Gravity does not exist outside a solar system

[dryson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I'm not an expert on magnetic fields but it seems to me that the spotty magnetic fields on mars are probably caused by iron ore deposits. Each iron molecule has it's own north and south pole but when connected to another molecule they combine. Put more and more iron molecules together and your magnet grows. Each deposit would have it's own north and south pole so that's why the instruments detected so much flipping. <br /><br />I'm not sure if the iron ore has to be formed (cooling magma high in iron content) in the presence of a magnetic field. If so maybe mars had one long ago and now we are only seeing what remains of it, large and small magnets across the planet.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />-Dook-<br /><br />Now in order for gravity or electromagnetic fields to be present throughout the Universe, the above stated fact would imply that only planets and suns or gas giants generate a field large enough to keep a solar system together. When this is applied to a galaxy the same can be said to be true.<br /><br />But what about outside of a galaxy?<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Put more and more iron or other molecules together and your magnetic field grows.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />With most matter being contained within a galaxy can it be safe to say that between galaxies there would hardly be any gravity if any at all, Given the stated fact made by Dook above? Another question to ask, are there areas of space between solar systems where the spacial bodies contained within each solar system produce just enough gravity to keep the system held together? Are there areas outside of these types of systems or between neighboring solar systems where gravity may not create a pull to the center of the largest mass that is producing the gravitational pull? <br /><br />Meaning that gravity does not encompass all of the Universe because in order for the gravitional field to effect the given area

 

[vogon13]

{friendly tip:<br /><br />one thread is enough, duplicates are SPAM and the mods will do things to you}<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[nstars507]

well you have an intersting point... but if i recall right magnetic fields also flip... just like our sun will eventually and i think that earths has already once... i am pretty sure i heard about this in my astronomy class

 

[themage]

Maybe I’m not awake enough yet, or maybe im just being stupid. But are you saying that without mass there is no Gravity? If that is what you are saying, then you are correct (although I’ve never given that a thought because it seems like a obvious question/answer).<br /><br />Also, a EMF and Gravity are 2 very distinct forces. You can't talk about how one relates to things and apply that to the other. In theory (correct me if I am wrong) but I think a EMF field travels at the speed of light, where Gravity is instantaneous. <br /><br />And Gravity is everywhere, its just mainly noticeable close to where a large object is at. The example you gave about the solar systems escape velocity is a good example, but I would like to expand on that. Did you know there is also a Escape velocity of our galaxy? Gravity stretches the length of the universe. However its all based off of ones perspective along with the amount of local mass where we can see a difference in it.<br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

The sun's magnetic field flips about every 11 years. <br />The earth's flips occasionally, from tens of thousands to many millions of years apart. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

"<i>In theory (correct me if I am wrong) but I think a EMF field travels at the speed of light, where Gravity is instantaneous.</i>"<br /><br />Gravity is a consequence of mass and the effects can be measure with a high degree of accuracy... beyond that, we don't know the "hows" and "whys" of its inner workings. It is not known if gravity propagates at C or instantly.<br /><br />The direct observation of gravitational waves via the LIGO observatory would be a step in determining that they do indeed travel at C. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[dryson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Also, a EMF and Gravity are 2 very distinct forces. You can't talk about how one relates to things and apply that to the other. In theory (correct me if I am wrong) but I think a EMF field travels at the speed of light, where Gravity is instantaneous. [quote/]<br /><br />Now if what popular scientific theory states about light speed being the absolute fastest velocity attainable then gravity would be faster then light speed. <br /><br />The speed of light is very fast and so to is gravity, but with all forms of energetic motion there is always a time, (time) which is the measurable distance an energetic body that generates it's own force of energy along with a force of energy placed against it will travel in a particular medium, when the speed of light is fastest outside of a gravitated solar system. This means in space, which is a vacuum, light would travel at the current rate of velocity of 299,792,458 mps (meters per second). This is due to the fact that in a gravitated and vacuumed space the rate of velocity would be a constant as the gravitational pull of the planets, suns and other solar bodies that generate gravity due to the energetic properties of the motion of atoms interacting with one another would pull on the photon. We know that gravity effects light, otherwise light would be able to escape a black hole. But outside of a solar system where there is less gravity to create a drag on the photon.The photon would remain at a constant velocity until another gravitated source would pull the photon towards it, meaning the light photon would then increase in velocity if the gravitated pull of the solar bodies gravitational field exceeds the velocity of the photon's velocity.<br /><br />Only spacial bodies grouped produce gravity where enough energy is present to cohesively form a planet or sun oor other spacial object. Individual atoms produce gravity but only enough to keep the atom in it's shape. Otherwise</p></blockquote>

