Is Space Zero Gravity (0 G)

[billvon]

☆ Billvon

Hmm.. let me see. Do you have any books suggested to support yourself?

 

☆ JMJones

The reason for the moon not following into earth is because it's stuck in the centrofield orbital space. Where at an extent, the gravity of the Sun cancels the gravity of earth. To be more precise, the gravity of earth candles the gravity of the Sun to an extent as at that range, the gravity of sun is larger pulling the moon outwards. As it rotates around, it reaches a point where the sun's gravity is in the same direction as the earth's. This is called the oval-orbital space. It's a visual deficiency that in books and stuff, the orbit of the moon is shown round. Nontheless, there you go.

Books: Time Science Library "Man and Space" published around 1960

My son's science book, circa 2012 (I forget the author/publisher)

 

"Centrofield orbital space" - gobbledygook.  The gravity of the Sun does not "cancel" the gravity of the Earth in the Moon's orbit.  There is a point at which they sum to zero, since they are vector fields.  But that's in a single location, not an orbit.

 

"the gravity of earth candles the gravity of the Sun to an extent as at that range, the gravity of sun is larger pulling the moon outwards." - No.

"This is called the oval-orbital space." - No.

[A-wal]

The reason for the moon not following into earth is because it's stuck in the centrofield orbital space. Where at an extent, the gravity of the Sun cancels the gravity of earth. To be more precise, the gravity of earth candles the gravity of the Sun to an extent as at that range, the gravity of sun is larger pulling the moon outwards. As it rotates around, it reaches a point where the sun's gravity is in the same direction as the earth's. This is called the oval-orbital space. It's a visual deficiency that in books and stuff, the orbit of the moon is shown round. Nontheless, there you go.

:umno:

The moon's orbit is not due to a 'tug of war' with the sun. The moon orbits around the sun, and so does the Earth, at the same (on average) distance. The sun has the same gravitation influence on both, so as far as the moon's orbit around the Earth is concerned, the sun has nothing to do with it.

 

Stable orbit is caused by the combination of gravitation and inertia. The moon is constantly 'falling' towards the Earth and both are constantly 'falling' towards the sun. If the inertia is too low then the orbiting object will gradually spiral towards the larger mass object (I'm simplifying it slightly because they actually orbit each other, around the centre of gravity between the two) and crash into it. If the inertia is higher but not high enough to escape then the distance will increase as the inertia overpowers the gravitation during its orbit but gravity will slow it down prevent it from escaping, at which point it will fall back towards the higher mass object at a steep angle (this U kind of shape) and build up enough inertia as it does so to keep the cycle going indefinitely. In reality, all orbits are elliptical and behave this way, it's just a matter of degree. If the inertia is high enough for the object to escape then the object will escape.

[Super Polymath]

☆ Super Polymath

You've been proven wrong.

Inflation outraces gravitational waves to produce cosmological horizons, giving the gravity of - say - the earth, a set range (even accounting for negligible/infinitesimal/micro spatial distortions when the wave travels far enough). Gravitational waves between planetary bodies and their stars repel each other when coming into contact with one another to produce langrange points. I even cited these phenomenons in the last page. 

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Sure, but space does not exist “by itself”.

That's because space is nothingness. It's emptiness, and emptiness in and of itself can be measured and it can also be effected by mass. That's what spatial curvature/gravity is. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Super Polymath

[billvon]

Inflation outraces gravitational waves to produce cosmological horizons, giving the gravity of - say - the earth, a set range (even accounting for negligible/infinitesimal/micro spatial distortions when the wave travels far enough). Gravitational waves between planetary bodies and their stars repel each other when coming into contact with one another to produce langrange points.

Pseudoscientific BS.  Simple Newtonian mechanics produces Lagrange points.

[Super Polymath]

Pseudoscientific BS.  Simple Newtonian mechanics produces Lagrange points.

 

 

So gravity is faster than light? It'd have to be to catch up to inflation. 

 

Yet I cited that gravitational waves cannot exceed c, move right at c.

 

The video explains this, mentioning causal limitation. This gravitational range thing I keep flustering people with. 

 

Lagrange (stuff lags at this range from a planetary body like earth) points are real, we have a satellite placed in one, that was cited as well. 

 

I have credible sources. I always employ them, try my best to explain the information I find relating to every topic. Where's your citation? 

 

This site was originally called hypography for a reason. Hyperlink bibliography. It's explained on this site. If I have credible sources, you don't get to say my argument is pseudo scientific. As long as I stay true to the material I'm citing. Basic rule. 

 

This way, as my knowledge-base grows to understand the preexisting science, so should yours. This learning process cannot occur if you can dismiss the proper sources so nonchalantly. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Super Polymath

[billvon]

So gravity is faster than light? It'd have to be to catch up to inflation.

No, gravity is not faster than light.

Lagrange (stuff lags at this range from a planetary body like earth) points are real, we have a satellite placed in one, that was cited as well. 

Yes, they are.  And they are explained by standard Newtonian mechanics.  No nonsense about "stars repelling each other" required.

 

By the way, Lagrange points both lead and lag planetary orbits.  There are also three others on a radial from the larger body (i.e. the Sun) being orbited; two on the side of the planet, one on the other side of the Sun.

Edited May 2, 2017 by billvon

[exchemist]

:umno:

The moon's orbit is not due to a 'tug of war' with the sun. The moon orbits around the sun, and so does the Earth, at the same (on average) distance. The sun has the same gravitation influence on both, so as far as the moon's orbit around the Earth is concerned, the sun has nothing to do with it.

 

Stable orbit is caused by the combination of gravitation and inertia. The moon is constantly 'falling' towards the Earth and both are constantly 'falling' towards the sun. If the inertia is too low then the orbiting object will gradually spiral towards the larger mass object (I'm simplifying it slightly because they actually orbit each other, around the centre of gravity between the two) and crash into it. If the inertia is higher but not high enough to escape then the distance will increase as the inertia overpowers the gravitation during its orbit but gravity will slow it down prevent it from escaping, at which point it will fall back towards the higher mass object at a steep angle (this U kind of shape) and build up enough inertia as it does so to keep the cycle going indefinitely. In reality, all orbits are elliptical and behave this way, it's just a matter of degree. If the inertia is high enough for the object to escape then the object will escape.

Agree with most of this except the spiralling bit and use of term "inertia".

 

You can only get spiralling if the object is losing orbital kinetic energy, for example via drag from a tenuous edge of a planetary atmosphere, or by the action of tidal forces converting k.e. into internal heat.

 

And also it is the velocity that determines whether or not something can escape, rather than "inertia". Inertia in physics generally means inertial mass - or just mass.  

Edited May 2, 2017 by exchemist

[Super Polymath]

No nonsense about "stars repelling each other" required.

Pay attention, I never said other stars. But yes, they are caused by how the gravitational waves of different bodies interfere with one another, just as I said. I'll cite why:

 

"A Lagrange point is a location in space where the combined gravitational forces of two large bodies, such as Earth and the sun or Earth and the moon, equal the centrifugal force felt by a much smaller third body. The interaction of the forces creates a point of equilibrium where a spacecraft may be "parked" to make observations."

 

ALSO

Do you concede on causal limits and the fact that bodies have a gravitational range yet?

 

 

:)

Edited May 3, 2017 by Super Polymath

[exchemist]

Pay attention, I never said other stars. But yes, they are caused by how the gravitational waves of different bodies interfere with one another, just as I said. I'll cite why:

 

"A Lagrange point is a location in space where the combined gravitational forces of two large bodies, such as Earth and the sun or Earth and the moon, equal the centrifugal force felt by a much smaller third body. The interaction of the forces creates a point of equilibrium where a spacecraft may be "parked" to make observations."

 

 

No "gravitational waves" are involved. These are static gravitational fields. 

Edited May 3, 2017 by exchemist

[billvon]

Pay attention, I never said other stars. But yes, they are caused by how the gravitational waves of different bodies interfere with one another, just as I said. I'll cite why:

 

"A Lagrange point is a location in space where the combined gravitational forces of two large bodies, such as Earth and the sun or Earth and the moon, equal the centrifugal force felt by a much smaller third body. The interaction of the forces creates a point of equilibrium where a spacecraft may be "parked" to make observations."

 

Like your quote says, Lagrange points are located where gravitational forces allow objects to remain in equilibrium.  Nothing to do with gravitational waves or interference.

Do you concede on causal limits and the fact that bodies have a gravitational range yet?

 

The attraction between two bodies falls off as 1/R^2.  There is no "range" at which that becomes zero; it just declines with distance.

[sanctus]

Superpolymath, you quoted only my first post, in my second I say:

 

At least as long we do not consider the expansion of the universe

No one here says that inflation did not create now causally disconnected regions of space (previously in contact, see CMB) and so if you have a pre-infaltionnary pair of masses surviving inflation (whatever that would be/mean) it would  indeed possible for them to be so far apart that their respective forces would be zero. But here we are speaking about the observable universe.

And yes Lagrange points do cancel out the diferent fields so I guess there one can say there is net zero gravity...but remember some of these points are unstable (as in being local maximum-->tiny perturbation and net gravity no  more zero)

[Super Polymath]

 

No one here says that inflation did not create now causally disconnected regions of space 

Except Billvon & Darky

 

 

But here we are speaking about the observable universe.

 

Says who?

 

Pragmatism for astronautical engineers? 

 

Well then the effects of microgravity are too negligible to be spoken about as well, are they not? 

 

 

 

And yes Lagrange points do cancel out the diferent fields so I guess there one can say there is net zero gravity...

 

Thank you. 

 

 

No "gravitational waves" are involved. These are static gravitational fields. 

By very definition, a gravitational field is an effect of a gravitational wave; the imprint a body makes on the web of space-time. I claimed that the langrangian points were the effects of gravitational waves, not that they were the gravitational waves themselves. I never said lagrangian points were stable. In fact, I said quite the contrary as they arise by the spatial imprints (the earth pressing on a net or web of space-time) of stellar bodies interacting with one another. As Sanctus explains. Then he says it's static, you say it's static, I do not disagree. But I never claimed it wasn't static, I just claimed that areas within even the observable universe can be totally liberated from the effects of even microgravity and that the indentation or wave has a limited range, the causal limit. That, affirmation by Sanctus, and the cornucopia of citation should cement that I knew what I was talking about. 

Edited May 3, 2017 by Super Polymath

[billvon]

The terms are interchangeable here. I never said lagrangian points were stable.

Some are, some aren't.  L4 and L5 are stable.

In fact, I said quite the contrary as they arise by the spatial imprints (waves/fields/the earth pressing on a net or web of space-time) of stellar bodies interacting with one another.

 

Trivial to disprove by the fact that some Lagrange points ARE stable.

As Sanctus explains. Then he says it's static, you say it's static, I do not disagree.  But I never claimed it wasn't static,

 

From your previous statement: "yes, they [Lagrange points] are caused by how the gravitational waves of different bodies interfere with one another, just as I said."  That is incorrect.  No waves, just static gravity.  (Waves indicate a dynamic field, which is the opposite of static.)

 

But I never claimed it wasn't static, I just claimed that areas within even the observable universe can be totally liberated from the effects of even microgravity and that the indentation or wave has a limited range, the causal limit.

 

The causal limit does not "stop" static gravity fields, just as the causal limit does not "stop" us from obsering cosmic microwave background radiation from areas beyond the causal limit.

[Super Polymath]

Like your quote says, Lagrange points are located where gravitational forces allow objects to remain in equilibrium.  Nothing to do with gravitational waves or interference.

 

It actually does when it says "the combined gravitational forces of the sun and the earth, or the earth and the moon", what do you think that gravitational force is if it's not the spatial indent (ripple of space-time aka gravitational wave) of the stellar bodies in question???

 

 

 

The attraction between two bodies falls off as 1/R^2.  There is no "range" at which that becomes zero; it just declines with distance.

That's true, for the observable universe. However, as I keep re-explaining to you - the particle horizon is a point of expanding space time that has outraced the gravitational waves and thus is outside of their range, no matter how far they go the particle horizon will forever be racing ahead of them. 

 

 

Some are, some aren't.  L4 and L5 are stable.

Trivial to disprove by the fact that some Lagrange points ARE stable.

From your previous statement: "yes, they [Lagrange points] are caused by how the gravitational waves of different bodies interfere with one another, just as I said."  That is incorrect.  No waves, just static gravity.  (Waves indicate a dynamic field, which is the opposite of static.)

 

Do you know what dynamic means?

 

 

 

 

The causal limit does not "stop" static gravity fields, just as the causal limit does not "stop" us from obsering cosmic microwave background radiation from areas beyond the causal limit.

 

The CMB is an observation that precludes the phenomenon known as inflation.

 

You're just quoting me without understanding or really even examining most the material I'm citing & forming premature assumptions. 

 

I'm actually looking everything up. 

Edited May 3, 2017 by Super Polymath

[billvon]

It actually does when it says "the combined gravitational forces of the sun and the earth, or the earth and the moon", what do you think that gravitational force is if it's not the spatial indent (ripple of space-time aka gravitational wave) of the stellar bodies in question???

You are confusing "waves" with "shape."  Static fields have shapes.  Waves have motion. 

That's true, for the observable universe. However, as I keep re-explaining to you - the particle horizon is a point of expanding space time that has outraced the gravitational waves and thus is outside of their range, no matter how far they go the particle horizon will forever be racing ahead of them.

 

That is true for any field that you can measure.  Just because the source is no longer causally connected does not mean emitted fields (whether EM or gravitational) stop.

the CMB is an observation that precludes the phenomenon known as inflation.

 

No, it doesn't.  There is no conflict between the two.

You're just quoting me without understanding or really even examining most the material I'm citing & forming premature assumptions. I'm actually looking everything up.

 

It's great that you are looking things up - but it seems like you're not really understanding what you read.

Edited May 3, 2017 by billvon

[Super Polymath]

You are confusing "waves" with "shape." Static fields have shapes. Waves have motion.

What the hell are you on about? Lol

 

 

That is true for any field that you can measure. Just because the source is no longer causally connected does not mean emitted fields (whether EM or gravitational) stop.

Well yeah, even past the particle horizon there are the gravitational waves and photons of other stars. But the 1/R^2 of earth's gravitational range will never make it there, thus the causal disconnect.

 

No, it doesn't. There is no conflict between the two.

Yes there is! The universe has expanded exponentially we have no idea what's become of the CMB blobs that are outside of the observable universe.

 

It's great that you are looking things up - but it seems like you're not really understanding what you read.

No u Edited May 3, 2017 by Super Polymath