Science
08 Apr 08
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI've had lots of good answers to my question, so don't worry your pretty little head over it, sugar.
I don't understand the question. What do you mean by the "origin" of gravity? Do you mean when did it begin? Do you want to know more about the mechanism of how gravity works?
11 Apr 08
1 edit
An interesting experiment attempting to measure gravitational effects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B
Perhaps instead ending up once again proving the old adage, "If it stinks it's chemistry, if it's slimy and disgusting it's biology, and if it doesn't work then it's physics."
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by Thequ1ckBecause a vacuum is the nothing between mass! As I said, equivalent. Why don't you simply propose that the effect of gravity is caused by vacuums? Why try to invent different types of nothingness?
I don't understand, how can you have a vacuum without having 'something'?
Isn't vacuum the 'nothing' between matter?
Why can't gravity be the 'nothing' between mass?
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by Thequ1ckBut we only know about dark matter because it exerts a pull via gravity. 🙂
So in this analogy, gravity would not be a pulling force but instead
the absence of a pushing force.
Let us assume that the pushing force was the absence of mass,
(I'm really going to go off on one here) but could that pushing
force was what we now call 'dark matter'?
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by Steve dhondtOnly if the battle you are fighting is to find the ultimate answer to everything. If thats what you want, I can save you the trouble, its 42.
See, in general the more we learn the more questions pop up. It's a battle we can't win.
Most scientists however are battling to find out what they can about how the universe works and they are winning all the time.
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadI had this completely crazy idea a few weeks ago....I won't even try to defend it and I suspect it's actually impossible, but.... Well I'll just throw it out there.
But we only know about dark matter because it exerts a pull via gravity. 🙂
A long time ago I read about an idea that very, very technologically advanced societies might build a "bubble" around their star, harnessing it's entire energy. I'm not sure exactly how this was supposed to work--perhaps zillions of photovoltaics.
Anyhow, I got to thinking recently, from the discussion of dark matter that I've been hearing about. Wondering if it would be possible that an advanced civilization could develop this technology, and then spread throughout their galaxy, building these "bubbles" and snuffing out the light from ALL of the stars in the galaxy. When they were all done, to an outside observer, would their galaxy then appear to be made of dark matter? Presumably it would still have to radiate energy in the infrared spectrum though...getting rid of the trapped heat. 😕
11 Apr 08
Originally posted by leisurelyslothThis is one theme from one "Star Trek: The next generation". Enterprise was trapped inside this kind of sphere.
I had this completely crazy idea a few weeks ago....I won't even try to defend it and I suspect it's actually impossible, but.... Well I'll just throw it out there.
A long time ago I read about an idea that very, very technologically advanced societies might build a "bubble" around their star, harnessing it's entire energy. I'm not sure exactly h ...[text shortened]... radiate energy in the infrared spectrum though...getting rid of the trapped heat. 😕
As I see it, it won't work. After a while the sphere will find its thermal equilibrium so the outer surface of the sphere will shine as bright as the star would do if it had the same diameter as the sphere has. You can collect the radiation from the star, but it will only be transposed to heat, that eventually will glow.
13 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOK, I agree that gravity should not be described as a no-thing.
Because a vacuum [b]is the nothing between mass! As I said, equivalent. Why don't you simply propose that the effect of gravity is caused by vacuums? Why try to invent different types of nothingness?[/b]
But I would argue that gravity is better described as the difference
between things. I don't understand how you can describe gravity
as a particle. Is there a pressure particle out there somewhere too?
edit. Apologies to any theoretical physicists out there who may view
this as akin to watching a monkey try and peel an orange.
13 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadReally, I thought it was green, not 42.
Only if the battle you are fighting is to find the ultimate answer to everything. If thats what you want, I can save you the trouble, its 42.
Most scientists however are battling to find out what they can about how the universe works and they are winning all the time.
Kelly
13 Apr 08
Originally posted by leisurelyslothhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
I had this completely crazy idea a few weeks ago....I won't even try to defend it and I suspect it's actually impossible, but.... Well I'll just throw it out there.
A long time ago I read about an idea that very, very technologically advanced societies might build a "bubble" around their star, harnessing it's entire energy. I'm not sure exactly h ...[text shortened]... radiate energy in the infrared spectrum though...getting rid of the trapped heat. 😕
14 Apr 08
Originally posted by Thequ1ckpressure is caused by the fact that gas particles are constantly moving and bouncing off each other - the result is random motion.
OK, I agree that gravity should not be described as a no-thing.
But I would argue that gravity is better described as the difference
between things. I don't understand how you can describe gravity
as a particle. Is there a pressure particle out there somewhere too?
If there is a surface in contact with a gas, then some of the randomly moving gas molecules will collide with the surface, imparting some of their momentum. We call this imparting of momentum 'pressure'.
If there is a surface with a gas one side and a vacuum on the other then the resultant momentum being imparted to the surface will be towards the vacuum.
There is no way that one can come up with an analogy that would fit the characteristics of gravity.
04 May 08
I think the gravitational attraction is because of kind of electrostatic pull. I mean as we all know that matter relaes certain type of rays so I think this pull is also due to some kind of radiational electrostatic attraction between electrons and protones in matter.
To support this idea I will remind "columb theory" according to which the attraction force is propotional to the product of charge and also in Newton's equation of gravitation the gravitational force is propotional to the product of masses. Larger the larger the number of electrons and protons in it and thus more will be the force of attraction. Also both the equations have a common factor i.e. square of distance.
This is ONLY MY ASSUMPTIONS and is NOT TO CHALLANGE ANY ONE'S IDEA.
04 May 08
Originally posted by quick chaser"I think the gravitational attraction is because of kind of electrostatic pull."
I think the gravitational attraction is because of kind of electrostatic pull. I mean as we all know that matter relaes certain type of rays so I think this pull is also due to some kind of radiational electrostatic attraction between electrons and protones in matter.
To support this idea I will remind "columb theory" according to which the attraction ...[text shortened]... .e. square of distance.
This is ONLY MY ASSUMPTIONS and is NOT TO CHALLANGE ANY ONE'S IDEA.
What do you mean by "kind of"? Is it electrostatic pull or is it not?