• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Gravity Fake?

makmugens

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
271
Reaction score
58
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LOL, I know, I know. It sounds like a ridiculous question to entertain in the slightest. Please hear me out, the more open-minded.

We are told that gravity is what keeps the planets in orbit and it is a principal force or energy in the universe. I've always had a problem with this concept.

1. Why doesn't the moon ever get any closer or further away? Why doesn't anything? Everything seems to keep moving on the same track. This implies, more or less, the same constant speed and trajectory. This is implying perpetual motion. How can something continuously move and not lose speed? Not waver? Gravity is energy but it doesn't apply or retract it's energy to keep a thing going in constant motion. Although to us the planets are moving fast, relative to themselves they are crawling through space. Swinging around one another on an invisible tether. But this movement creates momentum in which the orbiting object is always being pushed outward. If gravity were constant and, say, the moon was in our field, than just like something caught in a black hole, the moon would slowly but surely draw closer and closer to us until it crashed into us. But this doesn't happen. Why?

2. Is Gravity a constant form of energy? They say that gravity is dependent on mass. But if gravity is dependent on mass and the mass stays the same, that means the gravity is exerted continuously merely based on the mass of an object. An energy of attraction is constantly exerted whose intensity is proportional to it's mass. Constant energy. I can never bridge this concept in my head.

3. Black Holes are one of the greatest examples of gravity we have...theoretically. Supposedly it has a force that is able to draw in anything that comes within the event horizon- meaning the point at which even light can escape. There are a number of questions here. If the event horizon exists at a certain point, does that mean that closer to the core the pull is even greater and things exceeding the speed of light can be pulled in?

Two, I have often seen pictures of giant poles of radiation escaping from the poles of the Black Hole. If those pictures are true, how? If nothing can go beyond the speed of light and the Black Hole pulls everything in traveling at the speed of light (especially from its own central area i would think) then it would seem that either these radiation geysers are being expelled at speeds beyond the speed of light or that gravity is not as strong as light or it doesn't exist or exist in the way we think.

Perhaps we can't explain it because, in some way, it does not exist. Or the explanations are wrong? Something is wrong?

Any thoughts to add? It's a topic I can talk forever about.
 
Last edited:
1. Why doesn't the moon ever get any closer or further away? Why doesn't anything? Everything seems to keep moving on the same track. This implies, more or less, the same constant speed and trajectory. This is implying perpetual motion. How can something continuously move and not lose speed? Not waver?

A spinning object will stay spinning until a force acts to slow it down. If you pick up a bike and spin one its tires, the tire tries to spin forever. But there's friction in the bearings that slowly bleeds away the roational kinetic energy of the tire eventually causing it to stop. The moon is like a super massive bike tire spinning on some really really good bearings (there's really no resistive force bleeding away at the moon's rotational energy, so the moon will keep whipping around us for billions of years).

Gravity is energy but it doesn't apply or retract it's energy to keep a thing going in constant motion. Although to us the planets are moving fast, relative to themselves they are crawling through space. Swinging around one another on an invisible tether. But this movement creates momentum in which the orbiting object is always being pushed outward. If gravity were constant and, say, the moon was in our field, than just like something caught in a black hole, the moon would slowly but surely draw closer and closer to us until it crashed into us. But this doesn't happen. Why?

This is called orbit. An object that is in orbit is moving at just the right velocity so that its centrifugal force (that's the "force", really its just momentum but its useful to think of it as a force, that's trying to fling the object outward in a straight line like when mud flings off of a spinning bike tire) balances the gravitational force trying to pull the object inward. Since the forces are balanced, the object doesn't move inward or outward, it just keeps going around in a circle.

2. Is Gravity a constant form of energy? They say that gravity is dependent on mass. But if gravity is dependent on mass and the mass stays the same, that means the gravity is exerted continuously merely based on the mass of an object. An energy of attraction is constantly exerted whose intensity is proportional to it's mass. Constant energy. I can never bridge this concept in my head.

No offense intended, but you have some kind of convoluted ideas of energy and gravity. It would probably do you some good to just read some wiki pages on energy and gravity to get a better idea of the general concepts. Gravity is not a form of energy, not in the rigorous scientific sense of the word energy anyway.


