Dave R
  • Dave R
  • Toronto , Ontario
  • Canada

This conversation is closed.

Super Gravity Theory

Ok, from what I understand about gravity and the theory of relativity, along with string theory, is that if you took a small sphere of super dense material, then spun/rotated the sphere (on an axis like the earths daily rotation) fast enough (at incredible speed), could you not create gravity?

Closing Statement from Dave R

I just don't think you've spun it fast enough..

  • thumb
    Oct 24 2011: About your caption: " if you took a small sphere of super dense material, then spun/rotated the sphere (on an axis like the earths daily rotation) fast enough (at incredible speed), could you not create gravity?"

    I suggest that what you meant was actually the spinning/highly furious movement makes gravity which acts on it zero/null?
    Well this is correct and true, if the speed taken is equal to the speed of light which is around 299 792 458 m / s.

    More than that the rate of success for zero gravity is higher.
    Oh, and btw, search for Sean Caroll's info he shared regarding the arrow of time. It relates to super gravity, in my opinion. Chill out, the 'real' relativity theory of E=MC2 is perhaps Energy = Milk Chocolate Square :-)
    • thumb

      Dave R

      • +1
      Oct 24 2011: haha AWESOME!! I love chocolate milk!!
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2011: I love this debate. Mostly because it actualy IS a debate, believe it or not, about well explained phenomena. I have to admire Dave's creative input on this one, though. At the age of wikipedia, it's astonishing to find such a free spirit.
    • thumb
      Sep 28 2011: Copy-pasting the same posts to me and Thomas hardly constitutes a debate in my opinion.
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: Yes I know, I was being sarcastic. And I was stunned to read that one could, in our century, have a theory such as "rotating mass gravity" and actually debate about it. It seemed very easy to check for the right explanation. And Dave does have access to wikipedia, it seems, but probably not in his native tongue.

        It's like having a debate about whether the sun rotates around the earth.
        • thumb
          Sep 28 2011: Sadly these kind of conversations are becoming all too common.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: But by deflecting MY REAL QUESTION, with arguing over minor flaws in my unrelated understandings, you have not come close to even understanding/answering my ORIGINAL QUESTION/IDEA. Because irrelevant of whether movement causes gravity or not- we are trying to find out what would happen if you super rotated super dense material. Please actually contribute, or at least stay on topic IF you can understand the concepts that I am referring to, because as Brandon said, "This question seems to be directed toward string theory...which to my knowledge would make the question make perfect sense." and "Yes, the path i took to ask such a question, is far more complicated than I can present in an idea on ted.com- and I may have to write a paper to even let most people on here even understand. I am combining Relativity Theory and String Theory along with the Bozon Particle Theory. The cause of gravity aside- my original question remains. STILL- No one has said what would happen if you super-rotated the super dense material and WHY or WHY NOT!!" -quote Myself from when I wrote something good
      • thumb

        Dave R

        • 0
        Sep 28 2011: And so when YOU write similar things on different relplies, i HAVE to copy and paste, to save MY OWN TIME, how can I custromize the SAME RESPONSE just for you? SO just so you know this was copied from when you said the same thing below.-> "When the same answer applies to both questions/comments, I see no disrespect in posting twice, since over 50 comments can be somewhat tedious for a recreational conversation and replies can easily be missed. So by sending the same thing on different replies, both of you get an email notification and can both reply back to me, separately.. This was done intentionally to keep things a little more organized."
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2011: Hi Dave,

    We can say with an extremely high degree of certainty (about 100%) that gravity is not caused by spinning or by movement.

    It is an interesting idea. And you might want to pursue it further once you understand a little more about the basics of physics.

    I do not want to be rude but your understanding of physics is very, very rudimentary. Jumping in with a "Super Gravity Theory" is (pun intended) too great of a leap for you at this time.

    I think you will enjoy the DVD I mentioned ("The Elegant Universe" with Brian Greene.)

    Why don't you start there and see if it helps you understand your theory a little better?

    And keep on thinking. As you say, lots of "weird ideas" turned out to be true.

    Thomas
    • thumb

      Dave R

      • 0
      Sep 28 2011: "here's the way it works. time and space are warped by gravity, not the other way around. time is relative as per theory of relativity... since you cannot describe space without time or vice versa i will say space time. gravity is a phenomenon used to describe a super massive objects interaction with space time. which is to say our perception of space time. for something to have gravity it needs a shitload of mass. mass is in turn affected by acceleration(e=mc2). the faster something moves through space the more mass it gains.. once you are massive enough gravity happens and you start to affect time." -an expert
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: Hi Dave,

        You might want to check in with some different experts.

        You seem to be convinced your science is sound and I have no wish to cover any more basic physics with you - there are others who can do it much better than I.

