Anonymouse Posted April 15, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 You do realize that not even Newton explained where gravity comes from do you not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 You do realize that not even Newton explained where gravity comes from do you not? Where does gravity come from? Whats the prevailing theory? Why is the gravity on the Moon weaker, has it got anything to do with the size of the Moon? maybe we should start a new thread for this..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 (edited) Where does gravity come from? Whats the prevailing theory? Why is the gravity on the Moon weaker, has it got anything to do with the size of the Moon? maybe we should start a new thread for this..... the gravity on the moon is weaker due to this equation, and the constant G.. it is somewhat theoretical, but dont try to tell that to a physicist.. LOL This equation is actually what describes the force between 2 objects.. and gravity and the size of the earth is estimated from this equation,, given that in some experimental way tey were able to determine the value of G whic is 6.67E7 and this force is.. F= [(mass 1 X mass 2)/distance squared]XG X means multiplication, not variable and this works for only spherical objects.. as the mass can be concetrated in the center to one focal point.. but no other shape.. thus the moon and earth apply.. but still not exact.. Edited April 15, 2004 by gevo27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 oh by the way i should mention, G is the universal gravitational cnstant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 (edited) and this works for only spherical objects.. as the mass can be concetrated in the center to one focal point.. but no other shape.. thus the moon and earth apply.. but still not exact.. Untrue, this equation is universal, whatever or not an object is spherical or not. If they are not spherical, you calculate the gravity center with multiple intergrals and voila. Edited April 15, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 and this force is.. F= [(mass 1 X mass 2)/distance squared]XG mmm, I did physics in high school, but I cant remmember this equation. Its a bit unclear, is 'F' the force an object exerts on the planet ie. does it equal the 'F' in F=ma where 'm' is the mass of the object and 'a' is the pull of gravity? Also, I was more interested as to why there is gravity.....I might do some independent online research on this.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 (edited) Well, found what I was looking for here. I guess the question I wanted answered was this: The question of why atoms attract one another is still not understood. Edited April 15, 2004 by Accelerated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 Untrue, this equation is universal, whatever or not an object is spherical or not. If they are not spherical, you calculate the gravity center with multiple intergrals and voila. yeah well.. lol. i didnt quite go into the detaisl of the other objects, its essentially the same model.. but yeah like you said its a lot more work to calcualte with the intergrals etc... my mistake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 mmm, I did physics in high school, but I cant remmember this equation. Its a bit unclear, is 'F' the force an object exerts on the planet ie. does it equal the 'F' in F=ma where 'm' is the mass of the object and 'a' is the pull of gravity? Also, I was more interested as to why there is gravity.....I might do some independent online research on this.... The "F" is the same "F" in both cases... In fact, you can start with the gravity law and end up with F=ma. Let say m1 is Earth mass and m2 is other objects mass. F = G(m1 * m2) / d ^ 2 F = (G * m1 / d^2) m2 g = (G*m1 / d^2) (definition, but if you want I can show you why) finally: F = gm2 Now, regarding the why of the existance of gravity. I can answer you by telling you why should it be a why. Gravity is not the only attractional force in physic, there is 4(ehmmm... 5, if we take in account the last one that concerns the dark energy and the expension acceleration) Gravity is the weakest of the 4/5, but many string theorists disagree and answer that the reason why gravity is detected so weak is that it act on multiple universes in the same time so it forces is dissolved. I like that idea, as it tell us that every of those forces are in fact the same, and that they just manifest differently on the string dimentions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 ... the reason why gravity is detected so weak is that it act on multiple universes in the same time so it forces is dissolved. You had to say it didn't you? You just HAD to say it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 (edited) You had to say it didn't you? You just HAD to say it. Yep, you know, I really can't resist. But I really find this idea ingenious, we can calculate theoritically the number of universe waiting ours that are syncronised with ours with the help of gravity. Edited April 16, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 So let me ask you this ... if there are infinite universes, and gravity is split between them, then wouldn't gravity have to be an infinite force in order for there to be a finite measurable force in each universe? ... well either gravity is infinitely strong or 1) gravity is not split among all universes or 2) there are finite number of universes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 (edited) So let me ask you this ... if there are infinite universes, and