 

[billslugg]

<font color="yellow">Individual atoms produce gravity but only enough to keep the atom in it's shape. Otherwise if the atom did not produce gravity then the electrons and protons would hurtle off into space thus rendering the the atom into an inert form or space.</font><br /><br />Gravity is tiny compared to the strong force and the EM forces that hold atoms together. Without gravity, atoms would still hold together.<br /><br />Light is made by EM waves coming from moving electrons. An electron has both a charge and a magnetic field. Both of those go to infinite distances. The fields have been there stretching to the end of the universe since the particle was created during the big bang. A wave of light is like a wave in a pond. It travels outward using the water as the medium. In the case of light, the electric field and the magnetic field surrounding the electron are the media. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[billslugg]

Does not a spinning electron produce a magnetic field when standing still and only spinning? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

'Standing still' implies velocity is known to high accuracy, therefore position will be virtually undefined.<br /><br />Sorry, Heisenberg has spoken.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[dryson]

We know that gavity cannot be seen with the naked eye, but can be measured, but does not have an atom.<br /><br />Could it be that what is unable to not be seen is the atom(s) of certain elements that have been stripped of their repsective protons and electrons. <br /><br />Gravity is an energy and like all forms of energy diminishes over a distance or time. Time meaning the amount of measurable distance an energetic body travels given the body in motions mass when compared to what medium the body is in. Water, Air, Earth and Fire are all mediums that reduce the time it takes a body to travel a distance based on the bodies energetic properties. But in space, which is a medium because we travel through space even though space is a vacuum and void of any matter, space is still a medium that the energy of gravity must cross. If gravity were inifite like you suggest then we would be able to record every single known Universal body in the Universe at once time, but since we can't this means that gravity which is faster then light has a limit to the distance it can travel.<br /><br />Space is infinte and gravity is not constant in the Universe.<br /><br />What you are talking about is relative perspective vogon13, meaning that what you see because you are standing still may appear to not be moving at all but is actually moving at a certain rate.<br /><br />Sorry, Dryson Bennington has spoken.

 

[billslugg]

<font color="yellow"><br />'Standing still' implies velocity is known to high accuracy, therefore position will be virtually undefined.<br />Sorry, Heisenberg has spoken. </font><br /><br />I am not absolutely certain that you are correct. As I look closer and closer your answer seems to spread out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<font color="orange">We know that gavity cannot be seen with the naked eye, but can be measured, but does not have an atom.</font><br /><br />Gravity itself cannot be measured... what can be measured, however, are the forces and effects imparted upon an object within a gravity well.<br /><br />Not sure what you mean by "does not have an atom". Maybe you mean no 'particles' associated with the propagation of gravity. We really don't know that. We don't know what makes gravity work.<br /><br /><font color="orange">Gravity is an energy and like all forms of energy diminishes over a distance or time.</font><br /><br />Not sure gravity is considered energy, but it does follow the inverse square law (double the distance, half the strength). With that said, gravity's effects on objects are unlimited or infinite in distance. Earth's gravitational 'pull' does effect objects in the far reaches of the universe, it is just that the effects of earth's gravity on said objects will be infinitesimally small to the point of being statistically insignificant and immeasurable... but never zero.<br /><br />Sorry, derekmcd has typed. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[themage]

