Where is most "gravity", inside or out?

[nebel]

forever young means stopping time completely which would require infinite mass

Thank you, Dis I not mentioned that: " massive and small", like a black hole. There must be definitely more detectible gravity outside than inside a black hole. (Apparently, according to relativity, Only inside an object is gravity cancelled by overlapping)

the gravity is still there, you just don't notice it, the net effect is cancelled but gravity is still there.

surely some clever genius must be able to detect zero gravity force but doubled dime dilation? spacetime warp? BSW, I used your arguments as a copy and paste in the" ALMA" thread in fringes:
If photons have sailed for 13.8 billion years in all the universe's cancelled gravity, that was there, but undetected because of overlap, -- they are still young, pristine almost. (although space has stretched)

 

[Cyperium]

You would be able to detect the time dilation by simply having a very accurate clock at that position and see how it has changed relative to a clock outside, the clock on the inside would run slower showing less time had passed there.

Photons has no age, in their perspective everything is instant as they move at the speed of light (where time stops).

 

[nebel]

You would be able to detect the time dilation by simply having a very accurate clock at that position and see how it has changed relative to a clock outside, the clock on the inside would run slower showing less time had passed there.

The first experiments to measure the constant g (I believe), were by having two massive objects brought near and measure the attracting of each other. So: why not bring a clock into the middle and see whether it slows down, or, take it to Fort Knox? Surely somebody should have proved that assertion by now? where would the experiment be recorded?

Photons has no age, in their perspective everything is instant as they move at the speed of light (where time stops).

so true, but by them moving with maximum time dilation in overlapping gravity, we would be doubly sure of that. So:
The Shell Theorem is invalid in relativity?

 

[nebel]

ou would be able to detect the time dilation by simply having a very accurate clock at that position and see how it has changed relative to a clock outside, the clock on the inside would run slower showing less time had passed there.

Intuition tells me that you are right, there should be massive gravity, cancelled or not, between two massive masses. with no gravity force at the centre. But then
The OP was about the force, the potential, not the slowing of travel through time. Even then, there is much more travel through time going on outside an entity than inside too.

 

[nebel]

Cyperium said: -- mass could be configured in such a way that an object will not feel any gravity and behave as if there were none, if there is equal gravity in all directions[/QUOTE]

I can see where gravity between to great masses, lead balls or locomotives would have cancelling, but extant separate, overlapping gravity forces between them, but with the inside of a perfect closed sphere it seems a different story, there is a clear -cut inside vs outside situation there. Anyway,
With all that force pulling back in toward the surface ( or curvature of spacetime), no wonder we have high outer orbital velocities, compared to inside movements.

 

[nebel]

I can not believe that the warping, curving and tensioning of spacetime , the slowing of travel through time , is dealt with twice in an environment where there is balanced forces, like inside an entity. The effect is on the total, or the resultant of the competing masses. imho.
Please , some one show otherwise.

 

[Cyperium]

I don't see how we could configure mass in such a way that time wouldn't be curved, or curved in a way that it wouldn't slow down. It's easier to conceive how we could configure mass so that the spacial dimension would appear flat. Time is affected by speed but higher acceleration would mean that time slows down (just as mass makes time slow down by curving spacetime), it's inconceivable how we could make time move faster, it would require some kind of negative acceleration (which isn't the same as retardation as there can be no retardation of a object not accelerating already)

Maybe if that sphere of mass would expand at an accelerated rate..then it might be like negative acceleration for anything within that sphere..then time would move faster, cancelling the slowdown that mass caused. The sphere would have to have a mass in the middle though to cancel the outward expansion so that it accelerates without actually moving anywhere.

 

[Cyperium]

The outward expansion can be solved by rotating the sphere. If the sphere had enough integrity then the center mass wouldn't be needed. It would have to rotate at an accelerated rate though.

 

[Cyperium]

If you want the slowing of time to be cancelled everywhere in the sphere the plane of rotation would also need to rotate which would require an external force since the plane of rotation naturally wants to stay the same (think gyroscopic effect)

 

[nebel]

I don't see how we could configure mass in such a way that time wouldn't be curved, or curved in a way that it wouldn't slow down. It's easier to conceive how we could configure mass so that the spacial dimension would appear flat. Time is affected by speed but higher acceleration would mean that time slows down (just as mass makes time slow down by curving spacetime),

I can not follow you here, because the "time", question is discussed in the "Alama" thread on the fringe. Suffice it to say, that I maintain hat
Time is a dimension, a measure of duration, it does not slow down, it is the object that is moving through time, not the other way around. We are moving through time at various speeds (depending on mass, acceleration, proper velocity). Please move your relevant good observations to the "Ama" thread, if you think it applies there. That said, just repeating the answer to the "where is more g?" question in the OP,
When applying the formula for surface of a sphere to origin's "2R, 1/4 g" dotted line, you can see that in the space surrounding a sphere, at 2 R there is 64 times the total gravity of the inside, although at any given individual point on the outside at 2R there is the same g potential as the inside .25 R, but from there it is downhill endlessly to infinity. Thinking of an elliptical galaxy or globular star clusters.

