Posted 13 April 2004 - 09:54 AM
i do know that F=
Posted 14 April 2004 - 05:03 AM
I don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about, though.
Gravity is not a property of an object, it is a force which each object exerts on every other object. Your weight is what it is because you are on the surface of the earth. if you move to Mars you would weight a lot less, because the gravitational pull is smaller there - because Mars is smaller than Earth.
Travelling at relativistic speeds don't do anything with gravity. Gravity is a universal force. It is a result of mass. Now, the *mass* of an object is related to the rate of accelleration, and hence the gravity pull that said mass exerts, but gravity in itself remains the same.
But maybe if you finish your post I can understand what you are thinking about.
Posted 18 April 2004 - 01:16 PM
Gravity is a "weak" force; the energy of your muscles is enough to counter act the gravity of the entire planet and lift an object. If you were hoping to use a pice of matter, and then somehow store the gravity particles like we store electrical energy, sadly we have yet to build a 4D container in this 3D universe.
Posted 20 April 2004 - 06:53 PM
Originally posted by: wepe
would you be abe to mutliply gravity with out incresing mass... if not then are you saying that gravity is a force within wieght? well, if sub-light velocities can add up to sub-light velocities then why could gravity not be added upon it self, multiplyed, or super imposed upon itself. i have been thinking of a new way of time travel and sence light-energy is required to have an infintismal amount of energy, our bodys couldent handle the friction, and the light barrier also makes a wall. ok well at the event horizon of a black hole, not even light may escape saying for anything to escape you must have zero mass. well gravity is a different set of restrictions, you would only need one body of matter to produce an infinite supply of gravity. i've been trying to figure this out and havent been able to come up with a general equation for it
i do know that F=
What in god's name do you mean be this? Even if I completely disregard your immense lack of simple grammatical skills, this post says absolutely nothing.
Are you trying to sound smart or something. "i do know that F=" means what? What does F = ?
If you have intelligent ideas or theories, post them here. If you want to continue with your mindless ramblings, post elsewhere.
Posted 22 April 2004 - 01:04 PM
Posted 25 April 2004 - 02:41 PM
I certainly don't appreciate the personal attacks against myself, as I do not wear tampons, and I don't know how it would be possible for me to do so.
Posted 13 May 2004 - 08:52 AM
Posted 13 May 2004 - 03:51 PM
As to black holes, the gravity well is so strong it actually bends back upon itself; light travels in a straight line through space, gravity warps space so that the "straight" line the light travels is actually curved. A black hole curves space to the point where it becomes a self-contained orb; the light travels away from the black hole....to return to the black hole as there is no other space for the particle to go to. In effect the black hole creates a bubble of self-contained space, a "micro universe", contained within the event horizon. The light itself doesn't slow down, other than what is caused by density of the space it moves through.
Posted 26 May 2004 - 09:53 AM
As for multiplying gravity without adding mass (or energy, which is equivalent by the famous E=mc^2).
The standard theory of gravity (general relativity) says that gravity is a force acting on particles by the curvature of space time. This curvature is caused by mass/energy. So far as general relativity is concerned You *need* mass to create gravity.
However General relativity is (probably) not a final theory. String theory can (maybe, these are all still speculating theory's with no real proof) give rise to something which i think is most easyly described as 'capturing gravitons (the virtual particles which cause the gravitational pull) (i wont go into a discussion on what virtual particles are... it's hard to do without getting to technical) from higher dimensions.'
I will try to describe what this means:
String theory states that *if* string theory is true we need 10 spatial dimensions instead of the usual 3 and 1 time dimension (actually you could also have 11 space D and 2 time D or 12 and 3, etc... to reply to some other topic...)
Now all ordinary matter (electrons, quarks, photons, gauge bosons, etc) are so called 'Open strings'. Which mean that they have 2 free endpoints. There is one theory within string theory that says that these endpoints are confined in our 'visible' 3 dimensional world (the so called 3-brane). Gravitons however are 'closed strings'. This means that they are discribed as loops. Since loops dont have endpoints, we can't fix their endpoints on the 3-brane. To describe the measured accelaration of the universe it was proposed by Dvali et al. (see http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0105068 for the original article. But be warned!!! this is very advanced stuff!) that some gravitons 'leak' away from our 3-brane into higher dimensions when they've travelled distences equivalent with the tresent size of the universe. Predictions made with this model (there are others!) are quite good. So this means that in higher dimensions there are some free gravitons (instead of virtual) which *in principle* can be used to increase the gravitational pull of an object without increasing it's mass.
There are MANY and BIG problems associated with such an idea (how to retrieve to gravitons from an infinite sized extra dimension which we cant probe, anywhere near 'here' (only litaraly at the other end of the universe),or when we've managed to capture them and bring them here: how can we let them act as virtual particles between the 2 objects you want to attract?)
But still it is a very nice idea