projected to the center as you assert. The straight line in the Post#3 graph is the result of a series of shells, all having gravity only on their outside, believe me.

What do you mean by "internal strengthening"?

We are talking here about the increasing gravity above the surface of a globe in the process of being compressed, that would reach its maximum just outside the singularity. This would be space that was formerly inside the globe, newly vacated by the matter, the shrunk surface. This new, additional gravity field would be more tensioned, having more pull, contain more gravitons, To use the pulled rubber analogy, a stretched rubber is harder than the floppy loose end. Try to feel the greater gravitational field projecting out of a denser mass.

You are trying to patch up a broken model by introducing all kinds of complexities, leading to all kinds of ad-hoc changes. Why not simply apply Occam's Razor, and stick to the standard Newtonian gravity model?

Well, in the dual nature, thought experiment model, (under construction), gravity is not shown as the non-existing slope, but greater tension. That greater pull toward the surface* in the space adjacent too it, could be pictured as the more gravitons that would be present as compared to outer regions, or the greater stretching on an existing membrane, or the presence of more pulling material. There is more gravity pull, in a smaller space. The model is not broken, the area is broken open, so to speak, to give you a choice how the greater pull in the newly vacated space is generated. insert you favoured theory.

nebel:As the globe compresses, by pressure from the outside inwardly, as seen in Origen's graph, with reduced radius, the slope will have to climb, covering more surface.

This is obviously false: the surface of a compressing globe gets smaller, not larger.

With due respect, as the globe with size #R is compressed by pressure, the surface gravity has to increase, wich means the apex at #gs has to rise, going up and left. At the singularity, even touching the vertical axis, the blue slope going up with it toward infinity, but always staying at zero in the center.
Yes, the global surface gets smaller, but the surface gravity gets more intense, stronger gravity is projected out per unit of surface.
The "more surface" I was referring to in post#13, is relating the the graph, not the globe. sorry. The new area bound between #R and the new smaller radius to the left, and the new higher apex. Believe it or not,
The dual nature of gravity model predicts, that there is new outside space vacated by a shrinking globe, and that space is filled by stronger gravity projected out from the now denser ball. in the graph and in nature.

No, you are coming to a significant point. Science passed that point hundreds of years ago, and has been moving forwards since then. What you are describing here is treated in full mathematical glory in the first year of a university physics degree.

sometimes a "wait a minute" moment, question by an innocent outsider, can be refreshing. How is this distinction between the outside, residue to the right of #R and the new space outside space,, higher gravity projected left of #R distinguished in the prior art?

This link confirms what I said: "If you compare a Star or a Black Hole with the same mass, the Gravitation will be exactly the same at the same distance."

Yes, exactly, the key word is "same distance", distance to the right of #R . Surely you do you not suggest that the strength of gravity is the same outside the singularity then at #R, the surface of the star that was there before the compression?

This link's top answer opens with: "A star’s gravity doesn’t increase when it collapses to a black hole."

So... you didn't read it, did you? You just dumped that question into the search field, and copy-pasted its results. That is extremely intellectually dishonest behavior.

Yes, I did, and saw the contradiction, so posted the link not just the question for everyone to read.
To say, that the star's outer, residual, static gravity does not increase is in agreement with the OP's model; to assert though,
that the same mass, once compressed into the singularity, has the same gravity as the star, opens a question worthy of discussion.because,
Do you believe that the gravity of a black hole is same as the star it compressed from? if so, please explain the near "c" velocity in the accretion disk, the voracity of Black Holes compared to the normal citizens behaviour before compression started in ernest.
Gravity, like photons does amazing things in compression, thing super novae.
The OP assertion remains open for discussion:
There is, in compressing globes a constant outer residual gravity, and in the vacated space opened up by the shrinkage, new, stronger gravity that is projected out from the now denser mass' surfacePS: There is a difference between the placid gravitational field at the defunct stars's diameter and the furious activity near the event horizon and in two faces of one force.

 

[nebel]

You are trying to patch up a broken model by introducing all kinds of complexities, leading to all kinds of ad-hoc changes.