        I would like to point out that your understanding of gravity and spacetime are not supported by current science. However, if you feel you are on the verge of a scientific breakthrough, I suggest you do the science (in this case, that would be: Do the math) and publish a paper. Then you can have some real scientists (not armchair scientists like me) review your paper and give you some real feedback.

        As it is, what you are writing (in words) is simply an idea, and wrong (based on the words you are using and the understandings you are conveying.) More words will not resolve the errors.

        As I say, I appreciate your willingness to think about these things but I have nothing more to add.

        Cheers.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: I appreciate your contributions to this conversation.. What I fear is that the actual topic/idea has been lost in the nit-picking of how I got to the question. Yes, the path i took to ask such a question, is far more complicated than I can present in an idea on ted.com- and I may have to write a paper to even let most people on here even understand. I am combining Relativity Theory and String Theory along with the Bozon Particle Theory. The cause of gravity aside- my original question remains. STILL- No one has said what would happen if you super-rotated the super dense material and WHY or WHY NOT!!
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: Hi Dave,

        Well it is an interesting topic (physics) and your perspective is certainly unique.

        Actually, both Matthieu and I have told you why your idea will not happen: Your fundamental premises are inconsistent with the current state of scientific understanding.

        To use a metaphor: If someone said that if we could accelerate an SUV fast enough we could fly it from New York to Shanghai (which is sort of true ... but not) how would you convince them that this was not true?

        What if they insisted, according to their understanding of Relativity Theory and String Theory along with the "Bozon Particle Theory," that it was true?

        It's not true because it's not true; dissecting Relativity, M Theory, and the "Bozon Particle Theory" are an unnecessary, and burdensome undertaking and unrelated to why an SUV can not be flown to Shanghai.

        Now, as I say, if you have a new theory you think is going to revolutionize physics as we know it, then yes, publish a paper, get it reviewed, and then come back and explain it to us (with the gaps filled in - right now, you have a lot of gaps in your understanding of basic physics ... or at least in your ability to express your understanding of basic physics. If you do not "fill in" these gaps, we will not be able to understand you.)

        So "the reason" your idea will not work is that, based on our current understanding of physics, many of your assertions are wrong. Now, it's possible that "physics," and physicists, are all wrong and you are right. It's possible. If you think you are. Do the science and then come back and tell us about it.

        --
        By the way, one reason we cannot fly an SUV to Shanghai - no matter how fast it is going - has something to do with this: V^2/2 + gz + P/P = constant. (Note: on this forum we cannot write superscript, etc. So V^2 means V-squared and so on.)

        What that means and how it's applied, I'll leave to you to figure out.

        I will give you a hint: Check out an 18th Century Dutch mathematician named Daniel Bernoulli.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: I'm just gonna attach a bowling ball to an upside down lawnmower and see what happens..
          ; )
  • thumb

    Dave R

    • 0
    Sep 28 2011: Any EXPERT opinions out there??
    • thumb
      Sep 28 2011: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience

      If you still persist in your delusions of grandeur after asking a scientist, you're a lost cause.
      • thumb

        Dave R

        • 0
        Sep 28 2011: Since when is asking a question considered mental instability?
      • thumb

        Dave R

        • 0
        Sep 28 2011: You do understand that everything that you are saying to me was said (in the same manner of blind closed-minded rejection to a new/different idea) to every great mind that had a revolutionary idea that didn't conform to the current 'accepted' reasoning of their time. By 'Scientists'. I loved how you used- it's like we're arguing about the sun revolving.. yes this would be very similar to the reactions of Galileo's 'peers'
        • thumb
          Sep 28 2011: Galileo's premise weren't flawed and his measurements were correct. Also the modern science methodology did not exist at the time, his opposition came mainly from the church which took a fancy to the idea that Earth must be the center of the universe because the Universe was created for them.

          Consider Newton's words: " If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." This is what science basically is. You cannot hope to advance science by knocking down a whole scientific edifice. All science builds on itself.

          At any rate, your protest is invalid as you yourself said: "from what I understand about gravity and the theory of relativity, along with string theory [...]" which means that you are conforming to previous scientific reasoning and not going against it. It is thus completely fair for Thomas and I to object to your conclusion given that your understanding of relativity is flawed.

          I say delusions of grandeur because, even though you've admitted that science is a hobby to you, you attach a lot of importance to your own ideas. Comments like: "Myself from when I wrote something good" or "and I may have to write a paper to even let most people on here even understand" are arrogant and condescending statements.

          This is definitely a place for ideas and there are many great ideas and opinions circulating here. However, when you enter a scientific debate, you must understand that you can be wrong and even though your idea excited you and you thought you were on to something and you don't want to let go, that's just the way it is.