Black Holes are one of the greatest examples of gravity we have...theoretically. Supposedly it has a force that is able to draw in anything that comes within the event horizon- meaning the point at which even light can escape. There are a number of questions here. If the event horizon exists at a certain point, does that mean that closer to the core the pull is even greater and things exceeding the speed of light can be pulled in?

I'm not sure I understand, what "things exceeding the speed of light" are you referring to? Nothing should be going faster than c. Inside the event horizon, the strength of gravity of the black hole continues to increase until it reaches a singularity. What happens beyond the singularity we don't know.

Two, I have often seen pictures of giant poles of radiation escaping from the poles of the Black Hole. If those pictures are true, how? If nothing can go beyond the speed of light and the Black Hole pulls everything in traveling at the speed of light (especially from its own central area i would think) then it would seem that either these radiation geysers are being expelled at speeds beyond the speed of light or that gravity is not as strong as light or it doesn't exist or exist in the way we think.

The radiation that you're referring to is not actually being emitted from within the event horizon. The radiation you're referring to is radation emitted from all the matter that's getting close to the black hole but has not yet crossed the event horizon. However, when you're looking at the black hole from far away, it just looks like the geysers of radiation are coming from the balck hole itself.

There is a type of radiation, however, that black holes do emit called Hawking radiation. Black holes slowly bleed this radiation out until they completely evaporate.
 
If I recall the flaw in Einstein's theory of general relativity is that it doesn't explain what gravity is or the big bang. It can explain everything down to the point of the singularity but it doesn't explain the singularity event or what occured before it. But science has discovered that the further away from the big bang, the weaker gravity gets, which suggests that gravity has mass and energy. One theory that I like thinking about is that the big bang was caused by two or more universes colliding and that gravity was a dimension from one of the colliding universes. Yes, I like thinking and visualizing about this stuff too but I can see that you've given it a lot more thought than me. :)
 
Admittedly, I only have a rudimentary understanding, but the gist I garnered from Einstein’s work, and others, is that gravity is the bending of space. In much the same way if you and I stretch a bed sheet out between us and somewhat sets a bowling ball in the center of it, the sheet will bend, causing it to dip. It seems things like stars and planets do the same thing to space, only it is three demensitonal. Actually, it is probably four dimensions since time passes slower near a gravity well, relative to elsewhere.

So, if space is bent around the Earth, the Moon could be moving in a straight line, but the curvature of space around the Earth makes the trajectory orbital. So, to me, it is wrong to think of gravity as being some sort of energy. In some ways I don’t even think it is a force, though practically speaking it acts that way. I think it is just the manifestation of how the curvature of space affects bodies.

That might just be me talking out of my ass though.

As for things not getting closer or farther away, you have to remember that objects that have landed themselves in an orbit are the rare exception. Most things either keep moving on their way through space, or they get caught in a gravity well and get sucked into a star, black hole, planet, or moon. So the celestial bodies that are orbiting other celestial bodies are just the “lucky” ones that ended up in the sweet spot.

And, actually, the moon is getting farther away by a few centimeters a year. But my understanding is this is caused by tidal forces and if the Earth were dry that might not be the case.
 
A spinning object will stay spinning until a force acts to slow it down. If you pick up a bike and spin one its tires, the tire tries to spin forever. But there's friction in the bearings that slowly bleeds away the roational kinetic energy of the tire eventually causing it to stop. The moon is like a super massive bike tire spinning on some really really good bearings (there's really no resistive force bleeding away at the moon's rotational energy, so the moon will keep whipping around us for billions of years).

This is called orbit. An object that is in orbit is moving at just the right velocity so that its centrifugal force (that's the "force", really its just momentum but its useful to think of it as a force, that's trying to fling the object outward in a straight line like when mud flings off of a spinning bike tire) balances the gravitational force trying to pull the object inward. Since the forces are balanced, the object doesn't move inward or outward, it just keeps going around in a circle.

I don't see where there is balance. Let's consider the moon is moving through a field absolutely absent of restriction- being acted on by no force whatsoever. The object would then conserve it's initial momentum and trajectory but the trajectory would be vectoral, going in a more or less straight line, not circular or elliptical. This is where you bring gravity in, right. What you are saying is that at a certain speed the Earth's gravity catches hold of the Moon and holds it in a permanent orbit. It attracts the object moving around it until there is a balance between the two forces. The Moon keeps going because it is absent of any impeding force. It stays in place because of gravity. But gravity is the impeding force. The force of gravity is perpendicular to the axis of momentum. This is like flying through a vacuum absent of any force except a suction that pulls from your side. While your momentum allows you to hold out against it briefly, you will eventually be pulled further and further towards the center.

