This conversation is closed.

Massive objects, spin, and gravity reduction.

According to my theory (I know...who doesn't have one) if a large object, like a planet (or any object that has gravity really) was spun at light speed, it would cease to bend space time. That is, its gravity would be offset by its spin. This theory is based on an assumption that existence of a static object is still movement; outward expansion, or the fourth dimension of "time", and that time dilation is really the reduction of the creation/consumption of space as a function of existence. That is, existence of any sort is movement, not location, and that the speed of light is where an object ceases to require a "where" or space to "be". This would also reconcile the wave/particle paradox. You don't know where the particle is because at light speed, it is "no where". It is light speed.

  • Mar 19 2013: 2nd part

    Saturn's diameter is about nine times greater than the Earth's
    It has 95 times the mass, which means it falls in place behind Jupiter, correctly.

    Uranus' diameter is four times that of the Earth's and
    It has 15 times the mass.
    That falls in line with my theory

    Neptune's diameter is slightly less than four times that of the Earth's
    It has 17 times the mass.

    Neptune seems out of place and I don't know why

    Pluto's diameter less than 20 percent that of the Earth's (smaller than the Earth's Moon)
    It has less than one percent the mass.
    That falls in line with my hypothesis.

    There are easy ways to test whether a planet sits in a higher or lower orbit, by comparing the fields to earths. All it would take is releasing space junk in each planets orbits, according to earths orbits. If objects spin away in a comparable high orbit, then that planet is sitting in a lower orbit, than earth.

    If junk is released in what our orbits show as low, but the junk stays there, that planet is sitting in a higher orbit.

    It is likely that the height of each planets high and low orbits will differ.

    Each planets orbits will likely be influenced not only by its higher or lower orbit, but also by mass, circumference, distance from the sun and the depth each planet sits in its own gravity well, so testing would not be so easy.

    Are there not always exceptions to the rules?

    Hypothesis by ,--

    Jim Ryan
  • Mar 19 2013: I have a different perspective.


    Original work
    Jim Ryan
    Supported by evidence

    Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be tin a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there, unlike space junk that is in lower orbits, where one object can hit another object and knock it out of orbit. However, everything in lower orbit will eventually fall back to earth., according to science. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth.

    The same applies to all planets orbiting suns , with respect to their mass and size, as the rocky worlds settled into their orbits, while the much larger planets settled further out, because they don't need as much gravity to hold their places. The suns repulsion gets stronger the closer a planet gets to it. That's why the smaller rocky planets with less mass in many cases, get closer to the sun. Pluto's size and mass leave Pluto where it belongs.

    Try also to consider not only how all but one of our planets align, according to mass and size, but how each one, supposedly blasted into existence during the Big Bang, but how each so easily slipped into its orbit. Don't you think we'd have at least a few crushed worlds hanging around somewhere?

    Looking at mercury, for it's size and mass, it fits my hypothesis.

    Venus fits, it is 10% smaller than earth.

    Earth fits correctly.

    Mars is one sixth the mass. While its diameter is half of earths., so that is questionable

    Jupiter's diameter is over ten times greater than the Earth's, but
    It has over 300 times the mass.

    The question becomes, does circumference trump mass in my gravities repulsion theory. Looking at the gas giants, I'd say yes, but I have more to consider.
  • thumb
    Mar 18 2013: Hi Zachary

    Matter can't travel faster than the speed of light, so I assume you mean that the gravitational pull of the object would reduce as the angular momentum increases and theoretically the body would cease to have a gravitational pull as the surface of the body reaches the speed of light.

    Neutron stars actually rotate extremely fast (up to ca. 700 revolutions pr. sec). There has been no detection of the gravitational pull decreasing.

    Actually if your theory was true neutron stars wouldn't exist. If the gravitational pull decreased due to its rotation, it would fall apart and the neutrons would decay.

    I hope this answers your question.
    • Mar 18 2013: Thanks Faisel,

      It then appears that my theory is correct. At least as it applies to stars and other spinning objects. If the star spun at light speed so that its atomic components were able to break away, Then it would disintegrate and thus very literally would lose its gravitational pull LOL. How is that for some tautological reasoning for you?:-)

      But seriously that is helpful because I had not thought about the effects of centrifugal force on my idea. I guess a better way to put it would be to ask: What would happen if you hurled the neutron star past an object with less mass; At a speed greater than the breakaway speed necessary For the object to escape the gravity of the star. Wiould the neutron star still pull the object to itself? If not then can we assume that there is something about speed which mitgatess the effect of the star's gravity? That is, movement changes the nature of the relationship of an object to its space in a way that effects gravity? And if so, why? What does movement do to space that would cause it to be "less" bent around an object that is moving?
      • thumb
        Mar 18 2013: Hi Zachary

        I accidently wrote "matter can travel faster than the speed of light"; obviously I meant "can't".

        Gravitation and curved space-time is described in Einstein's General theory of relativity. Here is a quick, easy to understand introduction in three parts:
        • Mar 18 2013: Hi Faisel,

          Yeah...that's what I thought you meant. :-)

          Yes, thanks for the references. Obviously my example is purely hypothetical. My guess is that once the star moves so fast past the smaller object it becomes more of how fast the smaller object moves past the star, even though the star is the object moving. But then what does this say about what gravity is a function of? In keeping with the mathematics of relativity, why or how does the theory still remain true even thought in my hypothetical example the massive star is the object in motion relative to the smaller object. I fully accept Einstein's equations and theory. But how does motion mitigate the space time around the big object so that the relevant movement is no longer the larger objects but the smaller's, in order that Einstein's theory stays true?