In the OP is a hypothesis, a model where in a shrinking globe* gravity in the outer regions appears unchanged, like a residue in space, whereas the inner region, newly vacated outside the shrinking surface is "filled" with stronger gravity, projected out from the now more dense mass.
Am I allowed to flesh out the details ? suggest variations, amendments, in response to the appreciated, good constructive objections, meant-to - be refutations?
* are there any entities in the universe, dust, asteroids, planets, stars, galaxies super clusters, all, that did not start out from clouds, shrinking globes?
shrinking , because of gravity, possibly with a dual nature. different in different stages.

 

[NotEinstein]

All right, I'll give you one more chance, because you've decided to sprinkle "with due respect" everywhere.

In Origen's graph, the symbols are what I use, but when using them, I prefix the pound sign to show it is not referring to a value or an entity in an equation. #= designation, like post#3

There is no pound-sign in post #3, so you are wrong. There ís a pound-sign in post #4, but that refers to your list of questions in post 1. Using a pound-sign to refer to variables in a graph is something I've never seen before, and you didn't explain, so I was confused due to your unexplained notation.

If gravitons exist, and travel at "c", supposedly back and forth, (not endlessly streaming out of matter), they are and behave somewhat like photons, and the number of them would in any given point obey the square over distance law, so when seen in an instant, temporally as stationary,

No, that is not what you said. You said in post #13:
"If the graviton hypothesis were valid, a picture would emerge, where gravitons, if stationary, would remain in their position to the tight, and below of #gs, #R. a graviton residue, ..."
Clearly, you thought gravitons can be stationary. You were wrong.

they mirror the light situation. good shared characteristics. imho

When you only consider an instant, a super massive black hole is also "temporally stationary"; are you saying that's a good approximation of a graviton too?

And what about the polarization; is that a good shared characteristic too?

With due respect, gravity is never projected acting or is projected toward the center of the mass.

You are wrong. Take an atom at the outer rim of the massive object. In what directions does it "project" its gravity? According to Newtontian gravity, and according to the derivation of the Shell Theorem, its gravitational field radiates in all directions, including towards the center of the massive object. The Shell Theorem shows that all the contributions of atoms on the outer rim, when together, cancel out, but that doesn't mean the atom magically only radiates a reduced amount of gravity in only one direction.

With due respect, why don't you learn basic Newtonian gravity before opening your mouth and stating clear falsehoods as if they are truth?

True, all pointers center on the " Center of Gravity", the balancing point of all the material, but there is no gravity there.

This has been pointed out before: gravity what? Gravitational fields? Gravitational potential? Gravitational force? Or are you claiming (because that's what you've written) that one of the four fundamental forces ceases to exist?

Gravity of any hollow shell is all on the outside, projected out from the outer surface only; zero gravity is on the inside projected to the center as you assert.

Erm, no, you are the one using the term "projected" and "zero gravity", so that can't be my claim. Also, I wasn't talking about a shell; I was talking about atoms (spheres). Please stop lying about what I said.

The straight line in the Post#3 graph is the result of a series of shells,

Yes, I know, I'm very familiar with that graph.

all having gravity only on their outside,

Gravitational what? Force, field, potential, …?

believe me.

...Trump?

And no, nobody should just "believe you". This is the science section; demonstrate it. Science isn't build upon blind faith.

We are talking here about the increasing gravity above the surface of a globe in the process of being compressed, that would reach its maximum just outside the singularity. This would be space that was formerly inside the globe, newly vacated by the matter, the shrunk surface. This new, additional gravity field would be more tensioned, having more pull, contain more gravitons, To use the pulled rubber analogy, a stretched rubber is harder than the floppy loose end. Try to feel the greater gravitational field projecting out of a denser mass.

OK, so your wording is bad and horribly misleading, and you know it. With all due respect, why do you like intentionally misleading people?