No offense intended, but you have some kind of convoluted ideas of energy and gravity. It would probably do you some good to just read some wiki pages on energy and gravity to get a better idea of the general concepts. Gravity is not a form of energy, not in the rigorous scientific sense of the word energy anyway.

You would not know I take that as a compliment, lol. I think the problem is that you are relying on those general concepts you read from wiki. I don't consider an absolute authority on anything...a bible, as it were. You should try forming your own opinion sometimes. And I really do not mean offense by that.

I'm not sure I understand, what "things exceeding the speed of light" are you referring to? Nothing should be going faster than c. Inside the event horizon, the strength of gravity of the black hole continues to increase until it reaches a singularity. What happens beyond the singularity we don't know.

By exceeding the speed of light I mean objects or whatever that can go faster than the speed of light. Why can't something go beyond the speed of light? If light were 100mph, why can't it go 1001...1002?

Similarly, there is many things before the singularity we don't know. The research is based on a certain mathematical observation, not a direct one. It examines the mathematics of things around it and compares it to known info. History is sort of full of examples of how that can go wrong. I'd say there was room for misinterpretation all around.

The radiation that you're referring to is not actually being emitted from within the event horizon. The radiation you're referring to is radation emitted from all the matter that's getting close to the black hole but has not yet crossed the event horizon. However, when you're looking at the black hole from far away, it just looks like the geysers of radiation are coming from the balck hole itself.

That makes a bit more sense except that the material around a black hole is spinning, itself, is it not. If energy were escaping the objects around the black hole than wouldn't it be radiated from it in a circular form like light from a light bulb? Why a geyser or plume? Certainly energ is not gathered into the poles and jettisoned. The shape of the geyser- narrow at the bottom and broader at the top means that the material was launched with speed from a specific position and continued until the initial velocity waned. Yes, it distinctly looks like that. Two geysers perpendicular to the rotating mass of matter orbiting the black hole.

There is a type of radiation, however, that black holes do emit called Hawking radiation. Black holes slowly bleed this radiation out until they completely evaporate.

Yes, that is my point. That radiation travels at the speed of light. How can light avoid the suction of all things at and perhaps beyond the speed of light. I could see Hawking radiation more clearly as the radiation from the material that has bunched up but not entered the event horizon, but after that point, the rule should be uniform. You may enter but you can never leave.
 
I've known gravity to be a bit insincere at times, but I wouldn't call it fake.
 
The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate of 38mm per year. It does so because of gravity.
 
Ooo, sounds gravity let you down?

Believe me, Moot -- when you get to be my age, gravity is certain to let you down, too.
 
Gravity isn't strictly a form of energy, but rather a field effect like magnetism, and the attraction/repulsion between opposite/same charges + and -.

Currently our science isn't entirely sure what gravity IS in a fundamental sense. We can decribe what it DOES.... "mass exerts a pull on things".... we can theorize based on these observations (Einstein viewed gravity as a curving of space-time)... but we can't say what it is exactly or precisely WHY it does what it does. No Graviton particle has yet been detected, to my knowlege.

Until the day comes that a GUT or Unified Field Theory is proven to be correct, gravity remains something of a "Black box puzzle" to us.... we can see the inputs and the outputs, but not the process.
 
Admittedly, I only have a rudimentary understanding, but the gist I garnered from Einstein’s work, and others, is that gravity is the bending of space. In much the same way if you and I stretch a bed sheet out between us and somewhat sets a bowling ball in the center of it, the sheet will bend, causing it to dip. It seems things like stars and planets do the same thing to space, only it is three demensitonal. Actually, it is probably four dimensions since time passes slower near a gravity well, relative to elsewhere.

So, if space is bent around the Earth, the Moon could be moving in a straight line, but the curvature of space around the Earth makes the trajectory orbital. So, to me, it is wrong to think of gravity as being some sort of energy. In some ways I don’t even think it is a force, though practically speaking it acts that way. I think it is just the manifestation of how the curvature of space affects bodies.

That might just be me talking out of my ass though.

As for things not getting closer or farther away, you have to remember that objects that have landed themselves in an orbit are the rare exception. Most things either keep moving on their way through space, or they get caught in a gravity well and get sucked into a star, black hole, planet, or moon. So the celestial bodies that are orbiting other celestial bodies are just the “lucky” ones that ended up in the sweet spot.

And, actually, the moon is getting farther away by a few centimeters a year. But my understanding is this is caused by tidal forces and if the Earth were dry that might not be the case.
Just as we look back on a previous century's scientific theories and laugh, postclassical physics will be a joke in some future century. For space to be able to bend it must be material, a substance. But scientists claim it is nothing and made out of nothing. My theory is that there is an outside dimension in which gravitons, not perceptible in our dimensions, bring bodies closer in a kind of boomerang effect. These gravitated bodies are the extension of the 3D bodies that we can perceive in our dimensions. Newton's theory describes a linear process but uses powers greater than one. It is a contradiction if there is not another dimension involved, just as e=m(c squared) contradicts c as the fastest velocity possible. C squared may be the speed of light in the underlying dimension, covering 6 light-years a second underneath the 3D world.
 
If I recall the flaw in Einstein's theory of general relativity is that it doesn't explain what gravity is or the big bang. It can explain everything down to the point of the singularity but it doesn't explain the singularity event or what occured before it. But science has discovered that the further away from the big bang, the weaker gravity gets, which suggests that gravity has mass and energy. One theory that I like thinking about is that the big bang was caused by two or more universes colliding and that gravity was a dimension from one of the colliding universes. Yes, I like thinking and visualizing about this stuff too but I can see that you've given it a lot more thought than me. :)
Like most of modern physics, the Big Bang and the Black Hole are impossible, illogical, and imaginary. Just mind candy for those who like to say, "Wow!" Matter cannot be concentrated to such a density. These are really volcanoes from an outside dimension, the Big Bang erupting into ours and the Black Hole exploding back to where all matter came from.
 
The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate of 38mm per year. It does so because of gravity.
It's the water. If the earth didn't have oceans, the moon would be drawing closer to the earth instead of receding away. So the movement of the oceans perhaps sending out motion like waves is pushing the moon away. Or maybe the water acts as a magnetic field pushing the moon away. Mind you I'm just surmising here.
 
Last edited:
LOL, I know, I know. It sounds like a ridiculous question to entertain in the slightest. Please hear me out, the more open-minded.

We are told that gravity is what keeps the planets in orbit and it is a principal force or energy in the universe. I've always had a problem with this concept.

1. Why doesn't the moon ever get any closer or further away? Why doesn't anything? Everything seems to keep moving on the same track. This implies, more or less, the same constant speed and trajectory. This is implying perpetual motion. How can something continuously move and not lose speed? Not waver? Gravity is energy but it doesn't apply or retract it's energy to keep a thing going in constant motion. Although to us the planets are moving fast, relative to themselves they are crawling through space. Swinging around one another on an invisible tether. But this movement creates momentum in which the orbiting object is always being pushed outward. If gravity were constant and, say, the moon was in our field, than just like something caught in a black hole, the moon would slowly but surely draw closer and closer to us until it crashed into us. But this doesn't happen. Why?

The moon IS moving further away

2. Is Gravity a constant form of energy? They say that gravity is dependent on mass. But if gravity is dependent on mass and the mass stays the same, that means the gravity is exerted continuously merely based on the mass of an object. An energy of attraction is constantly exerted whose intensity is proportional to it's mass. Constant energy. I can never bridge this concept in my head.

No, it falls off with distance, it's a 1/r^2 quantity

3. Black Holes are one of the greatest examples of gravity we have...theoretically. Supposedly it has a force that is able to draw in anything that comes within the event horizon- meaning the point at which even light can escape. There are a number of questions here. If the event horizon exists at a certain point, does that mean that closer to the core the pull is even greater and things exceeding the speed of light can be pulled in?

Nothing with mass can exceed the speed of light. Gravity does increase as you get closer (1/r^2 remember), but past the event horizon space-time warps significantly.

Two, I have often seen pictures of giant poles of radiation escaping from the poles of the Black Hole. If those pictures are true, how? If nothing can go beyond the speed of light and the Black Hole pulls everything in traveling at the speed of light (especially from its own central area i would think) then it would seem that either these radiation geysers are being expelled at speeds beyond the speed of light or that gravity is not as strong as light or it doesn't exist or exist in the way we think.

The very short answer is that those high energy jets are created outside the event horizon.

Black holes also evaporate, did you know that?
 
It's the water. If the earth didn't have oceans, the moon would be drawing closer to the earth instead of receding away. So the movement of the oceans perhaps sending out motion like waves is pushing the moon away. Or maybe the water acts as a magnetic field pushing the moon away. Mind you I'm just surmising here.

It's tidal force, and the moon recedes due to conservation of angular momentum. Essentially tidal forces distort the "shape" of the earth (it "pulls" if you will on the oceans and bulges the oceans towards the moon, which is how we get our tides). The break of symmetry means that the tidal force can actually produce a torque on the moon, and that torque slows it's angular velocity. In order, then, to conserve angular momentum, the moon must increase its radius of orbit. It's also why the moon is tidal locked to the Earth and why the Earth's day gets longer as the moon recedes.
 
Last edited:
Until the day comes that a GUT or Unified Field Theory is proven to be correct, gravity remains something of a "Black box puzzle" to us.... we can see the inputs and the outputs, but not the process.

We can sure as hell feel it's effects, though.:)
 
Like most of modern physics, the Big Bang and the Black Hole are impossible, illogical, and imaginary. Just mind candy for those who like to say, "Wow!" Matter cannot be concentrated to such a density. These are really volcanoes from an outside dimension, the Big Bang erupting into ours and the Black Hole exploding back to where all matter came from.
Now don't be too hard on physicists, they actually have to do math to back up their hypothesis. Backing up one's imagination with math is a sight to behold. All I can do is reason and visualize, but don't knock it because Edgar Allen Poe was the first to connect space and time as a single unit and he did it without using any math, instead he just reasoned it out.

I'm not so sure if matter can't be condensed down to a tiny density, after all isn't that what causes super nova's?

But I do like your theory that black holes are volcanoes erupting into ours from an outside dimension or visa versa. I've never thought of it that way before, so I'll have to give it more thought. To me, black holes at certain angles look more like spinning disk shaped tops sucking the surrounding matter into their center and condensing it so tight that light can't escape. Not sure how the worm hole theory works but your volcano theory might fit in.

I like the visualization that the universe is made up of membranes and the membranes are dimensions the can over lap and move in and out of other membrane/dimensions and the black holes are like pores in the membranes. Now I'm think I might be talking string theory. But here's a picture I think comes closest to the way I would visualize the universe(s) if we could see all the dimensions, gases, waves, etc....

stock-photo-mild-galaxy-with-many-black-holes-or-it-is-just-creamy-sponge-8914243.jpg


seqD_063a_small.jpg


Kinda like the inside of a cellulose sponge.
 
Last edited:
I've known gravity to be a bit insincere at times, but I wouldn't call it fake.

Well, I didn't mean that gravity is fake. I know it exists, but I am not sure about all the things gravity or is suppose to explain. While no one is sure about gravity everyone seems so sure of their concept of it.

But like Goshin said, Gravity, along with the Big Bang, Evolution, and a bunch of other things we take as fact is just theory. An unproven assumption sophisticated enough to be given attention. Like the Moon. I looked it up this morning, looking for anything on the web to show if anyone had any similar problems and it turns out I am not the only one. There are some considerable breakdowns when i comes to explaining the logic of the Moon orbiting the earth at all.

One...planetary satellites are usually much smaller in size than the planet itself. Probably like 32 times smaller. Ours is one fourth our size. It is immense, large enough to be called a small planet in itself. Earth's gravitational field is week so how can the earth hold the Moon in orbit. This one question underscores the gap in questioning that should be present when we learn about these things in school. These are not new questions but old ones that have been ignored for whatever reason.
 
No, it falls off with distance, it's a 1/r^2 quantity

You are talking about the force in relation to distance, but as for the force itself, is that constant? For example...will the Earth ever run out of a gravitational field or is it something that just is because of it's mass/density?

Nothing with mass can exceed the speed of light. Gravity does increase as you get closer (1/r^2 remember), but past the event horizon space-time warps significantly.

You are just repeating someone else's inconclusive theory. I highly doubt we have the ability to test such a theory absolutely.

The very short answer is that those high energy jets are created outside the event horizon.

Black holes also evaporate, did you know that?

Yeah. Did you know that the equation e=mc2 implies that matter and energy are interchangeable..ie...the same?

The matter that surrounds a black hole is depicted as doing so in a disk formation. Does that mean the gravity, like magnetism, has an axis of influence and does not extend to the entire body? This would explain why jets of radiation are able to escape on an axis perpendicular to that of the rotating matter around the BH.
 
Last edited:
I don't see where there is balance. Let's consider the moon is moving through a field absolutely absent of restriction- being acted on by no force whatsoever. The object would then conserve it's initial momentum and trajectory but the trajectory would be vectoral, going in a more or less straight line, not circular or elliptical. This is where you bring gravity in, right. What you are saying is that at a certain speed the Earth's gravity catches hold of the Moon and holds it in a permanent orbit. It attracts the object moving around it until there is a balance between the two forces. The Moon keeps going because it is absent of any impeding force. It stays in place because of gravity. But gravity is the impeding force. The force of gravity is perpendicular to the axis of momentum. This is like flying through a vacuum absent of any force except a suction that pulls from your side. While your momentum allows you to hold out against it briefly, you will eventually be pulled further and further towards the center.


Yes, the gravity force vector is always perpendicular to the velocity vector of the moon. Yes, this means the the moon velocity vector is continuously being redirected, tugged if you will, toward the center of the earth. This type of motion is called "going in a circle".

200px-Orbital_motion.gif



You would not know I take that as a compliment, lol. I think the problem is that you are relying on those general concepts you read from wiki. I don't consider an absolute authority on anything...a bible, as it were. You should try forming your own opinion sometimes. And I really do not mean offense by that.

Who said anything about not forming your own opinions? I suggested you gather more info on which to base your opinions. You claim to disagree with the commonly accepted explanation of orbit. And yet you're entirely ignorant of the math and reasoning behind the explanation. Your disagreement with the explanation comes from ignorance on your part, not critical analysis.

I've examined the reasoning and maths behind most of what you're talking about and it all checks out with my own brain just fine. Why don't you check it out for yourself?

The fact of the matter is there are many people today and have been many people throughout history who are much MUCH smarter than you or I and have spent much more time thinking about things like this. That's what's great about knowledge. Once the hard work of discovering it is done, it can easily be passed on to others. We take what other people have learned, and we build on it. That's how we've acquired the mountains of knowledge that we have today. If everyone started from scratch, we'd still be living in caves trying to learn how to make fire.

You can choose to blatantly distrust what others before you have discovered, but that's your loss. Sadly, by doing so you're just going to be severely limiting your knowledge of the world. But do whatever you want, no skin off my back.


By exceeding the speed of light I mean objects or whatever that can go faster than the speed of light. Why can't something go beyond the speed of light? If light were 100mph, why can't it go 1001...1002?

Similarly, there is many things before the singularity we don't know. The research is based on a certain mathematical observation, not a direct one. It examines the mathematics of things around it and compares it to known info. History is sort of full of examples of how that can go wrong. I'd say there was room for misinterpretation all around.



That makes a bit more sense except that the material around a black hole is spinning, itself, is it not. If energy were escaping the objects around the black hole than wouldn't it be radiated from it in a circular form like light from a light bulb? Why a geyser or plume? Certainly energ is not gathered into the poles and jettisoned. The shape of the geyser- narrow at the bottom and broader at the top means that the material was launched with speed from a specific position and continued until the initial velocity waned. Yes, it distinctly looks like that. Two geysers perpendicular to the rotating mass of matter orbiting the black hole.



Yes, that is my point. That radiation travels at the speed of light. How can light avoid the suction of all things at and perhaps beyond the speed of light. I could see Hawking radiation more clearly as the radiation from the material that has bunched up but not entered the event horizon, but after that point, the rule should be uniform. You may enter but you can never leave.

I'm not going to bother wasting my time trying to explain these things to you. All the answers to your questions are a click away on google if you really want to know.
 
Yes, the gravity force vector is always perpendicular to the velocity vector of the moon. Yes, this means the the moon velocity vector is continuously being redirected, tugged if you will, toward the center of the earth. This type of motion is called "going in a circle".

