The Dual Nature of Gravity

[nebel]

I see nebel is ignoring me. I suppose that means he knows I'm right.

no, of course you are often right, but your style is very abrasive, and we are waiting for an apology to all the posters that, posting under the fair usage copyright rights, gave us un- identified author's images.

 

[DaveC426913]

During the compression, surface gravity rose to ~ 1.8

The gravitational attraction from each atom didn't change - you moved closer to them, by standing on the shrinking surface.

 

[nebel]

sorry, If this does not work I will have to take a photo and send it. thanks
PS of course, if you get closer to all these more tightly packed particles, you are now exposed to higher gravity, because on the surface you now have a shorter way to the center, the point of all calculations. the same shell, that you are standing on is now free space, was formerly low gravity inside territory. now has stronger central inward pull than before.

 

[DaveC426913]

... your style is very abrasive...

He has lost patience with you, as have others, since - while you pretend to ask for help - you ignore all of it, and continue with an error-prone idea of gravity.

You might thank him for the patience he has shown, and maybe apologize for being so vexatious.

 

[DaveC426913]

sorry, If this does not work I will have to take a photo ans send it. thanks

No. Download the picture to your drive from its location at shaw, then Upload it here as a file.

 

[nebel]

Here it is, uploaded as a file the son did it.

 

[nebel]

He has lost patience with you, as have others, since - while you pretend to ask for help - you ignore all of it, and continue with an error-prone idea of gravity.

Yes just putting in time with this is of merit. he and different others, like you, overestimate my capacity to understand and have not sunk to a low enough level to explain to me and others what the refutations really are, dissecting postings line by line even word by word does not help.
point in this thread I am trying to make is that once shrunk from an approximate spherical cloud, the local strength of the gravitational field remains in place, the blue curve in Origins original and the one above. That kind of rigid structure is generated until the equilibrium is reached, as in a mature galaxy or our sun (for a while). But during the shrinking process, the newer stronger field, emerging at the newer smaller surface is different from the unchanging outer field left behind. n unchanged mass, expanding back out, would re-establich into that existing field.
classifying gravity as a) conserved, as unchanging, residue and b) as emerging changeable, might be idiotic, but new perspectives trigger ups.

 

[NotEinstein]

no, of course you are often right,

Funny that you don't listen to me more often, then.

but your style is very abrasive,

Only when required.

and we are waiting for an apology to all the posters that, posting under the fair usage copyright rights, gave us un- identified author's images.

Yes, indeed, we are all waiting for your apology. Specifically, to that graph's creator, because you lied about his creation's copyright status and you lied about knowing his intentions.

 

[NotEinstein]

Yes just putting in time with this is of merit. he and different others, like you, overestimate my capacity to understand

Are we though? As I pointed out before, even teens in school can grasp the concepts we are talking about.

and have not sunk to a low enough level to explain to me and others what the refutations really are, dissecting postings line by line even word by word does not help.

If even word by word doesn't help, how can we sunk any lower?

Explain to us what you need in order to understand this. (You should have asked for this in the first place, instead of asking questions you apparently are aware of you can't understand the answers to.)

 

[nebel]

Funny that you don't listen to me more often, then.

because as a general rule, once a presenter has to resort to libellous name calling, constant demeaning adjectives, there is a clear marker that her arguments are weakly based.
so: I like to think in metaphors, illustrations, try to refute my points using the vague terms I am forced to use, for want of a dictionary, better to use analogies. that match my low level. dont try to play stupid like over at " The more gravity outside thread?: " new outside space is created"= fail. just waisting everybody's time with fillers. and we promise not to copy your stile of argumentation.

 

[nebel]

Here it is, uploaded as a file, the son did it.

referring to the colours here, I thought of the dual nature of gravity, comparing it to an outside -in in tree trunk.
trees grow in radius in the cambium, building new cells there, (represented by the red area in the graph). Upon further growth, the new cells harden, become a deposit, conserved in the rings that build up. remain relatively unchanged, like the blue curved line extending into the past infinity but building up, changing toward the center.
The dual nature of wood, a) growth and b) mature cells, deposited in shell like structures,

 

[DaveC426913]

he and different others, like you, overestimate my capacity to understand and have not sunk to a low enough level to explain to me

OK, fair enough.

Then the key to your understanding is to ask questions rather than invent ideas, such as this:

I thought of the dual nature of gravity, comparing it to an outside -in in tree trunk.

Every time you do this - every time you try to invent your own ideas - you drift farther from understanding.

Decide what you want: do you want to understand gravity, or do you want to make up your own ideas?

 

[nebel]

Decide what you want: do you want to understand gravity,

of course I do, at my level. Great work is done to reconcile that all pervasive force into all the other theories, quantum, graviton-gravity. I will be glad when I read about it.
In my simple way, just having had cut down a 2 feet diameter cedar on my property, I thought the process of wood growing and then staying the same for thousands of years, was an appropriate analogy of gravity appearing strong on the surface of a shrinking body, and then remaining that way, as the surface moves further down toward to center, or in reverse, when the sun, as a red giant envelops the Earth, solar gravity here will measure nearly the same then, as it does today.
Posing an idea, no matter how far fetched, presents the implied question: does this reflect reality? that question has to be answered about our equations too. I am just better at pictures.
Of gravity as it is understood at the most primitive level. Hope that everybody with a fertile but old mind has own ideas. thank you.

