I said: "if gravitons were stationary" because I compared the situations to photons, and knew quite well that both exist only at "c' If they were stationary, for sake of the thought experiment caught frozen in their tracks for a census, then the similarity between light in gravity distribution would be apparent,
The Dual Nature of Gravity
- Thread starter nebel
- Start date
Since there is lesser gravity as you get deeper into a globe, the pull of gravity is zero in the center. It is the outer layer that experiences the greatest poll, an inward pressure by the "weight" of the outer material, that gravity generates. think Compression pressure generated by the pull, the tension of gravity.
In a compressing globe, that declining inner gravity gradient (the straight line in origins grave ending in the zero corner) is replaced by the higher and higher surface gravity of the smaller and smaller spheres. The inside slope (straight line) always at zero in the center, becomes steeper and steeper; Stronger and stronger gravity appearing, being projected out, whereas the existing curved blue line, the old residue gravity situation persists.
There is new, stronger gravity appearing in the space vacated by the shrinking globe.
Of course, that stronger gravity is confined to a newly opened but smaller open space.
I am not contradicting Newton's gravity laws. They dictate that
In the proposed dynamic model, new, stronger gravity is appearing on the shrinking surface, while residual gravity is left behind, doing its work there
Can we move this crap out of the science section?
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
Even nebel himself in post #13 agreed that it should: "I did not know where this would lead and I suggested as much. Moderators will see to it"
People like to read about ideas, new perspectives on established science, Yeah, nobody is going to want to read the irrelevant and tiring wrangling about # signs, speculations on a poster's position on a shrink's couch.
Most people aren't interested in ignorant crap ideas though.
Some people reserve judgement on crap" ideas until all the answers are in, which might take time and >64 000 views. In nature, Crap when rearranged, is after all the fertilizer that produces fertility for growths.
here is Origin's grapph, modified to show the action of gravity as the massive globe compresses.
The original cloud or body, at 1000 R. 3R , 2R created the g surface force pictured as blue line at these points. That strength is retained as the globe compresses. If the mass is big enough, the red line would extend to the vertical, describing new stronger surface gravity that projects out of the smaller and smaller central globe. almost having zero gravity in the center.
Outside (halo) gravity stays the same, no matter what happens to the global mass in the center. the globe.
Compressing a sphere into a disk shows results with highest surface gravity projected out from the rim into the periphery. High escape velocity there in the outside
I moved this explanation from origen's #2 post "where is more gravity in or out?" over to this thread, and might add, that
these graphs shows the gravity in and outside of an uniform density body. And note, that
the declining inside gravity gradient shown in the blue straight line, is replaced by the increased newly generated outside gravity appearing in red. so:.
More new gravity is appearing in the same space, as the uniform density globe shrinks.
I am glad you confirmed, that the OP model of 'seeing gravity as an unchanging residue, and as a newly force field projected into newly emptied space' is compatible with, based on proven Newtonian law.
I meant surface force like the gs gravity surface positions in the graph.
No, space does not change in size. I mean matter-filled space gets vacated, becoming, creating, or exposing new outside space, into wich greater gravity (shown in red) is projected. declining blue line tilted up into increasing red one.
The link 'question and answer' gave a good contrast. The post# 28 above shows you, that with a shrinking uniform density globe, more, additional gravity is added to the residual gravity than was present in the original "cloud", of perhaps 2 light years R for the solar system.
Gravity is not like the "constant energy content". Newly projected gravity is added to the residue.
to illustrate: In the above graph, the contracting globe shrank to R =,8.- As a result, a shell, or space with thickness .2 R was vacated in the process, and the more dense mass now projects a stronger surface -and spatial gravity into that now empty, but formally mass-occupied space. Gravity is a field that reaches, emanates projects outward.
light dims with the square of the distance, except in a laser (one dimensional projection) or when confined to a sweeping disk. (2 dimensional) gravity could mimic that to some extent; think barred galaxies, thin rings.
What the PO, the red line above asserts, is that there is more, added gravity projected from the surface of a contracting entity. Whether that is to be seen as more energetic gravitons (higher frequency?).or
More pull by more strands or more tensioned "rubber" ,tensioned space analogy, is another question. just suggesting possibilities here. iis not slopes, graph above notwithstanding.
Perhaps nothing new here, but a new look, perspective. so:
There is Not more energy, but more gravity. Energy can not be created,* is uncreated, but more gravity is created in contractions.
for time, energy without limits try the 'Alama" thread in alternative. the fringe
Last edited:
marks added for emphasis.
Besides the good and valid points you make, that is still your modus operandi: find just one a flawed sentence, misquote, -- and voila, all merit minced;
finding fault [iness] is a negative character trait.-- now, where were we?
is there more gravity once a cloud has shrunk into a star, BH or not?
Last edited:
This was a question specifically addressed to NotEinstein , but given his reluctance to ever answer, anyone please:
how can it be said that the new, higher gravity appearing outside a shrinking globe, is not adding to the total gravity present? having an appearing gravity added to the unchanging established? or projected to residue.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
And now you are flamebaiting, which is against the forum rules. Have you no shame, sir?
sorry sir, hoped to have you make a positive contribution, without offending.
NotEinstein
Valued Senior Member
In order to deserve positive contributions from me, you have to be a decent person. You have proven again and again not to be.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
OK, I'll take you off Ignore for a bit and try to answer.
There is no additional gravity appearing anywhere, when a star undergoes gravitational collapse to form a black hole, because the mass is not changing.
All that happens is that the mass shrinks down to a point (or so current theories imply), which means that the gravitational field strength, instead of decreasing with the depth of penetration into the star, continues to increase with decreasing distance from the newly created point mass. At some radius from the point mass this creates an event horizon, at the distance from the point at which light (i.e. information) can no longer escape. The event horizon would form well inside the volume previously occupied by the star before it collapsed.
If you were in a spacecraft orbiting the star just before it collapsed, nothing would happen to your orbit when collapse occurred. The field strength at that radius from the object would be just the same before and after.
Yes, That is exactly the proposition of this thread. The outer gravity in a shrinking entity does not change, it is like a residue caked into space, Your gravity detectors (co-orbiting craft) will not show an increase in the field or force there. . but
The new stronger gravity is created inside the now vacated volume, shown by the red line, to the left of R in the graph above., far from your orbiting satellites.
Gravity in the old outer space stayed the same, as you said, but
new, higher gravity appeared in the space that opened up because of the shrinkage, where there formerly was only the lower inner gravity.
In the process of forming all bodies in the universe, not just collapsing stars, which happens through gravity by contracting of clouds of matter into smaller entities,--- there has to be more gravity created.
In that process, at any given time, there are 3 fact present:
1) The outer unchanged residue gravity field (as you said)
2) The new higher gravity appearing in the newly opening up empty space, gravity projected out from the new, smaller surface,
3) The new higher inner gravity*, still falling to zero at the center, but in a steeper gradient. * inner gravity really being the sum of outer gravity fields of stacked shells.
There has to be more total gravity, because in the very same space, now open, the former lower gravity field has been replaced by a stronger field.
Thank you for not ignoring the subject matter, not being judgemental.
Last edited:
but the distance is changing,
at the surface, confined to the area where the shrinkage takes place. True, Additional gravity does not appear in the total field to infinity, but it does in the inner, newly open space just outside the shrinking surface.
thank you for helping
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No it doesn't. All that happens is because the mass has shrunk down to a point, the "concentration" of gravity goes up, in the region that was previously occupied by the volume of the star. That is a simple consequence of moving all the mass together into a point.
It was a valiant try, but it was inevitable that nebel would not get it.