 

[Cyperium]

If no force is acting on a object it moves through time at constant velocity which is a straight line, if spacetime is curved though time appears to slow down (while in actuality it is just following what to the object is a straight line or constant rate).

 

[nebel]

If no force is acting on a object it moves through time at constant velocity which is a straight line, if spacetime is curved though time appears to slow down (while in actuality it is just following what to the object is a straight line or constant rate).

Can you relate that in a meaningful way to the subject at hand, namely, the amount, and strength of gravity inside and/or outside an entity?

 

[Cyperium]

I only have some understanding of curvature and how objects behave while traversing curvature, my knowledge of what happens on the inside on, say a sphere, is limited to that. I'm sure you know that stuff better than I, I just want to point out what I saw as inconsistencies when viewed from the standpoint of general relativity. Mainly that there is more gravity outside as if you could add it together somehow. In other words; if you have a massive body in spacetime it would curve it, if that body were to suddenly disappear there wouldn't be more energy created from curvature relaxing than was there due to the object.

 

[nebel]

Mainly that there is more gravity outside as if you could add it together somehow. In other words; if you have a massive body in spacetime it would curve it, if that body were to suddenly disappear there wouldn't be more energy created from curvature relaxing than was there due to the object.

Well, I just took your word for it, gravity seems to be subtracting in an empty shell, not adding in the outside, but the same gravity strength, side by side spread over such a bigger surface adding up in total. I f a body would disappear where to? if converted to energy, that would be an immense increase in volume, but overall the same gravity or space warp? You have a point about the cancelling or not of gravity, in an orbiting satellite, the two accelerations, from velocity and gravity are balance, yet there are two opposing relativistic effects, less gravity out there, so: faster travel through time, and higher velocity so slower travel through the 4st dimension, they have figured that out for the GPS.
Time aside though, there are no forces inside a hollow or at the centre of a sphere. In the ALMA expanding model, all the action, energy is outside, in the future too.

 

[nebel]

re-posting these curves from origin's post#15. and looking at his diagram, at 3R is the same gravitational strength as at 1/8 R (ignoring that Black hole in the centre that has zero gravity at it's centre too). For a globular cluster or an elliptical, there would be the same strength in the interior at 1/8 R as at 3 R out, but in total 576 times the gravity everywhere at the distance. It takes a lot of velocity to counteract gravity at that radius. The solar system has such low orbital velocities near Pluto, because the Sun is a virtual mass point source, a luminous disk or globe is not.

 

[nebel]

If you think about it, in the centre of a black hole, where there is no gravity, all that massive tension, force, spacetime warp, is on the outside. and
if gravity were a waves, by interference they would cancel in the centre, a really calm area the way waves go. or?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

If you think about it, in the centre of a black hole, where there is no gravity, all that massive tension, force, spacetime warp, is on the outside. and
if gravity were a waves, by interference they would cancel in the centre, a really calm area the way waves go. or?

i think science doesnt know yet.
probably wont for a long time.

musing... gravitational field properties for a cluster of orbs would not be the same for single orb.
micro-gravity fields constantly exist(over lapping each other) so mathamatically your results would be speculative.
could it be said that 1 gravitational field cancels out another ?
i dont know.
i have been pondering it.
the area your measuring is always under gravitational field when you are measuring micro-gravity
soo... can you say there is 0 gravity when 1 field is cancelling out the other ? or... are both fields acting equally on the mass ?

e.g does the mass gain more mass ?

 

[nebel]

soo... can you say there is 0 gravity when 1 field is cancelling out the other ? or... are both fields acting equally on the mass ?

I just pondered that question too, and replied on another thread: that if you consider gravity a wave, waves can interfere and cancel out, so in the centre of gravity between two masses, one could be in a zero gravity position, while the overall picture is one energized as seen by the waves.
In microgravity generated by the cancellation of gravity and centrifugal "forces", does the angular momentum acts as kind of a shield against gravity (to use picturesque language ) ?
In zero, micro gravity, your accelerations cancel out, you are in harmony with the universe, but your stomach might not agree.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

In microgravity generated by the cancellation of gravity and centrifugal "forces", does the angular momentum acts as kind of a shield against gravity (to use picturesque language ) ?

and what relation does it have to dark energy and does the higgs boson have any functional relationship to the potential of combined gravitational force being a vector of mass ? etc...(using very generalised language)
maybe for ponderance, what if mass as a relationship to gravity is a vector force of gravity by its ability to create or cascade a higgs boson(for example).
maybe higgs bosons only exist inside a singular gravity field as a vector of force by the mass so when you apply force to the force you do not get any extra mass, thus making it a single equation.

unles someone has shown how newton explains dark energy.
there must be something quite different to basic understandings going on.

 

[nebel]

unles someone has shown how newton explains dark energy.

R.S. you raise many possibilities. The OP, instead of dealing with the high outer orbital velocities in Galaxies, pointed to the low inner ones as being explained by the simple Shells theorem. ( Origin's Diagram in post #2 here.)
These low velocities have been observed. Vera Rubin's legacy. The added question now, how or whether overlapping gravity in the centre is suppressed, is beyond the field of Keplerian and Newtonian thinking. why do you not start a discussion on that?