TED Conversations

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?

Share:

Closing Statement from Dave R

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

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • 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?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.