Well, in the dual nature, thought experiment model, (under construction),

What is a "thought experiment model"? A model about thought experiments sounds like psychology to me, not physics?

gravity is not shown as the non-existing slope, but greater tension. That greater pull toward the surface* in the space adjacent too it, could be pictured as the more gravitons

You didn't even know gravitons traveled at the speed of light; why should anybody take any of your claims about gravitons seriously, when you clear don't know even the most basic things about them?

that would be present as compared to outer regions,

Please demonstrate there are more gravitons, instead of more energetic gravitons.

or the greater stretching on an existing membrane, or the presence of more pulling material. There is more gravity pull, in a smaller space. The model is not broken,

Yes it is; you keep having to add ad-hoc explanations to it, such as adding rubber sheets willy-nilly to keep the model alive. That's a clear indication you've gone beyond what the model can handle.

the area is broken open, so to speak, to give you a choice how the greater pull in the newly vacated space is generated. insert you favoured theory.

If I insert GR (heck, even Newtonian gravity!), all of your questions gets answered by some simple formulae, and I don't even need to introduce rubber sheets or gravitons. Your model is useless, scientifically speaking.

nebel:As the globe compresses, by pressure from the outside inwardly,

Wait, what pressure? Is there some external force compression the globe? Where did that come from, all of a sudden?

With due respect, as the globe with size #R is compressed by pressure, the surface gravity has to increase,

Yes, but that's not what you said. You said the surface increases: "..., covering more surface." (post #13)

There isn't "more surface", there's "less surface"!

wich means the apex at #gs has to rise, going up and left. At the singularity, even touching the vertical axis, the blue slope going up with it toward infinity, but always staying at zero in the center.
Yes, the global surface gets smaller,

See? You have contradicted yourself. You know the surface gets smaller, yet you continue to ignore the fact you said there's more of it!

but the surface gravity gets more intense, stronger gravity is projected out per unit of surface.
The "more surface" I was referring to in post#13, is relating the the graph, not the globe. sorry.

Ah, the "surface" underneath a graph is called "area"; please use the proper wording to avoid confusion.

The new area

If you know the right term (because you are using it here), then why did you use a misleading term earlier? With all due respect, that's intellectually dishonest, but I'm glad you've corrected your confusion.

bound between #R and the new smaller radius to the left, and the new higher apex. Believe it or not,
The dual nature of gravity model predicts,

What model? You haven't provided anything new here.

that there is new outside space vacated by a shrinking globe,

There's "new outside space"? Are you saying new space gets created?

and that space is filled by stronger gravity projected out from the now denser ball. in the graph and in nature.

And this is explained perfectly by the much simpler Newtonian gravity model, and thus your "dual nature of gravity model" can be discarded through Occam's Razor.

 

[NotEinstein]

sometimes a "wait a minute" moment, question by an innocent outsider, can be refreshing.

Yes, "sometimes" being the key word. And no, you are not "innocent", as I've demonstrated multiple times now in this thread.

How is this distinction between the outside, residue to the right of #R and the new space outside space,, higher gravity projected left of #R distinguished in the prior art?

"Prior art"? What are you talking about?
Well, it's very simple. Newtonian gravity described the situation perfectly. I mean, you are the one constantly invoking the Shell Theorem; you do know that is derived based on Newtonian gravity? And what model of gravity do you thing was the input to that graph? In other words, you've already admitted Newtonian gravity provides a complete and accurate description for your scenario. Meaning that, what ever you exactly mean by "residue", "new space outside space", and "higher gravity projected", it's already all explained by a much simpler model than yours.

As I said earlier, you are hundreds of years behind the times. With all due respect, don't you think you should catch up?

Yes, exactly, the key word is "same distance", distance to the right of #R . Surely you do you not suggest that the strength of gravity is the same outside the singularity then at #R, the surface of the star that was there before the compression?

You said in post #11 there was more gravity; your own link clearly states that there isn't. With all due respect, you were proven wrong by your own link.

Yes, I did, and saw the contradiction, so posted the link not just the question for everyone to read.

With all due respect, you are an extremely dishonest person. You admit to knowingly posting a link that completely destroys your own position, in its first sentence no less, yet you post it as if it supports it?!

You are operating in bad faith, and use despicable tactics to try and support your willfully ignorant position. Please stay away from the science section of this forums.

I'm sorry I gave you another chance; you clearly don't deserve it.