gravity is split between them, then wouldn't gravity have to be an infinite force in order for there to be a finite measurable force in each universe? ... well either gravity is infinitely strong or 1) gravity is not split among all universes or 2) there are finite number of universes. Yes! You got that right. But we know that infinit force can not emerge, hmmm. unless... but it can if we have the inflationist notion in mind, which means that each forces when added will give zero. Ah and, I find not logical at all the theses of finit number of universe. If there is finit universe, they must be infinit in size, which will mean about the same thing as infinit number of universe. Why I don't find it logical is because if the universe came from nothingless, nothingless is not a determinate "thing" it is underterminated. So the only number of things it can build, should be undeterminated as well, and the only way here would be to creat infinit numbers of universes. Think about that Sip, from nothingless bubble of universes are created by inflation, if nothingless will creat one, it will creat two, three, etc.... and since there is no time no chronology there, there would be no begining where nothingless started to "creat" universes, you can not fix a starting point, because nothingless was always nothingless, so before the first universe there was still a nothingless... and since the condition for the creation was always the same, there was no starting point no first universe. No starting point would mean infinit number of universes or universes infinit by size... where some forces make them interact with eachothers(gravity being one of them). Edited April 16, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 So let me ask you this ... if there are infinite universes, and gravity is split between them, then wouldn't gravity have to be an infinite force in order for there to be a finite measurable force in each universe? ... well either gravity is infinitely strong or 1) gravity is not split among all universes or 2) there are finite number of universes. well this might douns primitive. but the distance mtters much. infact the earth has very little force upon it by a star that if millions of lightyears away... remember d^2 is in the denominator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 (edited) well this might douns primitive. but the distance mtters much. infact the earth has very little force upon it by a star that if millions of lightyears away... remember d^2 is in the denominator gevo, do you think Sip ignore this? His comment concerned the dissolution of gravitational forces, if it act on multiple dimentions and multiple universes. Edited April 15, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted April 16, 2004 Report Share Posted April 16, 2004 gevo, do you think Sip ignore this? His comment concerned the dissolution of gravitational forces, if it act on multiple dimentions and multiple universes. roger that..... i was just making some simple observations.. lol.. i dont go into detail about the multiple dimentions. etc etc etc...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted April 16, 2004 Report Share Posted April 16, 2004 Domino, I must compliment your English - its very improved from a couple years back - now it may be worthwhile to read your posts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted April 16, 2004 Report Share Posted April 16, 2004 roger that..... roger that? what does that mean gevo??? is this a scientific term? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted April 16, 2004 Report Share Posted April 16, 2004 ... its very improved from a couple years back don't you mean "it's very improved from a couple of years back"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted April 16, 2004 Report Share Posted April 16, 2004 (edited) don't you mean "it's very improved from a couple of years back"? Sure Sip Edited April 16, 2004 by Accelerated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted April 17, 2004 Report Share Posted April 17, 2004 roger that? what does that mean gevo??? is this a scientific term? LMAoo r u serious.>>??? its mostly a military term.. i use it alot while playing BHD with my friends.. lol.. roger that sir Solute**** anymore questions sasun jan?? btw: it means your in agremeant with or understand what the other person has said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted April 17, 2004 Report Share Posted April 17, 2004 ok now that i read it again Sasun.. i think you might have allready known what it means.. LOL.. u making fun of my white boy language???? HAHAHA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted April 17, 2004 Report Share Posted April 17, 2004 roger that? what does that mean gevo??? is this a scientific term? Roger is the contraction of "right you are". An acknowledgement that a radio message has been received and understood. It may be of British origin. Repeat it fast several times and see what it sounds like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted April 17, 2004 Report Share Posted April 17, 2004 (edited) don't you mean "it's very improved from a couple of years back"? That still does not sound right. If I were to write that, I would write: "It has improved a lot compared to what it was a couple of years back." So how is it? Edited April 17, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted April 17, 2004 Report Share Posted April 17, 2004 "It has improved a lot compared to what it was a couple of years back." Sure Domino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.