          "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Feynmann

          I promise myself this is my last comment here. Reply if you must.
      • thumb

        Dave R

        • 0
        Sep 29 2011: I agree those comments were indeed "arrogant and condescending statements", please remember that they were a reaction to yours of the same tone. I was never refuting your right to make a statement or ask a question, or even not agreeing with you. I kept asking questions so that more ideas got to be thrown onto the playing field. Still, what other manner of reply did you expect to get, speaking the way that you did? Even a random person saw your arrogance as 'rude'.
  • thumb

    Dave R

    • 0
    Sep 28 2011: Why I think that movement causes gravity is that something superdense has more mass (but the sub-atomic particles tied to each piece of material are so close they have more movement- more of them- plus their structure is super tight, that's why they will have to try harder to get apart in density terms) so there is more movement in more mass, add more movement to the mass, something has to happen..
  • thumb
    Sep 27 2011: So of that sphere and ring were able to spin faster then the speed of light, could that potentially be a time travel device?
  • thumb
    Sep 27 2011: I still don't believe that your idea would have any noticeable effect on the warping around the object... BUT, I could be wrong, so I came up with a possible way to get an object to spin at highspeeds.

    Obviously it can't be done on earth, as the heat and friction caused by the rotation fighting gravity would mess it all up. So into outer space it goes. As every action has an equal opposite reaction, have a sphere, residing inside of a ring. Like saturn, surrounded by its rings. Have electromagnets lining the inside of the ring, and the edge of the sphere, where the two meet. Power up the magnets to cause the entire thing to spin. As the sphere spins one way, the ring would spin in the opposite direction. Given that they aren't actually touching, and they aren't competing with gravity... I have no idea what the outcome would be. I would suspect a catastrophic failure though. As the bending of the space could cause the two objects to meet.

    This is starting to make my head hurt.
  • thumb
    Sep 27 2011: "Ok, from what I understand about gravity and the theory of relativity, is that the Earth's gravity is caused by it's immense mass rotating"

    You might want to re-read your class notes.
    • thumb

      Dave R

      • 0
      Sep 27 2011: Gravity is "a consequence of the curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects." Einstien.
      • thumb
        Sep 27 2011: I see your quotation, I fail to see the connection with rotating masses causing gravity.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: "here's the way it works. time and space are warped by gravity, not the other way around. time is relative as per theory of relativity... since you cannot describe space without time or vice versa i will say space time. gravity is a phenomenon used to describe a super massive objects interaction with space time. which is to say our perception of space time. for something to have gravity it needs a shitload of mass. mass is in turn affected by acceleration(e=mc2). the faster something moves through space the more mass it gains.. once you are massive enough gravity happens and you start to affect time." -an expert
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: An expert? If that's some sort of attempt to impress me, it failed. I'm not swayed by arguments from authority. 'Shitload' is an interesting word for an expert to use. At any rate it is incorrect.

        "time and space are warped by gravity, not the other way around."

        Wrong. The warping of spacetime and gravity are two names for the same phenomenon. It is the warping of spacetime under the influence of an object's mass that gives it its gravitational properties. The whole metaphorical language used around spacetime, with the fabric of spacetime being deformed by bodies is meant to facilitate ones' understanding of what it going on.

        "gravity is a phenomenon used to describe a super massive objects interaction with space time."

        Wrong again. Even with Newton's early description of gravity, it was made quite clear that all bodies exert the force of gravity, not just massive ones. The massive bodies just exert more force because of their size. Believe it or not, while Earth is pulling on you, you're pulling on Earth, it's just that your pull is insignificant. Anything above the Planck scale (which signals the separation of the so far irreconcilable quantum theory and general relativity) can have a gravitational effect we can measure.

        I'd like to also point out that the statements: " time and space are warped by gravity, not the other way around." and "gravity is a phenomenon used to describe a super massive objects interaction with space time." contradict each other. In the first sentence gravity is the cause of spacetime warping and in the second gravity is the consequence of spacetime warping. Said expert should proofread his sentences to remain coherent.

        "mass is in turn affected by acceleration(e=mc2). the faster something moves through space the more mass it gains"

        No. E=MC2 is by no means a measure of acceleration but rather a measure mass-energy equivalence. Light is what travels the fastest in our universe and this is precisely because it is almost massless.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: Ok, let's play by your rules for the sake of progress (Let's say EVERYTHING you just said is true). What would happen if you super sped up mass? What would the phenomena do?
    • thumb

      Dave R

      • 0
      Sep 27 2011: Most of what I'm talking about has to do with fairly recent science theories.. Textbooks will always be outdated, in my opinion.
      • thumb
        Sep 27 2011: My point was that you're completely wrong.
        • thumb
          Sep 27 2011: Instead of just being rude you could offer some incite, seeing as how you know oh so much...

          This question seems to be directed toward string theory...which to my knowlage would make the question make perfect sense.
          If the Earth has gravity due to is massive mass a(being a planet) Then if you made a sphere the size of a planet and put it in space then I assume yes, it would have its own gravitational pull. But I do not believe its rotation has any effect with the gravitational pull, in fact to my knowledge isn't that just an effect of another masses (the sun) gravity on the earth?
      • thumb
        Sep 27 2011: Einstein's string theory? There's no such thing. As far as I know, Einstein has played no part in building the String theory framework. He certainly did look for a way to unify all of physics, but String theory was not his brainchild.

        The rotation of the Earth is most likely a product of many of the collisions that took place during its formation, particularly that collision which gave rise to the Moon. The Sun and other planets probably do have their part to play though as you suggested.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: not spinning, MOVEMENT.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: why i think that movement causes gravity is that something superdense has more mass (but the sub atomic particles tied to each peice of material are so close they have more movement- more of them- plus their structure is supertight that's why they hard to get apart in density terms) so there is more movement in more mass, add more movement to the mass, something has to happen
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: Something dense compared to something light of the same size has more mass because it packs in more matter. That's why it is called dense. That's as far as you need to go. Each time you claim something here, you add some sort of clumsy idea about movement that is simply unsupported by the science.

        Also, your Einstein quote is not an Einstein quote. It should say wikipedia. Maybe the problem is that you're reading "a consequence of the curvature of spacetime GOVERNED BY the motion of inertial objects." instead of "a consequence of the curvature of spacetime GOVERNING the motion of inertial objects.".

        Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is old enough to be taught in classrooms. That it was not taught in yours is a shame, but the good news is that there are many books and shows about it.!
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: "a consequence of the curvature of spacetime GOVERNING the motion of inertial objects." -this is most definitely what I am talking about.
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: Furthermore, movement is relative to which frame of reference you are using. If you change reference points, you could be deemed to be stationary or going at 67000 miles per hour. That's part of the reason Einstein's theory is called relativity.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: Yes and his theory says that an object gains mass when sped up. Mass gain leads to gravity amplification, in my opinion.
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: Ok, I just realized that you're not replying to me at all, you're just copy-pasting posts from one exchange to the next. That is extremely disrespectful. Jerk.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: When the same answer applies to both questions/comments, I see no disrespect in posting twice, since over 50 comments can be somewhat tedious for a recreational conversation and replies can easily be missed. So by sending the same thing on different replies, both of you get an email notification and can both reply back to me, separately.. This was done intentionally to keep things a little more organized. Name calling (in my experience) is childish.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: But by deflecting MY REAL QUESTION, with arguing over minor flaws in my unrelated understandings, you have not come close to even understanding/answering my ORIGINAL QUESTION/IDEA. Because irrelevant of whether movement causes gravity or not- we are trying to find out what would happen if you super rotated super dense material. Please actually contribute, or at least stay on topic IF you can understand the concepts that I am referring to, because as Brandon said, "This question seems to be directed toward string theory...which to my knowlage would make the question make perfect sense."
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: "Yes, the path i took to ask such a question, is far more complicated than I can present in an idea on ted.com- and I may have to write a paper to even let most people on here even understand. I am combining Relativity Theory and String Theory along with the Bozon Particle Theory. The cause of gravity aside- my original question remains. STILL- No one has said what would happen if you super-rotated the super dense material and WHY or WHY NOT!!" -quote Myself from when I wrote something good to Thomas.
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: Dude, don't tell me I have only fished out minor errors that detract from the subject. Your "an expert" quote (you really thought that writing "an expert" was going to fool anyone? That's a proper quote anyway, just like attributing wikipedia's entry on gravity wasn't a proper quote) is riddled with absolute inaccuracies which means that your entire premise is flawed. There is absolutely no point in discussing an idea if the premise it stands on is flawed.

        It's great that you've convinced yourself your supersmart and that as a result you allow yourself to be supersmug: "and I may have to write a paper to even let most people on here even understand" but you don't seem to know the first thing about general relativity.

        Brandon doesn't know the first thing about string theory and I have exposed that in a comment below his which you've apparently failed to look at. Einstein's string theory? There's no such thing.

        Your question is clearly routed in general relativity and not in string theory for two good reasons. One, we're talking about phenomena above the planck scale, so quantum mechanics has absolutely nothing to contribute here (string theory belongs to the realm of quantum mechanics). Two, String Theory is a mathematical model, it has not been proven to reflect reality, so to base anything on it is erroneous.

        I'm starting to feel like you're just some little internet troll having a good laugh at my expense so I am going to go ahead and leave this conversation.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: I most CERTAINLY did NOT write the "an expert" quote. but rest assured, the source is solid.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: so you're saying that gravity has nothing to do with quantum mechanics??!?!
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: When did I say "Einstein's String Theory: ??
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: ..and it was Thomas who suggested that I "write a paper".. but you didn't read that far, did you?
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: I won't take your word for it if that's what your hoping. A solid source would be correct at any rate and your source is wrong on multiple accounts. Einstein's string theory is what Brandon said, I'm pointing it out because you put your misplaced trust in him. Gravity's contribution at the quantum level is meaningless. Gravity is a very weak force. Yes I am saying that quantum mechanics and gravity are separate things, at least until they can be reunified.

        I think you ought to just stick with music. You're certainly not going to get your big break in science. I'll eat my favorite t-shirt if you do.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: Whether or not Brandon understands string theory, or even if you do/don't doesn't mean that I DO not understand it.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: Sir, you are confused, if you think that science is anything more than a hobby to me.. I asked a question that you couldn't answer.. You deflected the topic, tried your best debating skills on me and ended up calling names frustrated that you truly don't have any real answers. I do not feel bad for asking questions or trying to learn. You seem to think that you've already learned everything about everything.. and since there is no more for you to learn, it is YOU, that is smug. Upset that you wasted so much money on an education that hasn't actually done anything for you.
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: "Ok, from what I understand about gravity and the theory of relativity, along with string theory, is that if you took a small sphere of super dense material, then spun/rotated the sphere (on an axis like the earths daily rotation) fast enough (at incredible speed), could you not create gravity?"

        Here is your answer spelled out for you: No. Faulty premise, faulty conclusion, I thought it was obvious enough not to have to be made explicit. I answered the question with my very first comment, you're just being obstinate in reiterating premises that are incorrect.

        I am completely underwhelmed by your opinion of me after this debate, I know you're the only one who will read this conversation and come up with such bizarre conclusions about my debating style. I think that last sentence says more about you then it says about me to be honest, but I won't comment any further.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: So for sure, nothing would happen.. I only say what I think, trying to learn.. From what you have said, I understand that it isn't movement that causes gravity.. Someone on here mentioned that spacetime is affected by gravity, so is there a connection there? or do you think there would there be any other effects of speeding something up that fast? because I think that something gains mass when accelerated.. and I heard that time itself is perceived differently at different speeds with it slowing down the faster you move. Now if you picture the rotating sphere cut in half, the inner most parts are moving slower than the outer most parts, so there is a curve (if you were to graph the speeds of the different distances along the radius). If you think about the chain effect of the spacetime curve within a solid object, and focus on the point at which the sphere stops and the room begins, SOMETHING has to happen there.. or maybe not?
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2011: Hi Dave,

    You asked if any experts have an opinion. Wikipedia has this to say (you will note there is no mention of spinning:)

    -----------------
    Gravitation, or gravity, is a natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract with a force proportional to their mass. In everyday life, gravitation is most familiar as the agent that gives weight to objects with mass and causes them to fall to the ground when dropped. Gravitation causes dispersed matter to coalesce, and coalesced matter to remain intact, thus accounting for the existence of the Earth, the Sun, and most of the macroscopic objects in the universe. Gravitation is responsible for keeping the Earth and the other planets in their orbits around the Sun; for keeping the Moon in its orbit around the Earth; for the formation of tides; for natural convection, by which fluid flow occurs under the influence of a density gradient and gravity; for heating the interiors of forming stars and planets to very high temperatures; and for various other phenomena observed on Earth.

    Gravitation is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature, along with electromagnetism, and the nuclear strong force and weak force. Modern physics describes gravitation using the general theory of relativity by Einstein, in which it is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects.
    --------------

    Gravity may cause things to spin (or orbit); but spinning does not cause gravity.
    • thumb
      Sep 26 2011: I believe what Dave R is asking about, is the deformation of time and space, around a spinning object. He's asking that if an object was spun fast enough, could the bending of time and space noticeably alter the gravitational pull of the object.

      Where he's stumbling, is by believing that gravity is caused by the rotation, as opposed to the rotation modifying the gravity.

      I wish I could find more information on it, as I know the answer lies somewhere in our understanding of Mercury. Given the standard theory of gravity, Mercury requires a moon, which does not exist. There is a wiggle to its orbit around the sun, which falls outside of the range of the previous understanding of physics. The theory that was created to solve that problem, was that the rotation of the sun, bends the time and space around it. Mercury being so close to the sun is effected in a noticeable way while other planets are not.
    • thumb

      Dave R

      • 0
      Sep 27 2011: Ok Thomas, "a consequence of the curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects." This is the cause of gravity. This is what I am trying to find out, is if you can amplify this through incredible speed.
      • thumb
        Sep 27 2011: Hi Dave,

        No, the curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects is not the cause of gravity it is the result of gravity.

        The usual metaphor is to think of spacetime as a trampoline (or a mattress) it is flat and featureless. If we took a small marble and rolled it across the surface of the trampoline, it would roll straight across and fall off the edge. But if we put a heavy bowling ball in the middle it would make an indentation in the trampoline - it would warp it. Now, if we were to roll the same small marble across the surface, it will get "caught" in the warp in the trampoline, and instead of rolling across and off the edge, it will go around and around the bowling ball, orbiting it as the moon orbits the earth, the earth orbits the sun and so on.

        It is this "warping" of spacetime that results in planetary motion (orbits) and so on.

        Actually no one knows what gravity is (but we do know what it's not - and it's not "spinning") ... if you would like to get a better grasp of what we know (or think we know) you can watch a pretty good DVD called "The Elegant Universe" with Brian Greene. You can probably check it out of your local library.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 27 2011: It is not spinning alone.. however without movement (which is impossible)- at least on sub atomic levels- I say gravity wouldn't exist. And since this is all THEORY, reputable theory at that, we can believe what we were once taught, or we can explore other avenues of thought.. Some of which may not seem possible.. Think about the shift in science from an Earth centred universe to a heliocentric understanding of our solar system. Not everyone all of a sudden believed these absurd theories.. but in the end they remain theory.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 27 2011: ..aside from it being true LOL
        • thumb
          Sep 27 2011: "First, the planet's immense gravity field warps the space-time continuum. And secondly, Earth's rotation drags space and time along as the planet spins on its axis."

          "The "frame-dragging" effect, in which space-time is twisted by the Earth's rotation, accounts for about 37.2 milliarcseconds of warping each year, but the margin of error for that result is about 20 percent."

          "A milliarcsecond is the width of a human hair as seen from a distance of 10 miles."

          http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1105/05einstein/


          And because a "milliarcsecond" was a new term for me:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_of_arc#Symbols_and_abbreviations
      • thumb
        Sep 27 2011: Hi Dave,

        You seem to believe that gravity is caused by spinning and, regardless of what others say, you seem to think that gravity is caused by spinning.

        I have no problem with that.

        If you want to believe gravity is caused by spinning, you are certainly entitled to do so.

        But aside from what you think causes gravity, if you would like to understand what Greene, Hawking, Witten and others have to say about it, you might want to explore physics in a little more depth.

        As enticing as your idea seems to you, I doubt very much it will be embraced by the physics community anytime soon.

        I admire your willingness to think about these things and come up with theories that make sense to you.

        Now that you have a theory, why not check it against the science that we have already figured out and see what you think afterwards.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: not spinning, but MOVEMENT
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 28 2011: why i think that movement causes gravity is that something superdense has more mass (but the sub atomic particles tied to each peice of material are so close they have more movement- more of them- plus their structure is supertight that's why they hard to get apart in density terms) so there is more movement in more mass, add more movement to the mass, something has to happen
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2011: Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the forces created by the bending of time and space around rotating and moving objects, in conjunction with the standard theory of gravity (that it's based on mass), as opposed to entirely replacing it?

    The forces created by the bending, are but a fraction of the combined force. So small that it wasn't until it was noticed that the orbit of mercury doesn't quite fit with the standard theory. If we know what the entire core of the moon is made up of, then we should know if it's due to rotation or not. As the rotation of the moon is different from the rotation of the earth, and would then create vastly different equations on the cause of gravity.
  • thumb
    Sep 25 2011: If only spinning objects had gravitationnal force, then something not spinning (me right now) should not be attracted to the earth. We're not attracted to the earth, you see. The earth and us are mutually attracted.

    The spinning is irrelevant. Everything attracts everything else, no matter what. The sun over your head pulls you very slightly upwards, a pen is very slightly attracted to your hand as well. But this force is extremely weak compared with other forces.
    • thumb

      Dave R

      • 0
      Sep 25 2011: But you are spinning, and it is the earth mass and spinning that pulls you toward it while you seem to be standing still, you are in fact moving very quickly. About your hand gravitating a pen towards it- has this been proven? Even if so, you hand would still be creating the gravity through movement, if you hand was somehow without motion (impossible) it would have no gravitational force, even ever so slight. Like if the earth stopped spinning, we would all float out to space,
    • thumb

      Dave R

      • 0
      Sep 25 2011: What you seem to miss is that the creator of a gravitational force does not need the objects that it attracts to have gravitational force of their own.
      • thumb
        Sep 25 2011: the "creator of gravitational force"...

        You seem to know more about gravity than Newton himself. He didn't even know about the Creator of Gravitational Force (CGF)
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 26 2011: Newton lived a long time ago.. He believed it was due to an objects mass alone with his universal gravitation theory, sort of like the hand pen thing.. Einstein is a little bit more recent, and he proposed something NEW and if you apply Einstein's theory of general relativity, in which gravitation is an attribute of curved spacetime instead of being due to a force propagated between bodies, then you can think forward. In Einstein's theory, masses distort spacetime in their vicinity, and other particles move in trajectories determined by the geometry of spacetime. This allowed a description of the motions of light and mass that was consistent with all available observations. In general relativity, the gravitational force is a fictitious force due to the curvature of spacetime, because the gravitational acceleration of a body in free fall is due to its world line being a geodesic of spacetime.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 26 2011: And "the creator of A gravitational force" is an idea. the Earth would be the creator of a gravitational force in the sense when I used that phrase- NOT "Creator of Gravitation Force" or CGF lol
      • thumb
        Sep 26 2011: Then you do understand general relativity!
        The spacetime curbature works on everything too. Not on large spinning matter exclusively, although the most massive object around happens to be spinning. And the mass ratio between you and earth is so hudge that it really doesn't seem like you attract earth as well. But you do.

        This is what Einstein's ideas are about. Also, the course of light is bent around massive objects. Around you, too, but very lightly.
        I'm not making this up.
    • thumb
      Sep 26 2011: If something not spinning, didn't have gravity... Then venus would be in serious trouble. Given that it takes less time for it to orbit the sun (224 earth days), then it does for a single venus day (243 earth days).
  • Sep 25 2011: Sorry, i am layman with no knowledge when it comes to science . But my small opinion would be, You cant,

    1) Because earth rotates without any support . You can hold a sphere in space like the earth without anyone/anything holding to test your question. But on earth you cant test this
    2) Earths gravity may not only be due to the spinning, but also may be due to the axial tilt of about 23.4.


    You can test this in space outside earth's gravity maybe. When you do like that, it will also rotate like the earth in its own axis, because, when you spin a sphere, i believe that it will rotate and revolve on its own axis
    • thumb

      Dave R

      • 0
      Sep 25 2011: 1) Even if you were to support the earth, it would still have gravity.
      2) The angle of the axis is irrelevant, to the idea, because other planets still have gravity without the same axis.

      Any EXPERTS have an opinion??
  • thumb

    Dave R

    • 0
    Sep 25 2011: Any experts wanna weigh-in? Just to clarify, my idea/question was about rotating a small sphere of super dense material at incredible speed.
  • thumb
    Sep 25 2011: i think its possible, because i heard high and low tide is caused by the moons gravitational pull. thought id just add that. Also if you put water in a bucket, and that bucket on a rope, then spin it around your head, it won't pour out.
    • thumb
      Sep 25 2011: Yes, the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon.

      No, the spinning bucket does not hold the water by increasing its gravitational pull on the water.
      • thumb
        Sep 25 2011: cool but how are you so sure of second statement.
        I am asking if i am creating the gravity, that is holding the water in the bucket, by simply spinning it around my head.

        Gravity is still a little bit of a mystery and this man is asking or creating a super gravity theory (i could be wrong but still, i will satisfy my curiosity.)
        • thumb
          Sep 25 2011: The simple answer... The water remains in the bucket due to centrifugal force. That the water wants to move "away" from the center of rotation. You holding onto the bucket prevents the water from escaping.

          We can test the two theories actually. Take a bucket, and very loosely tape something to the bottom of it. So that it is just barely being held on. Fill the bucket with water, and spin it around. If the gravity of the bucket is increasing, then the object on the outside of the bucket would be drawn to it. It doesn't. What will actually happen, is the object taped on will be flung away while the water inside the bucket remains.
      • thumb

        Dave R

        • 0
        Sep 25 2011: Please note that I am not talking about swinging a sphere like an orbit (bucket on a string) I am talkiing about rotating the sphere like the daily rotation of the earth.
    • thumb
      Sep 25 2011: The tide is hard to explain, so I did my best to find a couple videos to demonstrate it.
      This explains the concept of the moon pulling the water (and the sun).

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH8gl76A_Ow

      While this one gives you an animated demonstration of it.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l37ofe9haMU
      • thumb
        Sep 25 2011: This is interesting, and a very good example with the moon.

        So wouldn't the earth be rotating around the sun because of the suns gravitational pull?
        When you leave the earth..boom no gravity..
        see?

        so gravity could be caused by rotation in my understanding.
        • thumb
          Sep 25 2011: Yes the earth (and all orbiting objects) revolve due to a combination of their inertia or momentum, and gravity.

          One thing about gravity needs to be corrected. It is not "boom no gravity". There is a set reduction in gravity as you get further and further away from the center of the earth. If you stand on a scale at sea, and stand on that same scale at the top of the highest mountain... you will weigh more at sea level which is closer to the center of the earth.

          Orbits are caused in a similar way to the water remaining in the bucket. A satellite orbiting the earth, wants to continue going straight. It wants to go straight for ever and ever, and never come back to earth ever again. But gravity is mean to it.

          Here... draw a circle, and lets call it earth. Now draw line directly through the middle of the circle, which is the diameter. Where the diameter meets the edge of the circle, draw a line perpendicular to the diameter. That line touches the circle, but never crosses it. That line is the trajectory the satellite WANTS to take. It wants to go straight, and allow the surface of the earth to curve away from it. Unfortunately gravity is mean to that poor satellite. For every meter/foot that the earth curves away, gravity pulls the satellite down a meter/foot. The satellite then adjusts itself to a new trajectory, so that it can again go straight and attempts to leave again, but again gravity pulls the satellite down. The two forces working in opposite to each other, lock the satellite into orbit. Where it is both unable to fly away like it wants, but also doesn't crash to earth like gravity wants. If the satellite wasn't moving, then it wouldn't have the inertia or momentum working to push itself away. Just like if you take the bucket and stop it directly over your head, the water doesn't have any momentum keeping it in the bucket anymore, and it comes down on top of you.

          Hope that helps.
      • thumb
        Sep 25 2011: Thanks for trying to help me comprehend. Space and universe still trips me out a bit...but i am not sure how it can travel 'straight'.

        Lets now say, i am spinning my bucket with water in it around my head, holding onto my rope. and i let the rope go.

        thats kinda what i thought would happen, if something left the earths gravitational pull.
        • thumb
          Sep 25 2011: Ok spinning bucket on a rope, and you let go of the rope?

          Well, if you attempt to let go of the rope, when the bucket is beside you and the rope is completely parallel to the ground... the bucket will fly straight up into the air, until gravity pulls it back down.
      • thumb
        Sep 25 2011: sooo is there gravity in space. or is space still and gravity created by rotating something through it.

        lets now say i am in space, out of the earths gravitational pull with the sun.

        i again have a bucket attached to a rope with water in it and i am spinning it around

        now i let it go.

        would it just chill there after the momentum has ended. until something created another gravitational pull near it, pulling it in again.
        • thumb
          Sep 25 2011: There is still gravity in space, but extremely small in comparison to on earth.

          Bucket on a rope while in space? Ok now you're pushing my memory to its limit.

          You begin spinning the bucket in a clockwise direction. You would spin in a counter-clockwise direction, as every action has an equal and opposite reaction. You let go of the rope when the bucket is beside you, and the rope is perpendicular to your height. The bucket would then fly "up" past your head. Except it would continue going. Having no air resistance to slow it down, and no significant force of gravity, there would be nothing to slow it down. As an object in motion wants to remain in motion. It will continue going straight until it encounters a gravitational pull strong enough to noticeably alter its direction. Which would be immediately as both the earth and the sun would want to pull it into orbit around themselves. Planets (and stars) are so greedy.

          Oh, I suppose you want to know about the water inside of the bucket. It stays there even after you let go of the bucket while in space, as the water is moving at the same speed as the bucket. Actually, it would be rather difficult to get it spinning in the first place, as the water would want to stay at rest when you begin to move the bucket. Just as an object in motion wants to remain in motion, so too does an object at rest want to remain at rest.

          Physics is actually rather simple if you can understand the explanation. It's hard to put the diagrams and experiments that I learned it from, into text and words though. It only begins to get confusing when you move into quantum physics and bending time and space... at that point it becomes mainly just theory work, as it's rather difficult to bend space in a classroom setting.
      • thumb
        Sep 25 2011: cool thanks for staying with me. i think that's as far as my understanding reaches at this point hehe.
  • thumb
    Sep 25 2011: My understanding of gravity was that it is strictly from mass. Rotation has no impact on it. If you take a bowling ball and spin it really quickly, it will still have the same gravitational pull as the stationary bowling ball.

    Admittedly, I only took physics in highschool, so perhaps they teach something different at the higher levels.
    • thumb

      Dave R

      • 0
      Sep 25 2011: Gravity is still a bit of a mystery, but current theory includes rotation/movement as part of it. Please note that I am not talking about swinging a sphere like an orbit (bucket on a string) I am talkiing about rotating the sphere like the daily rotation of the earth.
      • thumb
        Sep 26 2011: Orbit - The path followed by a celestial body or artificial satellite as it revolves around another body due to the force of gravity. Orbits are nearly elliptical or circular in shape and are very closely approximated by Kepler's laws of planetary motion.
        http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Kep3laws.htm

        maybe this helps.
        • thumb

          Dave R

          • 0
          Sep 27 2011: LoL ok you caught me there, clearly the string would be a perfect circle, therefore not EXACTLY an orbit.. Let's say, LIKE an orbit lolz