<font color="yellow">Gravity is a consequence of mass and the effects can be measure with a high degree of accuracy... beyond that, we don't know the "hows" and "whys" of its inner workings. It is not known if gravity propagates at C or instantly. <br /><br />The direct observation of gravitational waves via the LIGO observatory would be a step in determining that they do indeed travel at C. </font><br /><br />I do remember at one point in time there were experiments set up to try to see if there was in fact a speed of gravity. Based off of that article, it stated that the current assumption of gravity (as well as the calculations) it is instantaneous. It could be also that since we can not produce a significant amount of mass (enough that would have a measurable amount of gravity associated with it) that all gravity currently here has been and always will be here in some form or another, therefore trying to discern a speed with it isn't of any consequence.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />Not sure gravity is considered energy, but it does follow the inverse square law (double the distance, half the strength). With that said, gravity's effects on objects are unlimited or infinite in distance. Earth's gravitational 'pull' does effect objects in the far reaches of the universe, it is just that the effects of earth's gravity on said objects will be infinitesimally small to the point of being statistically insignificant and immeasurable... but never zero. </font><br /><br />This is the point I was trying to get across. Thank you for elaborating.

 

[billslugg]

TheMage<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It could be also that since we can not produce a significant amount of mass (enough that would have a measurable amount of gravity associated with it)...</font><br /><br />I too have considered this and I came to the conclusion that: Even if we could create enough mass to measure the speed of gravity, the experiment would not work. The reason is the energy had mass. Say we had a bunch of .511 MeV photons left over from July 4, we could make a bunch of positrons and electrons. The particles would have mass. But the photons themselves are massless only while at rest. At .511 MeV I think they would have had the same mass as the particles they produced.<br /><br /> <font color="yellow">that all gravity currently here has been and always will be here in some form or another, therefore trying to discern a speed with it isn't of any consequence.</font><br /><br />Yes, all gravity has been there since day 1, but there is a way to vary it, such that we can measure it. Say we have two neutron stars, left over from Vogon13's last cookout, and they are orbiting each other. We feel a larger gravitational attraction when we see one eclipsed by the other, than we do when they are at maximum separation. <br /><br />Picture the extreme case: When eclipsed, one of them is an inch away from us and the other a million miles away. We would feel a huge force. When they are at maximum separation, and each is 700,000 miles away, we would feel a smaller force.<br /><br />Thus gravity waves should emanate from orbiting neutron stars. If we could see them do their final merge and also measure it with LIGO, we could determine the speed of gravity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Hmm.<br /><br />There was also an experiment not that long ago that determined that Gravity propagates at C.<br /><br />[And the debate continues!] <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[themage]

That was the experiment I was talking about, and IIRC they results were inconclusive.<br /><br />I guess we are just going to have to wait and see if we can find some gravity waves <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.

 

[imageinvisible]

I like your anlogy Billslugg, its quite ingenious, and if you don't mind too much I'd like to use it in a similar anology. Spacificaly to illustrate that 'we' are missing an equally important variable to the equation (either because we think it doesn't apply or because we forget to add it into the equation) <br /><br />Take the same 2 bodies (in space) and (playing devils advocate) since we cant see or measure it, leave gravity out of the equation (not saying that there isn't an atractive force between bodies [though that force may not be nearly as strong as we give it credit] were just putting gravity on the 'back curner' for the time being) and to be fair, since gravity is assumed to be a product of mass, lets send mass away with it. <br /><br />So, now we have 2 bodies in space without gravity or mass. Set these 2 bodies spinning so that they have (and can maintain) magnetic fields set them in orbit around a center point so that the 2 magnetic fields interact with each other but do not cause the 2 bodies to imediatly connect. What then would we expect (via all the math and geometry at our disposal) to see when we observe these 2 bodies in motion?<br /><br />Would we not expect to see the same thing?<br /><br />Does the magnetic field of 2 objects in space really have no bearing on how those objects react to each other?<br /><br />Why must there be 'only one' atractive force that is acounted for in such equations, and why does the one we cannot see or measure take precedence over the one we can see and measure?<br /><br />Is it not more logical to say that both play an important role? <br /><br />What if the magnetic attractions between 2 bodies is the greater of the 2 forces and a good portion of the 'force' we credit gravity with is actually magnetic attraction rather than gravitic attraction? <br /><br />Why should a mystical unseen force take precedence over a known vissible force?

