The Dual Nature of Gravity

[beil]

"concentration" of gravity goes up

Exactly ! well said in bold. Where there once was a declining gravity gradient, you have have now, to use your words "more concentrated"* gravity,-- In that same space. More concentration means more , like in "where is more gravity, inside or out?"
*perhaps more tensioned space. or gravitons, "muscle pulling", whatever. so:
If the size of space has not changed, but the content (projected into) has, how can you maintain that the total has not changed, ? gravity is not energy.

 

[beil]

It was a valiant try, but it was inevitable that nebel would not get it.

I am not willfully stubborn, but believe that at least on the surface, I stand on solid ground. will be glad to concede, applaud, if shown, that the gravity content of space is indeed constant no matter how the enclosed mass is configured. How about this:
There is no gravity, but surface gravity, projected out.
thank you for the use of your original graph.

 

[exchemist]

Exactly ! well said in bold. Where there once was a declining gravity gradient, you have have now, to use your words "more concentrated"* gravity,-- In that same space. More concentration means more , like in "where is more gravity, inside or out?"
*perhaps more tensioned space. or gravitons, "muscle pulling", whatever. so:
If the size of space has not changed, but the content (projected into) has, how can you maintain that the total has not changed, ? gravity is not energy.

Gravity is not energy, indeed, but we can speak of the gravitational potential, which is the amount of energy it takes to remove a unit mass from a given point to infinity (i.e to where the force of gravity has dropped to zero.). For any point outside the surface of the star, the potential will be the same, whether the star has collapsed or not. For a point inside the star, there is indeed a difference, since if the star has not collapsed, the potential changes shape due to the increasing proportion of the mass of the star that no longer acts (Newton's Shell Theorem), as you penetrate in towards the centre.

It does not mean anything to say there is "more" gravity in total, since gravity is not "stuff". But I suppose you can rightly say that the work done in removing a mass to infinity from a point inside the volume of the former star is greater when there is a black hole than when the former star was still there.

 

[beil]

But I suppose you can rightly say that the work done in removing a mass to infinity from a point inside the volume of the former star is greater when there is a black hole than when the former star was still there.

I thought too, that heights above the center, which can be thought of as potential energy, affects the gravity potential, but the fall from that heights exposes you to gravity longer, and certainly to greater acceleration, if the entity has shrunk, not just to a singularity, but shrunk by any amount. so:
if there is more energy released, should not there have been more gravity present? whatever that "more" should be thought to be made up off,?
The preoccupation should not be with the center of gravity, that figures in every equation (as the origin of the radius) , -but with the surface, because that is where the gravity projects from. I proposed:
There is no gravity but surface gravity, at the origin, when projected out, when becoming an unchanging residue.

 

[exchemist]

I thought too, that heights above the center, which can be thought of as potential energy, affects the gravity potential, but the fall from that heights exposes you to gravity longer, and certainly to greater acceleration, if the entity has shrunk, not just to a singularity, but shrunk by any amount. so:
if there is more energy released, should not there have been more gravity present? whatever that "more" should be thought to be made up off,?
The preoccupation should not be with the center of gravity, that figures in every equation (as the origin of the radius) , -but with the surface, because that is where the gravity projects from. I proposed:
There is no gravity but surface gravity, at the origin, when projected out, when becoming an unchanging residue.

No. Gravity "projects from" every particle of matter equally. We can treat it as acting from the centre of gravity, due to Newton's work, which shows, by integration, that for a sphere, if you are outside the sphere all the mass acts exactly as if it were all concentrated at the centre. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_gravity

Suggest you read this carefully, several times, and stop making up rubbish. This has all been gone through, by Newton, no less, several centuries ago.

 

[beil]

No. Gravity "projects from" every particle of matter equally.

Yes, by way of answer I moved this over from the "where is more gravity-" thread post#257:
Quote=" Origin said: "The origin is the center of the body and gs is the force felt from gravity or gravitational acceleration at the surface of the body."
Nebel answered:
Yes. There is no gravity but surface gravity, projected out.
The tiniest entities, say of Plank size, when coming near each other, drawn by their mutual surface gravity, when joined, have zero gravity between them, because the gravity has migrated to the mutual outside. Repeat that process to any size, then, what is shown in your graph's inside slope, is the sum of many surface gravities. or Newtons' shells in that so named theorem.
so, while the equations demand that we calculate using the center of gravity/ mass as the point where gravity resides, it actually is a surface phenomenon. even of rubbish.

 

[exchemist]

Yes, by way of answer I moved this over from the "where is more gravity-" thread post#257:
Quote=" Origin said: "The origin is the center of the body and gs is the force felt from gravity or gravitational acceleration at the surface of the body."
Nebel answered:
Yes. There is no gravity but surface gravity, projected out.
The tiniest entities, say of Plank size, when coming near each other, drawn by their mutual surface gravity, when joined, have zero gravity between them, because the gravity has migrated to the mutual outside. Repeat that process to any size, then, what is shown in your graph's inside slope, is the sum of many surface gravities. or Newtons' shells in that so named theorem.
so, while the equations demand that we calculate using the center of gravity/ mass as the point where gravity resides, it actually is a surface phenomenon. even of rubbish.

OK enough ballocks from you, I think. Back on Ignore. [click]

 

[beil]

I think. Back on Ignore. [click]

wich is too bad, hopefully not a tacit admission that you have come to a dead end in your arguments (not appealing to authority). Because
The question that remains to be discussed : how can you have more gravity, but not more mass. and since
Gravity is equivalent to acceleration, how can we end up, as we do, with more acceleration out of the same overall mass? in the same space?

