Where is most "gravity", inside or out?

[nebel]

[QUOTE="DaveC426913, post: 3510345, member: 19467
"]You are confused.
While it is true that solar flux falls off at the same rate over distance as gravity, that has nothing to do with the brightness of the star.[/QUOTE]

Are you talking to yourself? I was referring to one particular star, our sun, it's particular radiant output, averaged, and the reach of this particular source compared to the reach of the gravitational field. Of course you can crank up the luminosity, without changing the long distance gravitational effect. Crank it up wherever you like, just don't be cranky.
PS: trying to be rational, I was talking ratios only.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

You are confused.

While it is true that solar flux falls off at the same rate over distance as gravity, that has nothing to do with the brightness of the star.

A star that puts 15,000 times more light than our sun would still - after applying your 1/1500th factor - bathe its Earth in 10x as much solar radiation.

...not counting coronal mass ejections and general space weather.

 

[nebel]

..not counting coronal mass ejections and general space weather.

point well taken, but excluding decay in these happenings, the dispersion into the Pluto planetary orbit would still be following the energy, mass over square at distance rule, I/38.8^2 . +~ 1/1500. or?
On the universal scale though, we see an acceleration, an apparent addition of energy as distance from the Big Beginning, 13.8 billion years ago increases.
Nebel's "ALMA" topic on the fringe, alternate theories, has a possible answer to that:
"The universe is expanding into a future time that still contains the same energy condition that existed also before the BB. Now still gaining the same possible infinite primordial energy * as it expands into timespace". ( ideas that failed to make the humour section)
* "pipe" (tm) possible infinite primordial energy that was always in the pipeline to cause our universe

 

[origin]

point well taken, but excluding decay in these happenings, the dispersion into the Pluto planetary orbit would still be following the energy, mass over square at distance rule, I/38.8^2 . +~ 1/1500. or?
On the universal scale though, we see an acceleration, an apparent addition of energy as distance from the Big Beginning, 13.8 billion years ago increases.
Nebel's "ALMA" topic on the fringe, alternate theories, has a possible answer to that:
"The universe is expanding into a future time that still contains the same energy condition that existed also before the BB. Now still gaining the same possible infinite primordial energy * as it expands into timespace". ( ideas that failed to make the humour section)
* "pipe" (tm) possible infinite primordial energy that was always in the pipeline to cause our universe

Reported for pseudoscience in the science section.
Why can't you keep the goofy stuff in the right section?

 

[nebel]

Reported for pseudoscience in the science section.
Why can't you keep the goofy stuff in the right section?

nebel quote: "point well taken, but excluding decay in these happenings, the dispersion into the Pluto planetary orbit would still be following the energy, mass over square at distance rule, I/38.8^2 . +~ 1/1500. or?--"

I thought that the answer in post 123 was a valid response to" the coronary ejections and space weather" refutation attempt.
the additional elaboration was clearly marked as fringe[y], and added just to show where the mass, energy over distance squared law breaks down.

 

[Cyperium]

Why did it take five pages before you guys realised that nebel had misunderstood that there is no net gravity at the center of objects to think that there is no gravity at all?

Apart from that, this has been a very interesting thread, I saw a recent video by vsauce explaining gravity using topology, that it is like a straight line on a curved surface, has anyone else seen it and care to explain what he meant?

 

[nebel]

Why did it take five pages before you guys realised that nebel had misunderstood that there is no net gravity at the center of objects to think that there is no gravity at all?

Cyperium: of course nebel is a willing learner, but also a developer of unconventional thoughts, a gift that helped him to grow up sanely in germany in the 1930s.
Gravity , an acceleration, has a funny way of not being effective if it works in opposite directions. At the center, with 1/2 local g pulling each way, there is no pulling apart at the center of a shell, but a zero effect. Does a zero effect not mean a cancellation ?
The zero gravity at the center, that Nebel championed for a longtime, has interesting implication for galaxies too, ( perhaps the newly discovered "transparent" galaxy with grouped stars and no dark energy is relevant to this.) Even the black hole at the center of halaxies has zero gravity at it's center.
Nebel's thread on the fringe forum , alternate theories, "ALMA" lookback time is based on zero gravity at the center of the universe too, (kind of). yes, all gravity, and future energy is at the periphery of the universe model . 13031 views. refutations welcome.
timespace and energytime are outside the universe, zero gravity in the now empty past of the universe.

 

[DaveC426913]

Gravity , an acceleration, has a funny way of not being effective if it works in opposite directions. At the center, with 1/2 local g pulling each way, there is no pulling apart at the center of a shell, but a zero effect.

Yes. As it should be.

What would you expect? To be pulled apart limb by limb?

Every atom in your body is affected equally by gravity, thus no atom feels a pull any different from any other atom.

 

[nebel]

What would you expect? To be pulled apart limb by limb?

No, I would not envision gravity from distant masses (as is the case at the interior of spheres) as opposing forces, that at some level create a tension, a internal spaghettification. rather, the opposing fields, or space warpings, cancel out before they can act on matter or time.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, I would not envision gravity from distant masses (as is the case at the interior of spheres) as opposing forces, that at some level create a tension, a internal spaghettification. rather, the opposing fields, or space warpings, cancel out before they can act on matter or time.

Nonetheless, you still experience the highest factor of time dilation when at the bottom of a gravity well.

 

[nebel]

Nonetheless, you still experience the highest factor of time dilation when at the bottom of a gravity well.

I would like to have second opinions on that.

