I am not a physicist.* I am just a regular old dude who happens to be fascinated by special relativity and am merely sharing several ideas and looking for some explanations as to why they could or could not work. I can imagine that spinning and non-spinning spheres (planets) would have a SIMILAR cause and affect relationship with gravity.** But maybe one or the other would lead to more, or less gravity.I do not offer any sums, products or other final figures as to the outcome of these suggested relationships. I am suggesting only that gravity may be related to either spinning or non spinning earth as follows:

*I am not a fully educated, experience tested, know all the jargon scientist. However, I am suggesting that if an individual atom were its own inertial frame (special relativity), then all other atoms not in the same frame would be subject to special theory of relativity, and vice versa.So can you imagine that any "mass" as we define it traditionally, like a planet, or also any other non spherical mass - has an atomic center, or several atomic centers, in the case of some really wierd shaped geometric stuff?

By explanation, the atomic center of a perfect sphere made out of one type of atom is easy to imagine. its center is exactly in the middle, and so all individual particles (atoms? or smaller?) that make up the sphere are distributed in equal quantity from any point on the outmost surface of object to the the center.* I believe You can imagine there is an atomic center for any and all bodies of mass, regardless of their shape. For non-spherical shapes you just need to consider each "cross section" of the object individualy, from all "thru the middle" disections, at all points on both the horizontal and verticle, maybe give consideration to atomic weight of different types of atoms, and then get a final result after all cross sections measured. This point is the "atomic" center of the mass? It's location is a result of the nature of the body of mass. Mabe credit is given for atoms with different atomic weights present in the same mass body. Just thinking out loud here.

And so, each distance of* x further outward in all directions from the center will have a cummulatively larger numer of atoms (more mass) . Furthermore, from the perspective of the center atom, or small group of atoms (if averaging is necessary) at the atomic center, the atoms at outward layers have more mass per atom than the one in the center, per special relativity. Now this increase in mass would remain proportional as to each layer outward from the center, unless........The sphere were spinning, thereby causing each layer to move at a greater speed as related to the center, and each layer out would be moving faster than the last layer, as compared to the center, and as compared to each and all layers closer to the center. (simple geometry, just pencil it out using a 2 dimentional circle)

*So more and more mass in number of atoms AND more in individual weight (from speed), as you consider locations further from the atomic center.Now imagine the size of the sphere had reached stability as gravity held it together and rotation worked opposite of gravity. You would have a sphere that's atoms were compressed to a certain unchanging* x size, but that had an energy/mass distribution imballance, in that, there would be less mass at the center and more and more mass each "layer" out to the surface. (I assume energy is an expression of mass and vice versa per E=mc2)And so, is it true that energy in a body wants to disperse itself into the whole body untill equal distribution is achieved (entrophy, or something like that?) So maybe the outer layers of energy of the sphere is trying to get to the center, but the atoms of the sphere can't move any closer together so there is like this "expression of tendency" of the energy to want to move inward that we know as graity.Just thinking out loud. Anyone?

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

OK, After further research, I can restate the issue:

Imagin a shere as described in Gauss' law for Gravity. Except that the mass is actually greater in each shell as you go outward from the center.

Sorry original post was so verbose, I hadn't yet heard of Gauss' Law, nor, to my embarrasment, fully looked at Newtons law of universal gravity.

Anyway, in a nutshell, I guess I'm looking for comment as to whether you can combine the two Newton/Gauss and GTR as described above to understand gravity, using mainstream physics?

I found Post #1 to be incomprehensible.

In Post #3, uncommonsense seems to be asking whether it is possible to model, in the context of either Newtonian gravitation or gtr, the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric isolated body with density increasing toward the center. The answer is yes. But I am baffled how to explain this to a poster who is unfamiliar with Gauss's law (much less Newton's law).

I would however advise that if you happen to be a newbie with little mathematical background, while it is indeed a good idea to say so in your first few BAUT posts, it is also a good idea to choose your words carefully to avoid any possibility of giving any offense to BAUTians with a more advanced knowledge of math/physics.