 

[origin]

wich is too bad, hopefully not a tacit admission that you have come to a dead end in your arguments (not appealing to authority). Because
The question that remains to be discussed : how can you have more gravity, but not more mass. and since
Gravity is equivalent to acceleration, how can we end up, as we do, with more acceleration out of the same overall mass? in the same space?

Well I think nebel has shown that it's time to move this to pseudoscience.

 

[beil]

had hoped that there would turn up another graph or an equation showing that the 1) apparently fixed gravity , like residue, dating from the ancient cloud 5 billion years ago, blue curve) leading to to a star-sized surface now, and 2) still growing gravity , projecting gravity (red curve) to a possible BH later, as a sum remain constant in total, contrary to my later contention that gravity gets more , stronger,- not just because it now occupies a smaller space near the center.
never say people do not learn from the blunder of others, nebel being a prime example. bad news sells better than good.

 

[beil]

From The Guardian, article on the "New Horizon" probe, quote:
" -Ultima Thule, the so-called cold classical Kuiper belt objects, look the same today as they did at the dawn of the solar system.-"
"-They’ve been in deep freeze since they formed 4.6bn years ago.-” and
To make it relevant to the PO topic, parallels:
orbiting in the gravitational field, also roughly still the dame today, in deep freeze like a residue as it formed 4,5 billion years ago.

 

[origin]

From The Guardian, article on the "New Horizon" probe, quote:
" -Ultima Thule, the so-called cold classical Kuiper belt objects, look the same today as they did at the dawn of the solar system.-"
"-They’ve been in deep freeze since they formed 4.6bn years ago.-” and
To make it relevant to the PO topic, parallels:
orbiting in the gravitational field, also roughly still the dame today, in deep freeze like a residue as it formed 4,5 billion years ago.

Blaaaa blaaa blaaaa....

 

[beil]

Blaaaa blaaa blaaaa....

You are actually better at science than at humour.
gravity seems to start from a "seed", then projecting out, but moving stuff from the outside inward, and then residing in the outside. Please
give us a graph, or an equation showing how, or why not in a contracting globe, surface gravity is higher in the same space than the "inner" gravity it replaced. That would answer the question,: Is total gravity the same for a given mass, no matter what its shape?

 

[origin]

You are actually better at science than at humour.
gravity seems to start from a "seed", then projecting out, but moving stuff from the outside inward, and then residing in the outside. Please
give us a graph, or an equation showing how, or why not in a contracting globe, surface gravity is higher in the same space than the "inner" gravity it replaced. That would answer the question,: Is total gravity the same for a given mass, no matter what its shape?

Blaaaa blaaa blaaa. I am doing this so that you will at least get some response. You should not expect someone to respond thoughtfully since you usually just ignore or twist the meaning of the responses you do get.

 

[beil]

You should not expect someone to respond thoughtfully since you usually just ignore or twist the meaning of the responses you do get.

sorry if I gave that impression, usually I give an affirmative click right away, recognizing of course that no answer we all have, is the final one.
We still like to to hear wether you think , using the amended graph of yours, that in an uniform density shrinking globe, the former lower interior gravity in the portion that shrank, is replaced by higher surface gravity in the new, smaller exterior.
The same space that was once full, and is now empty, endowed with greater gravity then before.
thank you.

 

[origin]

sorry if I gave that impression, usually I give an affirmative click right away, recognizing of course that no answer we all have, is the final one.
We still like to to hear wether you think , using the amended graph of yours, that in an uniform density shrinking globe, the former lower interior gravity in the portion that shrank, is replaced by higher surface gravity in the new, smaller exterior.
The same space that was once full, and is now empty, endowed with greater gravity then before.
thank you.

Exchemist just explained this to you and you ignored it.
So the correct response to you is blaa blaa blaa

 

[beil]

Exchemist just explained this to you and you ignored it.

the work done in removing a mass to infinity from a point inside the volume of the former star is greater when there is a black hole than when the former star was still there.

with due respect, I showed appreciation for that contribution, but asked follow up questions to clarify the application, which is not the same as dismissing , or ignore them.
My question to you about the space having a changed gravity, acceleration signature, is relying on your appreciated, modified graph (always attributed); that is why I am asking for clarification from you.
I you are interested to contribute to the discussion of ideas, rather than personality traits, you surely can do better than being blase'.
so: How do you reconcile. the 2 apparent statements in this discussion: "Gravity is unchanged because mass is unchanged" and " work required to overcome acceleration, gravity is greater in the space out of which the mass has been compressed ? (black hole or not).
thank you.

 

[beil]

o: How do you reconcile. the 2 apparent statements in this discussion: "Gravity is unchanged because mass is unchanged" and " work required to overcome acceleration, gravity is greater in the space out of which the mass has been compressed

Here is an image, rather than words to show the contested area, in green, the volume that upon being vacated acquires greater gravity strength that was not there before. so?

 

[beil]

There is no additional gravity appearing anywhere, when a star undergoes gravitational collapse to form a black hole, because the mass is not changing.

Yes, you are proven right, the total gravity (perhaps the potential) stays the same during the contraction of a mass, gravity just gets moved into smaller spaces, therefore the local field gets stronger, but the overall gravity remains constant like the overall mass. kudos.

 

[NotEinstein]

Yes, you are proven right, the total gravity (perhaps the potential) stays the same during the contraction of a mass, gravity just gets moved into smaller spaces, therefore the local field gets stronger, but the overall gravity remains constant like the overall mass. kudos.

Glad I could help!