If time dilation is based on the strength of the resultant, balanced gravitational field , would not a weak or null strength signal maximum local move through the time dimension? advancing through time apace with the universe?
If the strength of the gravitational field would be modeled as in the famous ball on the rubber mat, would not the landscape look like a pointed mountain castle tower in the center with a deep moat at the surface of the property, and slanting gently to the heights of the central spire only at the infinite distance? In other word pictures,
The inverse of Origin's illustration on post#2 of this thread?
Dave, you are not at the foot of a gravity well in the center, you are at the pinnacle.
PS. can't get rid of the strike through, ignore it please.
An entity with a very dense interior could resemble Devil's Tower in Arizona, having a nearly flat top, steep flanges falling to a valley, but the terrain all around rising to the plateau that could be thought of as the normal level.

 

[nebel]

Nonetheless, you still experience the highest factor of time dilation when at the bottom of a gravity well.

perhaps it would be small comfort to have zero gravity, but being inescapably surrounded everywhere with a deep gravity well. but
Extend that central zero gravity area from a point pinnacle to a completely empty shell, you are now free to float anywhere. Is your perception of time, or of those that watch you, determined by the deep gravity at the outside, or your condition on the inside? (hopefully the shell is transparent)

 

[RainbowSingularity]

The universe is expanding into a future time that still contains the same energy condition that existed also before the BB.

time is running backwards to meet the present event

 

[nebel]

time is running backwards to meet the present event

below is the fuller quote from post #123. I directed that to the fringe section, and a response should be posted there imho. would it not be off topic to discuss time here?
Nebel's "ALMA" topic on the fringe, alternate theories, has a possible answer to that:
"The universe is expanding into a future time that still contains the same energy condition that existed also before the BB
Can I discuss time on you there? thanks.

 

[nebel]

Here's a the cross sections of the gravity wells of Sirius, compared to the a equal mass neutron star. It is plotted as gravitational potential along the vertical and distance from the center along the horizontal. The black vertical line marks the center for both bodies and the green lines where the surface of Sirius would be.

Here is an example where the picture of gravity's action on a section of a distorted plane that is wrong, only partially right. It is wrong, and all the ball-distorted space time illustration are wrong-- if:
Gravity comes to zero, as the diagram on post #3 rightly shows, because then the ball can not depress the sheet at the center. (gravity is cancelled)
Here above the red line should rise to the center as a peak, and so should be the blue line of the neutron star, and even the black line of a possible Black Hole, if bigger than the Plank size. OF course,
The illustration is of the surface gravity. This topic deals with the interior versus the outside/ surface gravity, the total gravity. what is more important the part or the whole?
Could all the previous similar illustrations be wrong? showing only half the picture?
has happened before.

 

[DaveC426913]

- if:
Gravity comes to zero, as the diagram on post #3 rightly shows, because then the ball can not depress the sheet at the center. (gravity is cancelled)

Indeed. If you interpret it wrong, you will arrive at a faulty conclusion.

Could all the previous similar illustrations be wrong? showing only half the picture?
has happened before.

You know what's also happened before?
People not understanding the topic they're discussing, despite dozens of people setting them straight, and - instead of bothering find out where they've gone wrong - decide they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

 

[nebel]

Indeed. If you interpret it wrong, you will arrive at a faulty conclusion.

instead commenting on personals, where, how is the interpretation of the zero gravity at the center image wrong? The generic depictions all show the object depressing the 2 D space sheet into a dimple, which is correct for the surface gravity of the object.
This threat's quest is about the compared interior gravity, which is clearly minimal if they were included in these great - reach illustrations.
There are trillions of zero gravity situations in all the trillions of entities in the universe, and hardly any illustrations show that. (nothing pressing at the center).
When I say entities I do not mean balls circling in funnels in science museums, it could be galaxies, where the center is not hidden looking edge-on by impenetrable masses.

....people setting them straight, and - instead of bothering find out where they've gone wrong - decide they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

please repeat where the question about zero gravity at the center, dearth in the interior, max at the surface reaching to infinity has been refuted, or was "set straight", suggestions ignored?

 

[DaveC426913]

instead commenting on personals...

Unless you plan to move this discussion to alt theories, GR does operate as it is described. Your ideas are not fleshed out or formalized, so we're just here to clear up your misunderstandings, not to promote your ideas.

There are trillions of zero gravity situations in all the trillions of entities in the universe, and hardly any illustrations show that. (nothing pressing at the center).

Just because opposing gravitational forces cancel out does not mean gravitational potential gravity is zero.
Time dilation is highest at the centre of a mass.

 

[nebel]

Unless you plan to move this discussion to alt theories, GR does operate as it is described. Your ideas are not fleshed out or formalized, so we're just here to clear up your misunderstandings, not to promote your ideas.

I believed that the forums are established to exchange ideas, My questions on GR SP are not mature, to say the least, and only a side interest, and the clarifications I asked for where to explain how. specifically. for the edification of all viewers.

Just because opposing gravitational forces cancel out does not mean gravitational potential gravity is zero.
Time dilation is highest at the centre of a mass.

That is fine, but surprising news to me. At the center, balancing point, do we have two overlapping forces, results,-- relativistic effects, time delay adding , whereas gravity alone is subtracting? or balancing? How about the effects of the extended zero gravity zone in spere's interior? Wall to wall acceleration-less? but as
I said: relativistic effects were not the focus of the OP at all, it was only a quantitative question, having relevance to the orbital velocity results.
thank you.

 

[DaveC426913]

I believed that the forums are established to exchange ideas, My questions on GR SP are not mature, to say the least, and only a side interest, and the clarifications I asked for where to explain how. specifically. for the edification of all viewers.

Fair enough.

That is fine, but surprising news to me. At the center, balancing point, do we have two overlapping forces, results,-- relativistic effects, time delay adding , whereas gravity alone is subtracting??

Yes. There is no such thing as negative time dilation. And there is no such thing as repulsive gravity.