          Does this make sense?
      • thumb
        Mar 18 2013: In the case of the two objects moving at constant speed you can only say that they are moving relative to each other. There is no absolute space.
        • thumb
          Mar 19 2013: Thank you, Faisel, for helping Zachary with this and for providing links to further resources.
        • Mar 19 2013: Yes. Exactly my point. My submission is this: the reason space is not absolute is because space itself is not an entity that exists and functions separately from the objects which move through it. Space itself is a function of the objects which move through it...meaning it is created/consumed by objects as a function of their existence. It is a manifestation of an object's state of existence; and existence is movement (or at least it must be if space is a byproduct). The fourth dimension then more specifically an object moving not linearly, but outwardly. And the more there is of an object (mass) the more space it makes/consumes. This outward movement is mitigated by movement in another direction. Thus, the faster an object moves linearly the less space it uses per moment if existence. This explains time dilation because time is a function of space. The less space, the less time, relative to a slower object. I also submit that gravity is thus outward movement in the fourth dimension/ direction. Gravity is not so much objects pulling on other objects, but objects of greater mass density "running into" other objects which fall into their paths of outward movement. Then bending of space time is the practical observation and measurement of this phenomenon.
      • thumb
        Mar 22 2013: Hi Zachary

        It is a common interpretation of the General theory of relativity that matter (mass) causes space-time to curve and this curvature governs the motion of matter.

        I don't think you can establish a causality between this and space not being absolute. If absolute space doesn't exist it is clearly a human invention. Therefore you cannot assume that space-time would be absolute, had it not been for x and y.

        I am not sure what you mean by outward movement or fourth dimension.

        Time dilation is a direct consequence of the speed of light being measured as having the same speed regardless of inertial frame of reference. It can be deducted directly from this, as Einstein did in his special theory of relativity.

        So, time dilation has been predicted by the special theory of relativity and calculated down to micro seconds (in GPS systems for instance). If you did not know about time dilation, you would not be able to predict or calculate it from your thought experiment. You know about time dilation from the theory of relativity and are then trying to rationalise it through thought experiments that don't necessarily support it.

        If you are interested in this subject matter, why don't you spend some time familiarising yourself with the existing theories?
        • Mar 22 2013: Faisel,

          Forgive me but, are you a physicist? I have concerns about some of my points which you admit you fail to underatand, and what appears to be incorrect conclusions and assumptions about my ideas.

          You mentioned my "thought experiment". That concerns me because an idea or hypothesis is not an experiment. If you are considering it thus, then you will not correctly grasp the nature of my points, perspectives, questions, deductions, etc.. We need to properly frame the conversation or there can be no rational point to it.
      • thumb
        Mar 22 2013: Listen, mate.

        I'm trying to give you some constructive feedback. And as I mentioned in previous message it is hard to extract what you actually mean. It is closer to someone thinking out loud than a coherent theory.

        I suggest you follow Fritzie's advice and take it to a physics forum. But you might want to adapt are more friendly tone towards those who take their time to review your proposal.

        Good luck.
        • Mar 22 2013: Faisel,

          Er...exactly why are you angry? My "tone"? How did you deduce tone? I asked you simply if you were a physicist. I explained that your admitted failure to understand my question fully undercuts your "constructive" criticism for obvious reasons. You are drawing assumptions based on incorrect interpretations. That frames the conversation in a way as to make it irrelevant. Further, if you are not a physicist then I must not assume that your advice is perfectly salient. That was Fritzie's point and why I was going to visit a physics forum until you chimed in.
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2013: Hi, Zachary. Remember that this is not a convergence of experts in physical science. Lots of people's ideas of what science says and what science thinks will be incorrect or misinterpretations.

    Still, it can be fun to hear popular opinions about what science suggests or what scientists think!

    If you want authoritative answers, you should check with authoritative sources. I like to direct people to the American Physical Society. They have links to Ask a Physicist sites.
    • Mar 16 2013: Hi Fritzie,

      Thanks very much for the info. I'm not a physicist, more of a philosopher, but I feel that in order to get my metaphysics right I need to have some of my physics assumptions vetted. Honestly, though, I am a bit terrified of physics forums. A little gun shy there. Looking for some general opinions regarding my question by some other fellow thinkers. I have no interest in bludgeoning with assumptions though. I am more than willing to accept that my assumptions are just...well, bad. But so far I have not arrived at any other conclusions based on what I know of physics and existence. So...yeah, just looking for some other general perspectives.
      • thumb
        Mar 16 2013: I understand. I just don't want you to think this is a reliable place to get your physics vetted! You will sometimes get really confident sounding explanations and claims here refering to what scientists supposedly believe or have found, and it will be recognizable to any physical scientist, but not maybe to you, as comically and absurdly incorrect.

        If you are terrified of science sites, just introduce yourself as a student, and I think you will get a student-pitched explanation. You can use a pseudonym.

        I wish my younger daughter had time to reply to you, because she does quantum physics.

        There is great wisdom here in lots of other areas.
        • Mar 16 2013: Thanks Fritzie. I understand; and that makes perfect sense. I'll gird my loins and wade into the physics forums.LOL :-)
  • Mar 16 2013: So...would an object spun at light speed cease to bend space time. That is, cease to have gravity?