 

[R1]

Mage might be right, Lisa is supposed to directly measure and confirm the existence of<br />gravitational waves, so sensitive and even back as far as around 1 second after the Big bang.<br />Unless they merely built Lisa for additional sensitivity, I was under the impression that it<br />was built because there was no direct observation of gravity waves or their speed.<br /><br />cool videolink, extremely rich in mission detail:<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrWwWcA_Hgw&feature=related<br /><br /><br />Lisa will directly observe and measure the speed of gravity. <br />I think up until now all of this was inferred from short indirect experiments, but if you find a link<br />to the C speed of gravity it's definitely interesting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dryson]

Here's another little poke at space. We know that a light photon is supposed to be the fastest form of travel in the Universe. We also know that a light photon does not have any mass. If photonic light is the fastest known velocity then a photon SHOULD be able to escape the gravitational pull of a black hole, but a light photon can't. This would show's that gravity is energy, based on the fact that since gravity can pull and bend a light photon.If gravity wasn't energy then gravity would not have any eefect on a light photon. This also shows that gravity is much more energetic and has a faster velocity then a light photon does since gravity can bend and not allow light to escape.<br /><br />Since gravity is an energy and all energy diminishes the farther away from the central source you get, gravity would not be found everywhere but only is a rotating body.

 

[R1]

there's too many thoughts about it in the one post, but gravity need not travel faster than<br />light to bend it, it's not a requirement,<br />and mathematically, gravity extends to infinity, just as light. Never reaching zero, like an<br />asymptote.<br /><br />One of the purposes for Lisa, it appears to me, is that she will work on detecting and measuring<br />gravitational waves from around 1 second after the Big bang, that is extremely far in time and distance.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[billslugg]

imageinvisible<br />Thank you for your response. And you have asked a good question.<br /><br />Why do we not recognize the role of magnetic fields in calculating the positions of bodies in space?<br />The reason is that magnetic fields are usually too small to make any difference. <br /><br />But you say: "Hey - I have a magnet here and it weighs 1 gram, but I can pick up a kilogram of steel with it. The magnetic force is far stronger than gravity."<br /><br />A typical neodymium magnet has a field strength of 13,000 gauss. The Earth's magnetic field strength is about one half of a gauss, and that is considered to be a fairly good field as planets go. Most planets have no internal dynamo thus have little field.<br /><br />A magnetar has been seen with a field strength of 10^14 gauss. If you were to look at the dynamics of two of these highly magnetized neutron stars in close orbit, I am sure that the magnetic fields would have a huge effect.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[imageinvisible]

Why does a dead star have any reason to emit light?<br /><br />Why should it emit microwave or gamma radiation for that matter?<br /><br />What is it about microwave and gamma rays that allow them to escape a 'black hole' where light (if its being emitted) cannot? <br /><br />"The deeper I delve in search of answers, the more questions I seem to find."

 

[billslugg]

dryson<br /><br />You are correct that photons do not have mass. They do have momentum however. Here is something by Dr. Ken Mellendorf at Illinois Central College that may help you.<br /><br />Whether or not anything can escape a black hole has no relation to the mass of the potential escapee. The black hole has warped spacetime. Anything that travels there will follow that warped spacetime regardless of its mass or lack therof.<br /><br />Gravity is not considered to be energy. Gravity is a force. Only when you allow a force to act through some distance do you expend energy. Confusion between force and energy is what has prompted countless inventors to fiddle with magnets and wheels in an attempt to "get some energy out". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[billslugg]

Any object be it a star, a dead star, a planet or a cloud of gas will emit electromagnetic waves. The type of wave emitted depends upon the temperature of the object. An object at several degrees above absolute zero will emit EM waves in the microwave region. An object at 3000 or 4000 degrees will emit EM waves as light. An object at billions of degrees will emit gamma rays.<br /><br />It is not true that microwaves and gamma rays can escape a black hole. We see gamma rays and light waves galore coming from black holes, but these waves originate just outside the black hole. There is a lot of gas falling into some black holes, and quite a traffic jam occurs. Lots of heat is generated. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>