 

[NotEinstein]

because as a general rule, once a presenter has to resort to libellous name calling, constant demeaning adjectives, there is a clear marker that her arguments are weakly based.

If you think I've crossed a line, feel free to contact the moderation staff.

so: I like to think in metaphors, illustrations, try to refute my points using the vague terms I am forced to use, for want of a dictionary, better to use analogies.

I cannot refute using your vague terms, because it's unclear what you mean. You know this: you just used the word "vague" yourself. How can I be expected to refute anything when you literally can't express what you are talking about?

that match my low level. dont try to play stupid like over at " The more gravity outside thread?: " new outside space is created"= fail. just waisting everybody's time with fillers.

If you can't communicate your ideas clearly and you know it, then who is wasting who's time, really? How dare you blame me for your own confessed inadequacies?!

and we promise not to copy your stile of argumentation.

Who is this "we" you are talking about?

 

[DaveC426913]

does this reflect reality?

And the answer has been repeatedly: no.

Now, will you learn from that, or not?

Questions over assertions.

Hope that everybody with a fertile but old mind has own ideas.

Yes. If they want to write a nice fantasy story, they should definitely have their own ideas. But that's not how you science.

So, again: do you want to learn some science? Or do you want to make up your own ideas?

 

[nebel]

If you can't communicate your ideas clearly and you know it, then who is wasting who's time, really?

re: nebel: " new outside space is created"= versus " no new space created " spoke about by NE.
We dont know how it happened, let us say it was not deliberate, by overseeing and then not incorporating the word "outside" space in the space comment, took time, although not wated, because it emphasized for the viewers, that there is that distinct out side space, volume. thank you.

 

[nebel]

Yes. If they want to write a nice fantasy story, they should definitely have their own ideas. But that's not how you science.[works]

Here fantastic story involving gravity on a system that formed in a shrinking cloud:

<www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190114114231.htm>.,
Out of a primordial cloud shrunk this system of 2 disks at 90 degrees to each other, having then formed into a planet forming ring on one hand , and a binary star pair. but,
still stretching back billions of lightyears away from this central feature is the gravity ( field, spacetime warp, measurable strength) pick one please, or insert your choice.. but
here is where nebel's analogy of tree rings, a stiff gravity residue fails, is amended:
Imagine the stirrings that particles in that ring experience, as the gravity(-----)from those stars pass through and near them, again and again. Resonances from those gravity(-----) changes must travelling out into the furthest reaches, the size of that original cloud.
There it is nebel's model is limited in its unmovable residue version only to "stationary central masses situations.
The gravity(-----) still existing out there, is in this case not pictured as a rigid crust, but like a tensioned membrane,or jellied mass, that 2 stars,like drumsticks can resonate on/in.
nebel learning all the time using his flights of fancy foregoing formulae.and mental and real pictures. thanks for viewing.

 

[NotEinstein]

re: nebel: " new outside space is created"= versus " no new space created " spoke about by NE.
We

Again, who is this "we" you are talking about?

dont know how it happened, let us say it was not deliberate, by overseeing and then not incorporating the word "outside" space in the space comment, took time, although not wated, because it emphasized for the viewers, that there is that distinct out side space, volume. thank you.

Ah, I see. Please choose different wording next time, because with GR being mentioned, space creation typically means something entirely different.

And hou about you respond to the bit of my post you actually quoted? In fact, how about you respond to the rest of my post that you didn't quote? Remember, you are the one demanding I stop calling you intellectually dishonest; selectively responding like what you just did is one of the reasons I do so.

 

[nebel]

And hou about you respond to the bit of my post you actually quoted? In fact, how about you respond to the rest of my post that you didn't quote?

a) because by your pattern of comments you have lost the right to have all of your ideas considered with merit, and b) i reserve for myself the freedom to spare all viewers the wrangling about words, semantics, that usually ensues an innocent response. all of us. (we, and wee me) now:
why could we say that that there is more gravity on outside than the inside, or not?

 

[NotEinstein]

a) because by your pattern of comments you have lost the right to have all of your ideas considered with merit,

You do understand how ironic that statement is, coming from you?

and b) i reserve for myself the freedom to spare all viewers the wrangling about words, semantics, that usually ensues an innocent response.

So, trying to understand what you mean is "wrangling about words, semantics"?

Well, if you don't want to be understood, if you don't want to communicate clearly, that's indeed your right, but then I have to ask: why are you on a public internet forum?

all of us.

I suggest you should start a poll to see which "side" most people are on. I'm pretty sure you won't, because you know the outcome already.

(we, and wee me) now:
why could we say that that there is more gravity on outside than the inside, or not?

Everyone, with me now: What do you mean, nebel? Gravitational potential? Gravitational force? Gravitational field strength?