Did I just disprove genral relativity?

[why06]

O k I was thinking... sense newton said that all objects fall at the same rate but since an objects mass acourding to einstein distorts spac- time would not a larger mass such as a rock distort more space-time between it and the earth causing it to fall faster than a say a pebble making newton's statement wrong, but sense Newton's statement is proven to be right einstien's must be wrong.<br /><br />Am I right <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[gsuschrist]

No

 

[why06]

is that all you can say....<br />If your going to say no give a leginement reason behind it. I believe I presented a very valid case <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">sense newton said that all objects fall at the same rate</font><br /><br />This is actually not true. Say you have supermassive black hole orbiting earth... no wait that's not possible. Instead the earth will orbit the supermassive black hole (we're just thinking of the mass here not the actual earth).<br /><br />So in other words, the rate of fall (which in this case corresponds not to the center of mass but to the distance between the objects) is proproptional to <b>sum</b> of the masses involved. It is also inversely proportional to the square of the distance. So if you have a black hole with a gravitational acceleration of GM/r^2, and an earth with a gravitational acceleration of Gm/r^2, then the total acceleration must be G(M+m)/r^2.<br /><br />In fact, Netwon and Kepler both knew this. The mass of everyday home objects with respect to the Earth's mass is dozens of magnitude smaller. When someone tells you that all objects fall at the same rate, tell them that's only true for acceleration with respect to a center of mass (M+m) which <i>may</i> be outside both mass M and m <i>if</i> M and m are similar. For us, the Earth is so much larger, and obviously the center of mass of the Earth (including all people like us attracted to it) is inside the earth, so our gravity goes towards that. The gravitational field actually varies in different countries, even at the same elevation, because the mass of the earth is not perfectly distributed. The gravitational field has been used to search for raw materials that have a different density, and this force can be detected from a helicopter.<br /><br />http://www.google.com/search?q="gravitational+field"+mining<br />http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/hazards/mine/manual/mmappe.cfm<br /><br />

 

[why06]

Man! What the Heck!<br />How am I going to post a valid theory with the wrong information!<br />Could you please explain your reasoning a little better... I'm confused. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">Man! What the Heck!<br />How am I going to post a valid theory with the wrong information!<br />Could you please explain your reasoning a little better... I'm confused.</font><br /><br />Take the idea that all object fall at the same rate and throw in it the trash can, it's false (and poorly stated). It's a common elementary saying, but it's not sophisticated. First of all, you must know the direction of the acceleration. Is it towards a center of mass for mutiple objects or is it towards the "earth"? You must realize that gravity works for masses both small and large. This means that GM/r^2, which you should know is the acceleration due to gravity for mass M (such as the earth) and radius r. For little mass m (such as your computer), this acceleration is Gm/r^2, by definition. Most people ignore the real acceleration because m<M/100000000000000000 so GM/r^2 is approximately G(M+m)/r^2.<br /><br />Do you think a super massive black hole would fall onto a planet at 9.81 m/s^2. Nope. It's reversed. But infact, both objects are being attracted to the center of mass (M+m). Note that the concept of center of mass is only valid for a finite number (and finite spread) of objects. If you want to compute the center of mass, you must have a coordinate system. You take mass M mutiply it by its x-coordinate, then you take mass m and mutiply it by its x-coordinate. Then you take the sum of these two numbers (which are in units of kilogram*meters) and divided it by the sum of the masses (M+m) to get the center of mass along the x coordinate. This works for the y and z dimensions as well.

 

[thepiper]

<font color="yellow">The gravitational field actually varies in different countries, even at the same elevation, because the mass of the earth is not perfectly distributed. The gravitational field has been used to search for raw materials that have a different density, and this force can be detected from a helicopter.</font><br /><br />Are you aware that when Newton first claimed he could calculate gravity by using the Moon and the Earth as an example, he assumed that both were made up of <b>identical particles evenly spaced throughout each</b>?<br /><br />When he carried out his computations, there was too much matter in the Moon. Then came the birth of the <b>ad hoc</b> method of propping up an incorrect theory, when he assumed that the Moon's orbit <b>must</b> have been miscalculated, or it <b>had</b> to be full of holes or caves, or it <b>must</b> be concave on its dark side. This is where (when?) the expression that the "Moon is made of cheese" comes from. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Basically the law was correct, there was just something wrong with reality that didn't conform to the law. Newton hounded his friend Edmund Halley to his deathbed to make more accurate computations of the moon's orbit, but they never made Newton's equations balance. And when the equations were applied to the outer planets, they were even more off the mark.<br /><br />Newton <b>never</b> proved that gravity was proportional to, and therefore a property of, matter, and yet this is what some of the most basic astronomical assumptions are based upon. It is this flaw that gives rise to "gas giant" planets and suns made of gas only, and to the fallacious belief that we "know" the weight and density of objects we have no direct measurements of.

 

[kmarinas86]

Proof is a subjective matter. Proof is a matter of absolutes (yet they are subjective!). Prove to me that uno plus uno is dos. Sr. Alien, prueba a mí que soy un extranjero. Science should not be a matter of absolutes. Real science is a matter of relationships, a matter of correlational evidence. Correlation is not truth, it's statistics. So science depends on statistics and not unobservable causes. A person who speaks fluently to a lot of people knows how those words are used. As you can see, Science, in its real form is merely a machine to generate statistics, and to establish relationships, and not to interpret them as though they have "object" meaning. The only true meaning is <i>relational</i>, that is, defining relationships and the relationships which connect them. A relationship does not occupy physical space, it simply IS.<br /><br />"I am inside this room. You, I don't know. According to some part of the whole of my statistical knowledge, the sun is shining somewhere in the world, but not where I am at the moment."<br /><br />The word "exist" was re/invented by man, and in a good language, "exist" would mean only one thing, but the word is so vague so as to have more than one definition in a single language, making it special and specific to the people who use it and the places where it is spoken.