For other readers: there is quite a lot known about static spherically symmetric perfect fluid solutions in general relativity. Interestingly enough, the past decade has seen remarkable progress in this very "classical" topic in classical gravitation; see for example

• http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0146, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0609088, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503007, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306109, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103065 for several closely-related and efficient solution generating methods; these are algorithms in which a seed solution (an exact solution of the EFE) can be used to generate a different exact solution of the EFE; the Martin-Visser method is particularly fun to explore,
• http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0209104 for the Wyman-Lake solution-generating method, which is known to yield all ssspf solutions,
• http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0011040 for the Fodor method,
• http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0002021, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0002022, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009079, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009073 for work by Nilsson and Uggla and some interesting applications to solutions with unusual optical geometry (a potentially misleading term, intended to suggest unusual null geodesic curves in the interior region),
• http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9809013 for a review of perfect fluid solutions published up until 1998 (with the advent of modern symbolic computational systems such as Maple, it has become easy to verify that a claimed solution is genuine; alas, computational mistakes mar much of the older literature as the authors demonstrate)

There is also a large literature on rotating perfect fluid balls, where the situation is currently far less satisficatory, but where the slowly rotating and extremally rotating cases are of particular interest; see for example http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9611052, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9911068 ,http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0506130 (just three almost randomly chosen examples from a huge literature).

__________________
Chris Hillman

Read these PF posts. Avoid Wikipedia--- except for these versions. Read this and this suggested sticky. When asked for advice, I always say: never take advice!

[QUOTE=Chris Hillman;1283831]I found Post #1 to be incomprehensible.

[QUOTE=Chris Hillman;1283831]In Post #3, uncommonsense seems to be asking whether it is possible to model, in the context of either Newtonian gravitation or gtr, the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric isolated body with density increasing toward the center. The answer is yes. But I am baffled how to explain this to a poster who is unfamiliar with Gauss's law (much less Newton's law).

I am quite sure Post #1 was incomprehensible. I don't speak your jargon. I am aware of this and ask for patience as I would still like to explore the universe even though I don't have your back ground and discipline. Please notice I was actually asking whether it is possible to model, in thew context of Newtonian or gtr, the gravitational field of a spherically symmetric isolated body with density increasing away from the center.

[QUOTE=Chris Hillman;1283831]I would however advise that if you happen to be a newbie with little mathematical background, while it is indeed a good idea to say so in your first few BAUT posts, it is also a good idea to choose your words carefully to avoid any possibility of giving any offense to BAUTians with a more advanced knowledge of math/physics.

While I will most certainly proceed with caution as to avoid any possibility of giving any offense whatsoever to any ot the humans in here with vast more exposure to the matmatical/physics aspects (which is most of them), I think it reasonable that a "layman" can expess some ideas and ask for dialog and expect, by means of so doing in a PUBLIC FORUM (webster offers awesome definitions to both words) that the great ones, who troll the halls of knowlege with far more regularity than us simple ones, to share your understanding without subjugation.

The links were awesome. Thanks a milion. Once again, my model imagines a sphere with greater mass at each distance further away from the center. Then imagines atoms/particles (some extremely small unit) is each its own inertial frame. So, if all atoms/ perticles are in constant motion, then they would be in motion relative to eachother, and would each have greater relative mass as to eachother. So each and every such inertial frame in the sphere is compared to all other frames in the sphere, but the sphere is a solid and the frames, by and large, maintain their coordinates within the sphere. Thereby resulting in an overall larger amount of relative mass the further away from the single frame in the center.

Finally, if we think of mass as energy, would this diproportionate energy towards the surface of sphere tend to disperse towards the center, much like heat tends to disperse thru a conductor in an effort to reach balance thruout?

Now consider rotation and the idea that the frames toward the surface are moving faster in rotation as to each frame inward toward the center, therby further increasing the outer frame's relative mass and even higher proportion of relative mass (energy) towards the surface.

AGAIN, I am a layman. You are the experts. I am unable to engage in matmatical disputes and cannot, as we speak, offer any math to support these ideas, THAT IS WHY I AM HERE. If the terse defenders of the "faith" see fit to chase me away with their torhes of knowlege, then so be it. I am only in pursuit of knowlege sharing, and as I have little knowlege in this field to offer, I guess I am really looking for hand outs.

Welcome to BAUT uncommonsense

Bear in mind: A Lot of folks, including the educated, the laymen and the educated layman- post on public forums with wacky theories that sound convincing to the layman- but have no foundation in science.
And going off of a post or two- it's hard to tell where someone is coming from right off the bat.

If someone asked me what specs they need to get their chainsaw blade right
Or asked me for the figures for stabilizing the wings on their aircraft...

You best believe that if I talk- I better know what I'm talking about.

Here, on forums that discuss physics, you won't crash a plane or cause a chainsaw to fly off the handle- You might make an idiot though... So a person can get away with speculating wildly here- if the members seem on edge- well... You can imagine why.

So take a breath, keep on posting and try not to slug anyone.
'Specially me.
I slug back.
'Cept on Saturdays- then I'm a snail.

Thank you for that. I gotta remind myself that I am looking for criticizm and constructive discourse - and also that I have little emotional attachment to my "ideas" in ATM, as ideas here are more like hunches. My hunches are not a part of my character, they are simply "what ifs" that come and go. So what do I care if someone rips my hunches apart, so long as they don't insult me personally? Good perspective.

On the topic of the post, one more thought - links followed so far, and other reading, all seem to leap from gtr "more mass = more gravity" to "more mass is independently sufficient to cause more gravity (than object with less mass)"

I saw alot of reasoning that assumed because the earth is more dense in the center, then the "more mass= more gravity" center "pulled" "less mass" areas of surface inward. My model suggests maybe earth has similar densities deep within, as at near the surface, and so per geometry of the sphere: as compared to the exact center, mass increases going outward - and if each atomic/sub atomic (i dont know) inertial frame is in and of itself has a relationship with all other identicle type (non moving mass) atoms/particles in all other frames as having more relativistic mass than it does, and all atom/particles in the sphere experience this as well, from their respective frames, then cummulative mass decreses toward the center

In the model I presented, more mass = more gravity.

I just gotta say...
I'm like this too. I can get defensive about what I say- even when a good argument comes up against it.
I've really had to work on it here on BAUT and it has caused me quite a bit of trouble.

You have a good attitude- If someone shows you better knowledge, that's a gift, not an insult. But yeah, it can take work sometimes to see that.
You aren't alone in that one- not by a long shot.

Just a quick little note upon reading a little of your post.

It gets even weirder than that in GR though,.,..

In GR, the gravitational "field" (Outside the masive body) begetes more gravity begets more gravity.

No, that is not a typo ;?)

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

In a thought experiment we could make a planet whose outer layers are more dense than the center. If it were rigid enough it might stay that way. If it is the least bit plastic, meaning that the material will flow under stress, the denser material will tend to sink to the center, and the lighter stuff will float above it.

A vast body of geological and geophysical evidence indicates that the Earth is much more dense at the center than at the surface. Its average density, as determined by Cavendish and his successors, is much greater than that of the rock that makes up the crust and upper mantle, and that is just scratching the surface of the geophysical evidence.

uncommonsense, responding to your line of thought point by point is difficult because your writing does not make it clear. It appears that you have a vivid imagination and a sprinkling of awareness of fragments of modern physics, but not the quantitative understanding of how it all goes together, and your written words do not enable my feeble brain follow your line of thought in an orderly manner.

As for gravity begetting gravity, yes indeed. As I think I understand GR, there is gravitational potential energy above Earth's surface, above the limits of what we call matter, and we can describe it as a small amount of additional mass in accordance with Einstein's famous equation. Don't take this as gospel. If I am wrong here, I wish to hear from the GR experts. I am here to learn as well as to respond to others.

Hornblower:

Awesome to hear from you. I have seen the results of some studies that indicate due to heat towards earth's center, and, recent studies regarding density of super heated metals (believed to be at earth's core), that - the center of the earth is NOT as dense as once beleaved.

Unfortunately for me (but not for most others) studies usually report a bunch of math equasions that I connot follow. However, it appears possible that prior scientific opinions that the earth becomes more "dense" towards the center are now being challenged via scientific study. I will chaleng it thru immaginative study: if I am 90 feet under water, the pressure is almoast unbearable / or if 15 people dog pile on top of me, my body "squeezes" to a point of suffocation. All this occoures at an infantecimally small distance towards the earth's center.

Well, at some point, might this "pressure" become so great that atoms/particles becomes so compressed that some of their energy is expressed as heat? And do molecules/atoms/particles that are heated display themseles as "less dense" as compared to "cooler" matter? So would not it follow that although "pressure" may cumulatively increase towards the center of the sphere, at some point, the resulting heat of that preassure is going to provide an environment that is condusive to lower density matter? Would consevation of energy dictate a perpetually heated inner earth, i.e. Gravitational pressure continually compresses - inner earth is continually heated? Well, the heat energy wants to disperse towards the surface - while - the relativistic mass energy wants to move from the surface inward, is there a balance at some point? is one or the other slowly winning - leading to the ulimate fate (form of expression of energy) of the sphere mass?

Were you referring to the "masive" or the "begetes"?

Baguettes give me more mass.

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

depends on the filling.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Please provide links or other references, or quote some brief key excerpts verbatim (I think that qualifies as fair use in case of a copyright) so we can see whether or not you might be misconstruing them.

If so, it will be a beastly job to try to explain anything in advanced physics to you, but I do not mind trying. Math is the language of physics.
A great deal of heat is generated upon compression. It is characterized by rapid jiggling of the atoms or molecules.
Most substances would be less dense when hot than when cold at the same pressure, but they still are more dense than they were before the compression.
I stand by my previous statement.
Not necessarily. Once the body stabilizes and stops contracting, no further heat is generated for the time being. The heat gradually leaks out and the body cools. Conservation only means energy remains constant in the universe as a whole, not necessarily in a particular planet or other massive object.
Heat always migrates from a hot place to a cooler place, unless contained by a good insulator.

I don't see what your point is about relativistic mass energy. Any matter in a gravitationally bound object tends to settle toward the center. The ultimate fate depends on the total mass. For a relatively small object like Earth, the atoms are intact and only slightly compressed from their no-pressure state. For a solar mass, the final state has the atoms crushed into a degenerate state, but the subatomic particles still are widely separated and balanced by some sort of quantum-mechanical force, even when cold. The result is a white dwarf, with a solar mass squeezed into an Earth sized volume. Above about 1.4 solar mass, that force is overcome by gravity and we get a neutron star, with the particles essentially touching. Then the forces related to their internal structure balance any further tendency to contract. If we have several solar masses, gravity beats everything and we get a black hole.

In each successive aforementioned state, there is a tremendous increase in density over that of the previous state. You have yet to give any convincing argument to the contrary.

Thank you for the respose. Double thanks for going the extra mile in trying to decipher the code in my posts, I call it "ramble on". Few others come close to understanding the the trinary base of the code (dumb, dumb, and dumber:-)


[QUOTE=Hornblower;1288658]Please provide links or other references, or quote some brief key excerpts verbatim (I think that qualifies as fair use in case of a copyright) so we can see whether or not you might be misconstruing them.

http://www.scirus.com/

http://www-als.lbl.gov/als/science/s...e/166iron.html

Those with a more thorough knowledge of geology than me can correct me. My understanding is that the initial melting of the earth's core was due to its compression and differentiation by density, together with the energy imparted by the probable impact that created the moon.

However, to have retained convection in the core -- and thus a magnetic field -- for as long as it has, we have to invoke the decay of radioactive elements, particularly ²³⁸U, ²³²Th and ⁴⁰K. All these have half-lives on the same order as the age of the earth, so they'll remain active players for earth's expected lifetime.

Where did you get that from???

...and you seem to be building on that concept. Why?

All identical atoms will have the same (rest) mass regardless of position. Rotational velocity does not change this. Acceleration of gravity does not change this. What exactly do you think will change this? Remember that any so-called relitivistic change in mass is not a real, gravity inducing change in mass but a kinetic one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity


As to compression heating, it still takes place but is only due to movement. Static pressure does not generate heat. As the Earth continues to cool the core solidifies and shrinks. Everything above this crystallizing boundry then falls and generates heat.

__________________
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

[QUOTE=G O R T;1288995]Where did you get that from???

...and you seem to be building on that concept. Why?

I am new to BAUT, but stayed up REAL late searching old threads and came up with the following that discuss most of these issues:

http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...t-gravity.html

As I can't read the the math in the posts, can someone tell me whether issue was considered in non-rotating sphere?