200px-Orbital_motion.gif





Who said anything about not forming your own opinions? I suggested you gather more info on which to base your opinions. You claim to disagree with the commonly accepted explanation of orbit. And yet you're entirely ignorant of the math and reasoning behind the explanation. Your disagreement with the explanation comes from ignorance on your part, not critical analysis.

I've examined the reasoning and maths behind most of what you're talking about and it all checks out with my own brain just fine. Why don't you check it out for yourself?

The fact of the matter is there are many people today and have been many people throughout history who are much MUCH smarter than you or I and have spent much more time thinking about things like this. That's what's great about knowledge. Once the hard work of discovering it is done, it can easily be passed on to others. We take what other people have learned, and we build on it. That's how we've acquired the mountains of knowledge that we have today. If everyone started from scratch, we'd still be living in caves trying to learn how to make fire.

You can choose to blatantly distrust what others before you have discovered, but that's your loss. Sadly, by doing so you're just going to be severely limiting your knowledge of the world. But do whatever you want, no skin off my back.




I'm not going to bother wasting my time trying to explain these things to you. All the answers to your questions are a click away on google if you really want to know.

Is there a way I write that makes people think I'm angry? It sounds like you are. Well, thank you for providing your input. As you can imagine, I've seen it already. It's everywhere. But...well...even the people who wrote what your referencing are inconclusive about it. So...even though you have made yourself thoroughly familiar with other peoples guesses I just wanted to think beyond them. Besides...anger clouds the mind :p
 
Just as we look back on a previous century's scientific theories and laugh, postclassical physics will be a joke in some future century. For space to be able to bend it must be material, a substance. But scientists claim it is nothing and made out of nothing. My theory is that there is an outside dimension in which gravitons, not perceptible in our dimensions, bring bodies closer in a kind of boomerang effect. These gravitated bodies are the extension of the 3D bodies that we can perceive in our dimensions. Newton's theory describes a linear process but uses powers greater than one. It is a contradiction if there is not another dimension involved, just as e=m(c squared) contradicts c as the fastest velocity possible. C squared may be the speed of light in the underlying dimension, covering 6 light-years a second underneath the 3D world.
Scientists don't claim space is nothing made of nothing. Quite the contrary. For instance scientists know that space has mass/volume and contains matter and is finite and they know that time is linear and can only move forward in space to infinity. Both space and time can exist in the same place at the same time so scientists put the two together as one unit and call it the "spacetime continuum". This was pretty much proven back at the turn of the last century. But what science doesn't know is what the space matter is made of because it can't be observed with the human eye or our limited technology, so they just call it dark matter. But science can detect the presence of dark matter from the gravitional pull on visible matter. Science has tried to prove what the dark matter is made of with experiments such as the "accelerated particle colliders" and have come very close many times, but just not quite there yet. But like Carl Sagen said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
 
It's tidal force, and the moon recedes due to conservation of angular momentum. Essentially tidal forces distort the "shape" of the earth (it "pulls" if you will on the oceans and bulges the oceans towards the moon, which is how we get our tides). The break of symmetry means that the tidal force can actually produce a torque on the moon, and that torque slows it's angular velocity. In order, then, to conserve angular momentum, the moon must increase its radius of orbit. It's also why the moon is tidal locked to the Earth and why the Earth's day gets longer as the moon recedes.

Sorry for the delayed response but I hit the wrong button and lost my reply. I hate when that happens. So I try again. I need to visualize what you said in my head so...the moon's gravitional pull causes the bulge of the oceans (tidal force), which causes a distortion of the shape of the earth and a break in it's symmetry (earth's spin?) which causes torque ( rotational force/push ?) on the moon, which slows the moon's angular velocity (drag/slows speed of orbit around earth?), which causes the moon to conserve angular momentum by increasing its radius of orbit (recede away from earth). Am I getting the gist of it?

I was also curious about what you said....

Black holes also evaporate, did you know that?
I didn't so I read some about it. Apparently only small black holes about the size of the moon or smaller down to the size of a proton can evaporate due to its low mass relative to it's leakage of radiation energy....or something like that?
 
1. Why doesn't the moon ever get any closer or further away? [...]

It *is* getting further away.

Read a book. It does a mind, good.
 
:shrug:yeah...gravity means nothing we mean nothing all is nothing .... and then we die and we continue to be nothing

that's the way it is ... or it isn't :2razz: all nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom