Gravity

[Concussion]

What is gravity? / Why should/would a smaller object be attracted to another object with greater mass in the universe?

I’ve been arguing this since I started smoking ganga haha, and nothing or nobody has been able to offer me any explanation that I am remotely satisfied with.

Firstly, I do believe there is a force pulling us towards the earth, moon to the earth, earth to the sun etc, I’m not denighing this as it call be seen… it happens, no argument there.

Things like theories on `gravitons`. Theories = shit ok! Newton and Einstein can shove that up their a-hole and most of the time they are just explaining the forces/weight and mass, and not any real reason why such a thing may happen = slackers! If that’s all’s on offer you can just forget it imo. "Hey, I’ve a theory"… really, just something you made up that kinda suits the subject matter, GREAT!….. dude, tell me when you have substantial proof, conduct an experiment with can be repeated… or shut the hell up and admit you don’t know! Theory… look it up in the god dam dictionary geek freak!

Maybe you have seen the `theory` that the universe is like a giant cloth pulled tight? You place a large heavy object in the centre which creates a depression, and if you where to introduce a smaller object into this, it would roll/get pulled towards the centre, well yeah if you did that on earth, it would get pulled towards the centre because of this magical thing we call gravity. But how the f**k do you apply that to space with it's three different axis? It’s not a flat surface that this theory can be applied to, unless they know something regarding space there not telling us? It sounds really nice… the first time I saw this `theory` I was taken by it myself, but I later decided it was just a nice way of explaining it, with no real application to the real world. So f**k that!

Other things that bother me about `gravity` is things like:

Why don’t objects like the earth get pulled towards the sun, eventually getting closer and closer etc?

Or why doesn’t the reverse happen, ie; the earth moves away from the pulling object due to the weight and force of the earth? Like taking a large weight and swinging it around yourself… the object wants to pull away.

On a side note, has anyone noticed the similarities between the way atoms supposedly work and the way planets/objects work in space? Which would lead me to the question, why are molecules attracted and repelled away and toward one another? H’mm anyway, another time on that one me thinks or maybe the clue is in that. I can’t really get my head around atoms because they are un-observable to the human eye in any level, opposed to planets which I can observe and understand to a certain degree.

OK that’s enough; I could go on forever like I have done for years!

My long-term stoner goal is to figure the reason out and convert the principal to produce free energy. Which is HIGHLY unlikely I'll grant you! This is THE force that dictates the universe, and all we do is call it gravity, put it in a box and forget about it…. Unbelievable!

Can anybody shed some light on this? Got any theories!

Right, I’m going to bed!

PS: I have not been smoking anything.... for about a week!

PPS: Forgive the length of this, it isn't exactly a `what colour rim type question`.

[Has anyone seen my shoe?]

Maybe you have seen the `theory` that the universe is like a giant cloth pulled tight? You place a large heavy object in the centre which creates a depression, and if you where to introduce a smaller object into this, it would roll/get pulled towards the centre, well yeah if you did that on earth, it would get pulled towards the centre because of this magical thing we call gravity. But how the f**k do you apply that to space with it's three different axis? It’s not a flat surface that this theory can be applied to, unless they know something regarding space there not telling us? It sounds really nice… the first time I saw this `theory` I was taken by it myself, but I later decided it was just a nice way of explaining it, with no real application to the real world. So f**k that!

Other things that bother me about `gravity` is things like:

Why don’t objects like the earth get pulled towards the sun, eventually getting closer and closer etc?

Or why doesn’t the reverse happen, ie; the earth moves away from the pulling object due to the weight and force of the earth? Like taking a large weight and swinging it around yourself… the object wants to pull away.

On a side note, has anyone noticed the similarities between the way atoms supposedly work and the way planets/objects work in space? Which would lead me to the question, why are molecules attracted and repelled away and toward one another? H’mm anyway, another time on that one me thinks or maybe the clue is in that. I can’t really get my head around atoms because they are un-observable to the human eye in any level, opposed to planets which I can observe and understand to a certain degree.

OK that’s enough; I could go on forever like I have done for years!

My long-term stoner goal is to figure the reason out and convert the principal to produce free energy. Which is HIGHLY unlikely I'll grant you! This is THE force that dictates the universe, and all we do is call it gravity, put it in a box and forget about it…. Unbelievable!

Can anybody shed some light on this? Got any theories!

Right, I’m going to bed!

PS: I have not been smoking anything.... for about a week!

PPS: Forgive the length of this, it isn't exactly a `what colour rim type question`.

4th Dimension

We happen to be at the perfect distance away from the sun for our mass, meaning that the earth just moves round in nice little circles.

There is no proof that the earth isnt moving closer or further away from the sun, it could be 1 micrometer every year or something and we wouldnt notice.

The last point is all to do with protons and electrons.

If you look at a material's atomic structure (for arguements sake lets say Oxygen which is in group 6 and Hydrogen which is in group 1) you will see that the group it is in dictates the amount of outer shell electrons.

Now, atoms like to be stable and have nice full outer shells so they will try to bond with other materials (in this case, to create water).

So if you look at it group 1-3 atoms all have too many outershell electons (which are negatively charged) and group 5-7 all have too little.

So quite obviously if you have too many outer shell electrons the atom is going to be negatively charged, if you have to little its going to to be positively charged and if you have 8 outer shell electrons then its going to be neutral.

As you know + and - attract and thats how I understand it works (from GCSE Science).

Wikipedia covalent and the other type of bonding you should have learnt about at GCSE

[ted]

Now, atoms like to be stable and have nice full outer shells so they will try to bond with other materials (in this case, to create water).

So if you look at it group 1-3 atoms all have too many outershell electons (which are negatively charged) and group 5-7 all have too little.

So quite obviously if you have too many outer shell electrons the atom is going to be negatively charged, if you have to little its going to to be positively charged and if you have 8 outer shell electrons then its going to be neutral.

As you know + and - attract and thats how I understand it works (from GCSE Science).

Just because an atom has 8 electrons in it's outer shell that doesnt mean it'll be neutral. Anyway, the larger molecules require more than 8 to get a full outer shell. As an atom in it's normal state, oxygen is 'neutral' because the protons balance out the electrons. When two or more atoms combine they give, recieve or share electrons and then it's the electrostatic forces (postitive attracted to negative etc.) which hold these atoms together.

The reason im confused is that nobody's ever explained (,or at least not to me,) why an electron is positive. How does positive attract negative? I suppose some physicist has worked out a theory using maths, but nothing is proven.

Edited January 7, 2007 by ted

[Tomm]

What is gravity? / Why should/would a smaller object be attracted to another object with greater mass in the universe?

Gravity is one of four forces that define the universe we live in. The others being the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force. I think the easiest way to understand these is to just accept that's how the universe is made up. I know that's not really an answer but as far as I know, you can't really explain why these things happen.

Other things that bother me about `gravity` is things like:

Why don’t objects like the earth get pulled towards the sun, eventually getting closer and closer etc?

Or why doesn’t the reverse happen, ie; the earth moves away from the pulling object due to the weight and force of the earth? Like taking a large weight and swinging it around yourself… the object wants to pull away.

Seems like you've almost described exactly how planets orbit by accident there. When you swing a weight around you, it pulls away, and to pull it back in towards you, you hold the string and apply centripetal force (or centrifugal). However, the sun doesn't have the string obviously - the planet is held where it is by the gravitational force between the planet and the sun. Gravity is the centripetal force. Your string is gravity.

When you swing your weight around, does it get any closer to you? Nope. Because the forces are equal - the centripetal force balances out the force of the brick going away from you and it's in an equilibrium. Which is why all the planets are in an equilibrium around the sun - They're in exactly the right place for it.

[Has anyone seen my shoe?]

Just because an atom has 8 electrons in it's outer shell that doesnt mean it'll be neutral. Anyway, the larger molecules require more than 8 to get a full outer shell.

Its t easiest way to describe it isnt it?

And yes larger molecule need more, but I tried not to overcomplecate the issue.

[Tomm]

You're kind of right about the atoms, but not completely. Whether something is positive or negative depends on how many protons there are compared to electrons. Every atom is neutral (otherwise it's an ion). The shell thing just dictates how stable the atoms are (and it's not just as simple as 8 in every shell ).

But anyway, this has nothing to do with gravity! But I do love a good old bit of TF science discussion

EDIT: Molecules are attracted to each other because in forming a bond, they will release some energy. Everything likes to make some energy, it's the 2nd law of thermodynamics - Everything tends towards entropy.

[PaRtZ]

To prove everything has gravity you need:

2 Balls of lead, the bigger the better

Attach each to a piece of wire or soemthing so it can be hung

Place them close to each other and they will be attracted to each other

You can test if they're pulling together by having a vertical line behind them, and seeing if the wire follows the line or not

Im sure itll be on Youtube or something lol

[Has anyone seen my shoe?]

(and it's not just as simple as 8 in every shell ).

Its 2,8,8 at least i think

[Simpson]

why an electron is positive. How does positive attract negative? I suppose some physicist has worked out a theory using maths, but nothing is proven.

Well firstly and electon is e- and carrys a negitive charge which scientists call 1 just for hells sake to make it easy! although the mass of an electon is negliagble when doing calculations. A scientist will also tell you that its like with a double ended magnet a positive charge will atract the other end of the magnet the negative charge.

You can also use a polythene rod and rub it with a cloth and use a biruett to give a thin stream of a substance. if the rod (positive or negative dependant) will bend the solution towards it. water bends hevily.... i cant remember where this is going but complex polymers didnt bend as much?

BLEH pointless post never the less talking about something i have no idea about

[ted]

Its 2,8,8 at least i think

Yes. But then those shell can be divided into subshells. So rather than just having 2, 8, 8. Its 1s² 2s²

2p⁶ etc.

[Has anyone seen my shoe?]

See thats where GCSE chemistry stops.

I do a level physics but so far we havent dealt with anything like that.

Edited January 7, 2007 by Has anyone seen my shoe?

[Simpson]

Yes. But then those shell can be divided into subshells. So rather than just having 2, 8, 8. Its 1s² 2s²

2p⁶ etc.

S shells - P shells - D shells and F shells for the ones at the bottom of the periodic table right?

WOO A level chemistry actually helping me do something half usefull!!!

Like 1s2 ^v 2s2 ^v 2p4 ^v ^ ^ would be oxygen (arrows showing spin)

Edited January 7, 2007 by Simpson

[ted]

See thats where GCSE chemistry stops.

I do a level physics but so far we havent dealt with anything like that.

Its only covered in chemistry.

And I should know Im doing all three.

Edited January 7, 2007 by ted

[Has anyone seen my shoe?]

Its only covered in chemistry.

And I should know Im doing all three.

lol my Physics teacher goes of on the most irrelevant tangents.

We were talking about imaging, then he start playing I am the Walrus by the Beatles for the rest of the lesson in various styles

[Concussion]

Sheesh` I need to take a nap!

Thanks for the replies guys, I can understand bits like why we are not getting pulled in or repelled from the sun (I like that, although I can't work out why everthing is so perfectly weighted to not allow objects to be attracted or repelled... h`mm must be somthing simple as this NEVER occurs).... but I'm a bit lost when it comes to `real world/mathematical` physics. I wish I would of listened in school, rarther that ignore the teacher and try and come up with a `perpetual motion` device at the back of the class, which my teacher insisted would never work.

Q: Can gravity not be harnesed to produce energy here on earth, or is that stupid because it only really applies to things of substancial mass, which we have no ways of creating given our current circumstance here on earth?

Right I'm off to find that gravity experiment Partz was talking about.... I have to see this!

[ted]

Q: Can gravity not be harnesed to produce energy here on earth, or is that stupid because it only really applies to things of substancial mass, which we have no ways of creating given our current circumstance here on earth?

Tidal power. The moon's gravity causes high and low tides in the oceans. Then we just build dams and HEP stations to harness that energy.

[Concussion]

In regards to that, what would happen if the moon wasn't there?

[ted]

I think the difference between high a low tides would be much smaller.

There would probably still be weak tides though because the sun has an effect on the water.

[ogre]

1. the earth isn't round, it's flat

2. gravity is caused by this disk constantly moving upwards

for more questions google flat earth society

does it realy matter? just accept it lol!

[PaRtZ]

Q: Can gravity not be harnesed to produce energy here on earth, or is that stupid because it only really applies to things of substancial mass, which we have no ways of creating given our current circumstance here on earth?

Kind of I guess. Gravity affects objects which have a mass and gravity cant be turned on or off. Also in the world we live theres friction between pretty much everything you do that moves or collides. This means that a perpetual motion machine using gravity isn't possible because

1) an object fall, great this could be used to power a turbine with the falliing motion, but how does it get back up?

2) If an object were to bounce, it would never reach its point of origin due to wind resistance (my bit above) Unless there was a force at the point where it impacts the ground which propells it back up

Maybe a big ball could fall, power a turbine and get propelled back up by a spring? Dunno lol

[Haz]

Yeah, but the 4th dimension doesn't rally have much sway in this arguement, if we were discussing acceleration due to Gravity, then yes, but as we are just dicussing Gravitational Potential and trying to define Gravity.

It's a force, and it's a force we can model and show, but we can't give proof for it.

I think the best model is still the linen cloth, but you can't be so restricted to think of it a 1 piece of cloth with a ball in the middle, you have to think of it as one of hundred of solutions, but that one is the only one wich will work whilst we are under the influence of the Earths Gravity.

The idea of 'potential wells' seems to work, but conceptually, and I think this might be your arguement against the linen cloth description, you only see one plane of that model with your own eyes, so it can be difficult to thin that that 'well' could face any direction off of the mass, and you arn't shown that anwhere, you just have to accept it, which I think is probably the point I have missed.

[Has anyone seen my shoe?]

1. the earth isn't round, it's flat

2. gravity is caused by this disk constantly moving upwards

for more questions google flat earth society

does it realy matter? just accept it lol!

It does matter, otherwise if people accepted what they had been told then we might believe what you mentioned.

[Haz]

God forbid, we might even believe religion...

[ted]

God forbid, we might even believe religion...

nice choice of words .

[JT!]

Physicists make up theorys that work. So long as they make sence, they'll do.

Gravitons is the most popular theroy for gravity. It's gravitons colliding with other gravitons which produces the attraction. This also explains why gravity is stronger when your closer to the object, and why an item with more mass has a stronger gravitational effect.

But no one really knows why, we understand it enough to get a man on the moon that's good enough for now.