Mass and gravity :=)

Started by
18 comments, last by Mastaba 17 years, 6 months ago
Quote:Original post by D Shankar
Mastaba; although the Earth would continue orbit until the gravity wave (made up of gravitrons, correct if wrong) passes by, your reply deals with motion after decrease of gravity. What if there was no gravity to begin with? An earth not in motion can be affected by the sun only if the sun & earth exist (mass).

This is the micro explanation (most common). There might be a sub-micro (dealing with smaller than planet, mass), but people also explain this in a macro explanation, such as the quote above dealing with inner/outer-universe examples.

Where are you? Inside the universe or outside?


I refuse to address the metaphysical nature of the question. What matters is not what happens when there is no mass period, but what happens in our Universe (the only one that matters!), and in our Universe there is mass, and there is an observer of said mass.
.
Advertisement
Nice lots of answers =) Oh and I never thought about the "When the sun explodes" gravity goes away.. or does it? :P

Quote:
Can I ask the question, is it possible for space (which is pretty much nothing) to be sucked into a hole?
If the hole in nothing-space sucks up nothing-stuff made of nothingness, then it must be even more nothing than nothingness. So if space = 0, and space-gravity-hole = 0, then 0 < 0! Cool...

If space was nothing you wouldn't be able to travel through it. Also space wouldn't be able to bend if it was nothing. So space is something.
And the hole in the bathtub might not be a hole that goes to any place in particular, but might just be an inverted bump which pulls/draws the water and the duck to it for some reason.
Quote:Original post by angry
Nice lots of answers =) Oh and I never thought about the "When the sun explodes" gravity goes away.. or does it? :P

"Suddenly disappear" was the actual phrase, an event that would be significantly different from "explode"; the former is just a hypothetical, but not physically possible event (or so I speculate). Though I suppose the end result would be the same either way: We would die.
"We should have a great fewer disputes in the world if words were taken for what they are, the signs of our ideas only, and not for things themselves." - John Locke
To answer your question, there is evidence that mass bends space-time (gravity is the noticible effect of this bending) from tests of light being bent as it passes close to stars. A quick and well illustrated read is Stephen Hawkings "Universe in a Nutshell."

cheers,

Bob

[size="3"]Halfway down the trail to Hell...
You might educate yourself a little in current research about gravity, and about all constrains that are known. Gravity has NO aberration (proven by moon eclipse), thus the most simple explanation would be effect of central star disappearing would be immediately noticed. (even before light would disappear from the sky)

You are also talking about particles that highly likely doesn't exist. The hint could be distance at what gravity interacts.

Of course considering photons are momentum carriers, the gravitational lensing effects would work. On the other hand not all people believe that photons are massless.

Quote:Original post by Raghar
You might educate yourself a little in current research about gravity, and about all constrains that are known. Gravity has NO aberration (proven by moon eclipse), thus the most simple explanation would be effect of central star disappearing would be immediately noticed. (even before light would disappear from the sky)

You are also talking about particles that highly likely doesn't exist. The hint could be distance at what gravity interacts.

Of course considering photons are momentum carriers, the gravitational lensing effects would work. On the other hand not all people believe that photons are massless.


ESA.int : Relativity and the 1919 eclipse
Space.com article: Einstein's Warped View of Space Confirmed
.
Two links the second talks about effects that could be viewed as a spin affecting momentum carriers. The first talked about an old irrelevant experiment.

Quote:Original post by Raghar
Two links the second talks about effects that could be viewed as a spin affecting momentum carriers. The first talked about an old irrelevant experiment.


Care to explain yourself? Why is 1919 eclipse irrelevant? It's been verified during subsequent eclipses.
.
It was important not for only one theory, this behavior is actually expected by more different theories.

It actually didn't verify anything, it's just a gravitational lensing, they didn't know its unimportance however, so for them an experiment proving the light might be affected by gravity was an important experiment anyway.

I consider more important that research about passive mass, and other types of masses.
Quote:Original post by Raghar
I consider more important that research about passive mass, and other types of masses.


There is absolutely no observation to date that indicates an inequality between passive mass and active mass. Sure, there are mathematical hypotheses that outline the consequences of such an inequality, but those are absolutely useless without any verified, repeatable observations that show they are unequal. Indeed, there have been repeated observations looking for such an inequality, and they never find it, and instead set a maximum difference which is remarkably small, and getting smaller with each experiment.

Regarding other types of mass, I find it reckless to assume such things are even meaningful when present theory fully fits observations without such complexities added to the mix.
.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement