- Dave R
- Toronto , Ontario
- Canada
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
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?
Topics:
einstein gravity relativity science theory
Closing Statement from Dave R
I just don't think you've spun it fast enough..
Gloria Felicia
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 :-)
Dave R
Dave R
Matthieu Miossec 100+
If you still persist in your delusions of grandeur after asking a scientist, you're a lost cause.
Dave R
Dave R
Matthieu Miossec 100+
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.
Dave R
Gerald O'brian 50+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Gerald O'brian 50+
It's like having a debate about whether the sun rotates around the earth.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Dave R
Dave R
Thomas Jones 100+
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
Dave R
Thomas Jones 100+
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.
Dave R
Thomas Jones 100+
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.
Dave R
; )
Dave R
Mike Euverman
Mike Euverman
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.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
You might want to re-read your class notes.
Dave R
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Dave R
Matthieu Miossec 100+
"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.
Dave R
Dave R
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Brandon Santangelo
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?
Matthieu Miossec 100+
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.
Dave R
Dave R
Matthieu Miossec 100+
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.!
Dave R
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Dave R
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Dave R
Dave R
Dave R
Matthieu Miossec 100+
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.
Dave R
Dave R
Dave R
Dave R
Matthieu Miossec 100+
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.
Dave R
Dave R
Matthieu Miossec 100+
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.
Dave R
Thomas Jones 100+
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.
Mike Euverman
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.
Dave R
Dave R
Thomas Jones 100+
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.
Dave R
Dave R
Mike Euverman
"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
Thomas Jones 100+
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.
Dave R
Dave R
Mike Euverman
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.
Gerald O'brian 50+
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.
Dave R
Dave R
Gerald O'brian 50+
You seem to know more about gravity than Newton himself. He didn't even know about the Creator of Gravitational Force (CGF)
Dave R
Dave R
Gerald O'brian 50+
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.
Mike Euverman
Prakar Jeevan
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
Dave R
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??
Dave R
Benny boy
Mike Euverman
No, the spinning bucket does not hold the water by increasing its gravitational pull on the water.
Benny boy
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.)
Mike Euverman
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.
Dave R
Mike Euverman
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
Benny boy
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.
Mike Euverman
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.
Benny boy
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.
Mike Euverman
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.
Benny boy
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.
Mike Euverman
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.
Benny boy
Mike Euverman
Admittedly, I only took physics in highschool, so perhaps they teach something different at the higher levels.
Dave R
Benny boy
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Kep3laws.htm
maybe this helps.
Dave R