Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by nebel, Feb 29, 2016.
I see the graph here. You were able to upload it directly.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
the red line is superimposed on origin's contribution in post #2. This new graph exists sine page #29, post#579, in various forms on 9 occasions. If there were any misunderstandings, please refer to the graph here to verify what I was saying about the red line in those old posts. if it matters.
I had permission to use the copyrighted original as indicated. I did it to answer the OP question, so: there really is more gravity field outside , in a black hole, when the inside slope is vertical, The gravity field is all outside.; - simply because there is no inside, and
The total "flux" of the gravitational field is the same into the distance.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The formula gs x A = 1, patterned after Kepler's rd law ( v^2/r^3 = 1 } is the trivial truth shown by the red line, surface gravity field strength in total remains constant into the far distance. if it is true, to infinity, and the universe is of finite age/ size then---
there is more gravity field strength outside then inside.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't get what your saying , nebel .
Gravity waves move outward from the source .
river, as you can see, the redline has an arrow showing that possibility. fact is though, most entities, galaxies, stars are the result of mass contracting in an inward direction When a stable size is reached, the gravitational field is strongest at the surface, and remains in total constant, into the distance
gs x A= 1
possibly beyond the universe.
This is just more word salad and nonsense piled on top of itself.
The OP talks about "more gravity" here or there like you can put it in a bucket.
since post #2 by origin, and his modified graph above, it is clear that it is agreed we are talking about the strength of the gravitational field, the force exerted by a mass at any given distance according to the shell theorem.
if you think it is comical, some of those shows have the highest ratings.
because they touch a raw nerve.
OK, for one, you are describing Newtonian gravity. That was replaced by Einstienian gravity over a century ago.
Your idea of authority is based on how many citizens watch shows?
'90 day Fiance' touches a raw nerve too. It's quite popular I hear.
I was merely pointing out that humour is an excellent teaching tool. Humour is often a common idea expressed in an unexpected way, like the " trivial truth" in this thread describing the idea that
1/r^2 of gs cancels the 4 pi r^2 of the enclosing surface.
If you would take the time to digest it, you would see the nutritional value of the math salad.
I have a better idea.
If you would take the time to learn about it, so that you're not tossing a word salad, there would be some nutritional content in your salad, and wouldn't waste our time with ideas of the subject matter that are a century out-of-date.
sorry, but simple newton/ leibniz/gauss mechanics still work well in orbital mechanics. even Kepler's even older formulas work well to calculate asteroid, tno orbits.
one of the sneaking suspicion about the velocity anomalies attributed to dark matter is that it is actually a misunderstanding of the out workings of gs g G 'gravity', potential, field, spacetime warp,- whatever.
Yes they do. Newtonian gravity can be used as a good approximation when large distances, speeds and masses are not a factor.
It cannot be used to deduce anything new, as you are trying to do.
You will continue to trip over misconceptions as you talk about forces and strengths of gravity.
Gravity is shape of spacetime. Objects move in geodesics per its shape.
Liken it to the model of the Sun being a chariot racing across the sky.
You can certainly use this old model of the sun's path to calculate where the Sun will be at a certain time of day, simply by doing the same calculations that have been in weather almanacs for centuries.
But if you try to deduce what will happen to the sun's path, say, with the precession of Earth's axis, you will immediately run into problems with word salad and make all sorts of bad conclusions.
Bring your understanding of the subject into the 21st century. Heck, simply upgrading it to the 20th century will be a vast improvement.
Establishing that most gravitational effects, (wether described as a force or a slope of spacetime) occur outside a body, -- is nothing new, just establishing " trivial truth", rubbing it in.
If the "chariot" analogy is the best you have to offer in reply to the invitation to falsify the correctness of the equation gs x A=1, or improving on it, or the position of the red line in post # 643, -- really,
If 17th century Newton is the best you have to explore gravity in the 21st century...
The force that we feel today is actually the same that Kepler and Newton, Leibniz were subject to. and you,
Rather than falsify a unique equation g_r x A = 1 describing it's long range range but not the interior action, was the response above the best you had to offer?
please try harder.
Sure. Because this is our responsibility, not yours.
You claim you want to learn how gravity works - but you demonstrate clearly that you don't want to learn how gravity works.
It would be arrogant to refuse to learn from lessons. but
what learning material have you provided, on the question of the falsification request for
g_r x A = C onstant
for example? or
The equidistant red line off to infinity?
That there is nearly infinite more gravity field strength outside an entity y then inside ?
1] You shift the responsibility of your learning onto others.
2] Despite it not being my responsibility, I have pointed you at what you need to learn: relativity. I worry thought that, even if I were to point you at specific books, I would still be remiss in your eyes if I do not actually read the books to you.
Anyway, this is already in Pseudoscience, and I've alerted you to what you need to learn about the subject, so my work here is done.
Yeah, some (name withheld to protect the innocent) have yet to learn how to stick to the subject matter at hand, namely falsifying the equation
g_r x A = C
proving that the total gravity field strength stays constant to infinity, rather
playing the psychiatrist in ad hominem off-topic comments.
Other forums have treated this current question as "--truth" of accepted mainstream science. bsw.
that is where all are learning. that
the last word is not been said yet.
From The Guardian, science:
"Prof Claudia de Rham’s ‘massive gravity’ theory could explain why universe expansion is accelerating"
well if gravity is heavy, gravitons have mass, there is even more gravity out there than we thought.
Separate names with a comma.