My underlying idea does not need rotation, in that:

Assume a body of mass has a center of mass. In picturing the isolated perfect sphere made of same type of atom/particle, imagine the smallest possible particle/atom/region that has an inertial frame within the sphere. Assume all atoms/particles are moving (vibration, whatever)

Each frame sees its neighbor as having greater relativistic mass than itself, and likewise sees all other neighbors sytem wide as each individually having more mass as well.

As to two individual frames, its a wash, each seeing identicle mass increase in the other. But, system wide (I think due to vectoring, or simple geometry of a sphere) cummulatively speaking there is less relativistic mass towards the center (i think?)

If relativistic mass is energy, and if energy tends to disperse into coordinates of a system where there is less energy (like heat does) well then.........does the relativistic mass(energy) have a tendency to want to move towards the center of mass? Can it do so without bringing its restmass(atom/particle) along with it? Or is the result an "expression of a tendency" for the energy to move inward?

All this may have been resolved or at least considered by highly creative highly educated mebers in thread cited above, or other thread, or elsewhere, but I can't tell because of my lack of laguage skills (math). I know now (after my little time in BAUT) if I want to explore the universe beyond loosly sewn together daydreams and uneducated guesses, I need to get some fundemantals, and build from there. Right now I can only communicate in pictures - so far. But I know, just as my 4 year old "gravitates" toward picture books at bedtime, I encourage Dr. Sues because I want to improve his language skills. Optical reality is free, and its easy, and it is filtered, edited and stored according to the brain it enters.

I am in here, like my 4 year old. Hit me.

This is a test reply

I have tried to post reply that contains link to prior BAUT thread that discusses very similar issues in an attempt to help explain similarities and possible dissimilarities between that discussion's issues and mine here, but twice the post doesn't make it here. Can anyone explain? I read the rules of BAUT forum and saw no excetions to mentioning other threads. Anyone?

The forum software prevents very new posters from posting links- as to prevent advertising Spam.
Your posts with links have been sent by the forum software for a Moderator to look over. Once the Mod approves, they will appear

Also, once you pass a certain post count, you will no longer be subjected to Mod Review for links. Spam Bots don't hang out and talk you see...

Be patient

"a small amount of additional mass" when masses are added.I do take it as gospel.You are right.
It explains other interesting things like slower time in a G well.
Can you remember where you got this info or what it is called so I can do
a Google.

Well, I'd sure like participate, but if being patient means waiting 8 hours to get replies posted due to my status, I guess I'll just sit back and watch you all run with the thread.

[QUOTE=uncommonsense;1288793]Thank you for the respose. Double thanks for going the extra mile in trying to decipher the code in my posts, I call it "ramble on". Few others come close to understanding the the trinary base of the code (dumb, dumb, and dumber:-)


The article in the second link reports that extremely high pressure causes iron to behave in ways that alter the density and compressibility from the values previously assumed. Nowhere does it say that the density would be reduced to values similar to that at the surface. This supports my hunch that you misconstrued the findings of this research project and let your imagination run wild, and then spiced your ideas with fragmentary factoids from the world of modern physics.

As for the limitations on posting links for junior members, you just need to pay your dues by studying the linked material, and then writing a brief synopsis of your findings. If you merely write down the title and author, we can Google it.

As of time of this post, there are still several posts i submitted that are not showing in thread. This should have been somewhere (i will not make it a link)
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Earth...le-77222.shtml

This is getting frustrating.

uncommonsense

Gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM) concerns the apparent force that bends spacetime in one frame as seen from another. It parallels but is not equivalent to gravitation. Mathematically this effect is reciprocal so that although a speedy (energetic) object aparently has increased mass, you also seem to have increased mass as seen from the object. Mass nor gravity is increased in eaches own frame.

As far as a massive body like a planet or star is concerned, different locations within will have different frames of reference for the acceleration of gravity and rotational velocity.

E= m c^2 implies that mass increases toward infinity near the speed of light. If the m for mass were literal, the accretion disk of a black hole would have more mass than the black hole itself, would it not?

__________________
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

I found a paper concerning the conservation of mass in special relativity as per the Wiki article.


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909014v1.pdf


See what you think.

__________________
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

I think it sounds, again, like you cannot write off relativistic mass as a mere "non-real" thing that was simply created to support a theory. Just hiked out of the grand canyon, let me chew on it a little.