Jump to content
Science Forums

Is Space Zero Gravity (0 G)


Darky
 Share

Recommended Posts

You're misinterpreting my argument and he said that the field is static "ignoring Jupiter's acceleration", you do know that Jupiter's orbit gives it a velocity & that Jupiter's spin generates centrifugal force, and that the angle of Jupiter's spin and orbit change all the time, which means acceleration right?

 

So no gravitational field is ever really "static" is what I'm getting from all of this, every bit (from quark to neutrino) of energy in the universe seems to experience acceleration in its day to day interactions. I don't really care what gravity's velocity is. That was never why I brought it up.

 

& saying that it doesn't predict the speed at which gravity propagates=/=gravity in general doesn't propagate.

 

What all these physicists seem to have in common, is that they all believe gravity propagates, & they all want to know the velocity at which it propagates.

If you look at Newton's equation for gravity, you will notice that spin has nothing to do with it. Now, in GR there is something called frame dragging, but that is not what you are talking about, and not really relevant here.

 

As long as a planet (or a particle) is in uniform motion (or close to it) the static field does not change, does not propagate.

 It is exactly the same as if the planet is standing still in a change of reference frames.

 

All physicists agree that gravitational waves do propagate, but gravity fields do not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

frame dragging, but that is not what you are talking about, and not really relevant here.

That's what I was confusing when using the term 'gravity wave'.

 

As long as a planet (or a particle) is in uniform motion (or close to it)

No close to it about it. & define "uniform motion", the cosmos is a dynamic shooting gallery from particle to star.

 

the static field does not change, does not propagate.

Yea, if you paused time that might be how we look at it.

Edited by Super Polymath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To understand the distorting space time metric and how the shape of gravitational fields change as they move through time (fluidity), I'd read this.

 

See free boundary problem, at what point does the static field become hydrodynamic? The aforementioned paper on Newtonian expansion asserts that it happens continuously, non-stop:

 

"In contrast to that, the well known geometric term with Aφ is positive 10, and the contribution Aφ r 2(1−δ) to the angular velocity is positive — it pushes a rotating fluid body forward. Thus the last two terms in [8] counteract."

Edited by Super Polymath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that link doesn't confirm your story.

You are very confused.  It was not a link.  It was a date.  To review:

 

12 Jan 2016: "Rumours are swirling around that scientists working at LIGO in the US have detected gravitational waves, which are ripples in space-time. Is it possible?"  - That means that it has not been reported yet, but there are rumors of such a discovery.  It does not dismiss or contest the report since the announcement had not been made yet.  Thus it cannot refute a report that does not exist.

 

11 Feb 2016 - First announcement of discovery of gravitational waves by LIGO.

 

15 Jun 2016 - Second announcement of discovery of gravitational waves by LIGO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are very confused.  It was not a link.  It was a date.  To review:

 

12 Jan 2016: "Rumours are swirling around that scientists working at LIGO in the US have detected gravitational waves, which are ripples in space-time. Is it possible?"  - That means that it has not been reported yet, but there are rumors of such a discovery.  It does not dismiss or contest the report since the announcement had not been made yet.  Thus it cannot refute a report that does not exist.

 

11 Feb 2016 - First announcement of discovery of gravitational waves by LIGO.

 

15 Jun 2016 - Second announcement of discovery of gravitational waves by LIGO.

I didn't mean gravity waves didn't exist. I meant we haven't proven it yet because you implied that we have. 

Edited by Super Polymath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean gravity waves didn't exist. I meant we haven't proven it yet because you implied that we have. 

Agreed.  We have strong evidence they exist (two separate observations of gravity waves from black hole mergers) but we'd need more evidence to say conclusively that they have been detected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.  We have strong evidence they exist (two separate observations of gravity waves from black hole mergers) but we'd need more evidence to say conclusively that they have been detected.

Actually we have little to no evidence that gravity waves exist. I don't believe that we understand what gravity really is, because it may not work like the other fundamental forces of nature, at all. This 

. Edited by Super Polymath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually we have little to no evidence that gravity waves exist. I don't believe that we understand what gravity really is, because it may not work like the other fundamental forces of nature, at all. This 

.

Can you give solid reasons for disregarding the research billvon is referring to? 

 

The fact you have started to talk about what you "believe" suggests you are more interested in your own notions than in evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you give solid reasons for disregarding the research billvon is referring to? 

 

The fact you have started to talk about what you "believe" suggests you are more interested in your own notions than in evidence. 

I haven't seen any legit astronomical evidence of gravity waves.

 

Evidence suggests gravitons wouldn't have mass. Consider the fact that mass is the very reason for gravity, it wouldn't really make sense if gravitons themselves had mass. Furthermore, all gravitational fields have velocity because the static is broken every moment because even the atoms of solids jiggle a little bit and collectively that adds up to a free boundary fluidization of gravitational fields. So if gravity has velocity, than it must be why we see this cosmic speed limit. What we haven't proven is the mass of photons, but they seem to have mass inversely proportional to their wavelengths according to several equations. So perhaps gravity is the source of the cosmic speed limit? Perhaps that's the speed at which gravity propagates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That suggests you indeed disregard the evidence billvon cited. What I was asking you was what solid reasons you can give for doing so. 

I couldn't find any legit confirmation from the deep web on a documented observation of gravity waves emanating from black hole collisions or neutron stars. In fact the white hole mishap (white holes were a ludicrous theory btw) was figured to be the result of a collision of a black hole and a neutron star, and that didn't give us a hint of any elusive gravity waves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't find any legit confirmation from the deep web on a documented observation of gravity waves emanating from black hole collisions or neutron stars. In fact the white hole mishap (white holes were a ludicrous theory btw) was figured to be the result of a collision of a black hole and a neutron star, and that didn't give us a hint of any elusive gravity waves. 

Deep web? What? Why? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Astronomy fascinates me.

Evidently. But you still have not given any good reason for dismissing the LIGO findings, (which are of course documented and you don't need to go to the "deep web" to find them) or for dismissing the finding of energy loss of the binary system that is also consistent with gravitational waves.

 

But never mind. I realise you have a "theory" of your own that you want to promote -  even if it does not seem to me to make any sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidently. But you still have not given any good reason for dismissing the LIGO findings, (which are of course documented and you don't need to go to the "deep web" to find them) or for dismissing the finding of energy loss of the binary system that is also consistent with gravitational waves.

 

But never mind. I realise you have a "theory" of your own that you want to promote - even if it does not seem to me to make any sense.

Being consistent with gravity waves doesn't mean anything at this point unless you can detect them. So either the upgraded LIGO isn't sensitive enough for the perfect black hole neutron star merger prolonged gamma ray burst, or gravity waves just weren't there. We've been going at this for decades.

 

Dare I say Einstein might have been wrong about certain aspects of gravity? He enriched our understanding of gravity, but he was

like the rest of us mortals.

 

They have to say that they saw consistent effects, it's their job. However, I'll tell you that a gravitational field just is a wave because it's never static because that would defy Newtonian expansion, but whatever.

Edited by Super Polymath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...