If gravity is a radiation/wave....

[unlearningthemistakes]

If gravity is a form of radiation emanating from a certain mass, what could be the case of blackholes?<br /><br />Ive read something about gravitons..etc..and I came across some thread implying gravity as waves at speed or near speed of light, that could render its pulling effects in a certain gap of time at a certain distance...<br />rather than instantanous/ immediately effective.<br /><br />so...<br />should gravity be a particle/wave, it has the possibility of being pulled by another gravitational force ( like Bholes pulling matter/radiation )and be sucked into that oblivion..<br /><br />how come blackholes emit gravity?<br />some research even say it emits X-rays of high intensity..?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[eric2006]

"how come blackholes emit gravity? <br />some research even say it emits X-rays of high intensity..? "<br /><br />Black holes emit x-rays from material they gobble up. I assume that if there is nothing in the proximity of the hole (a star to munch on) there would be no x-rays or other radiation.<br /><br />I am not sure what you mean by emitting gravity.

 

[scull]

Well, this is news to me. I didn't think a black hole can "emit" anything -- precisely because of gravity.

 

[newtonian]

Scull - Hold on to your hat!<br /><br />There is also Hawking radiation - in theory, based on, if I remember correctly, quantum effects and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.<br /><br />The latter is supposed to slowly "evaporate" black holes over huge periods of time.<br /><br />It is a model I doubt, however.<br /><br />Black holes emit x-rays and other radiation from at or near the event horizon, not from within said horizon.<br /><br />There are models that allow some emission for within but near the horizon, btw.<br /><br />Gravity is indeed emitted by black holes.<br /><br />There are exotic theories accounting for this, like a sort of "memory" at the event horizon.<br /><br />I suspect, however, that the mass within the black hole does indeed emit gravity through the event horizon.<br /><br />This could simply be because gravity can exceed the speed of light - perhaps.<br /><br />Or, perhaps more likely, that gravity cannot slow down gravity - which would mean there would be no event horizon for gravity.

 

[harmonicaman]

<br />Hmmm...Instead of looking at a BH as "Emitting Gravity"; try to visualize it as warping the time and space around it.<br /><br />Also note that as a star collapses into a BH, its gravity doesn't change at all - the mass doesn't change! What changes is that it collapses into a very small and dense area which causes some very peculiar changes to its physical properties. Planets and stars orbiting BHs don't all of a sudden start getting sucked into it if they were in stable orbits to begin with.<br />

 

[eric2006]

Hawking radiation. <br /><br />What is ordinarily considered empty space is full of 'virtual pairs' which are particle-antiparticle pairs which pop into existence, separate a very short distance, come back together, and disappear a very short time later. This happens so quickly that the Universe doesn't notice that for a short while there was extra mass-energy. The law of conservation of energy only holds over sufficiently long periods of time, and can be briefly violated. <br /><br />In the neighborhood of a black hole, the virtual pair can pop into existence, and when they separate, one can go so deeply into the black hole that its falling releases enough energy that the other particle can continue to exist, outside the hole, with the total energy of the virtual pair being zero. <br /><br />It takes a huge gravitational field to release such a large amount of energy when the particle falls such a very short distance. Such huge fields are found only around black holes.<br />

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

I guess I no longer need to explain for you already have...<br /><br />so you mean gravity is unaffected by any thing?<br />a new dimension to this universe??<br />thanks..<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

Well; these aren't "New" dimensions. String Theory postulates that the sub-atomic universe operates in 11 separate dimensions, but only 4 of these manifest themselves in the macro universe.<br /><br />Gravity is probably a "Dimension" of the sub-atomic universe and is therefore little effected by the perturbations of the macro universe; although we can sense this constant and unchanging weak force in our 4 dimensional world. <br /><br />

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

I remembered the superstrings again..<br /><br />---Gravity is probably a "Dimension" of the sub-atomic universe and is therefore little effected by the perturbations of the macro universe; although we can sense this constant and unchanging weak force in our 4 dimensional world. ---<br /><br />great idea..<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[bobw]

I'm having trouble with gravity as a dimension. Whenever I read about this stuff it makes my head spin so I probably won't explain what I mean very well... Suppose our 3D universe is folded in a fourth dimension like a sheet of paper (don't crease it, just bend it over itself). If you have a dot in the center of each half when you fold it over the dots will be right next to each other. Light between those points will have to go all the way out and around the bend and back to the other dot; it can't escape the "plane" of the 3D universe. I read that gravity is supposed to be able to escape the paper and influence the other dot without going around the bend. <br /><br />If that can happen wouldn't gravity be more of a thing that operates across multiple dimensions than a dimension in itsef?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Gravity is a particle and/or wave.

 

[eric2006]

What if electromagnetism and gravity are two aspects of the same thing since all mass is shown to be directly proportional to the strong charge?

 

[superluminal]

I'm not saying I agree with this guy Wright.<br />But he claims that gravity doesn't attract at all. He says it pushes instead. <br />Wrights push gravity<br /><br />He certainly has a different view than most scientist.<br />He does have supporters though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Columbia and Challenger </font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Starships of Heroes</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[eric2006]

The article says that we get our gravity from the sun. Then where would the sun get its gravity?<br /><br />I have heard of a push force theory involving neutrinos.<br /><br />Here is a good model:<br /><br />http://amoureternal.com/oti/gravity/page1.htm

 

[jatslo]

Strong Force (S), Weak Force (W), Electromagnetic Force (EM), and the Gravity Force (G) make up [(The Known Universe) + (The Unknown Universe) = {Open Ended Singularity}]. You are familiar string theory, correct? There are two types of strings: One is closed; the other is open, but why is the other open?<br /><br />Time Dilation prevents closure of an open ended system; therefore, the system will live and die simultaneously for all infinity: The universe cannot reach equilibrium closure; only equilibrium existence. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> There should be a time dilation simulation that depicts time as a possible mechanism of origin. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Time dilation is factoid. <br /><br />I am certain that black holes, if they exist, do not have sufficient mass to trigger time explosions.<br /> <br />

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

jatslo, Ive read you wrote that gravity doesnt need matter but energy..<br /><br />can you share this concept?<br /><br />because I kinda see gravity to coexist with mass..<br />more mass more gravitational pull... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Mass does not require weight or charge, as in a vacuum, which is space absent of matter. Just draw a 3d sphere in your mind, and imagine that it is empty. That image is, in fact, mass, as in micro mass, macro mass, and/or mass, whereas mass is equal to your mass, for you are the observer.<br /><br />As an observer, you are required to see things that are internal and external; therefore, macro is external and micro is external or internal. Your density assertion only packs energy into a tighter package, resulting in dense energy that is greater than that of an equal mass of pure energy. Both masses have gravity, but one mass is contains dense energy brought about by the accumulation of charged particles.<br /><br />For example, if you removed the gravity from Earth, you would see the earth for what it really is. The Earth is far more massive than an equal mass of energy proportionally, and pound for pound. Velocity affects: Time, Mass, and Length; Gravity affect” Time, Mass, and Length, and Temperature Affects: Time, Mass, and Length. <--- Research Platform<br /><br />Since you are playing with gravity, then you should also note that distance is greater than or equal to displacement; however, as you become more familiar with gravity you will notice that you can fold space-time. For example, if I fold space-time, distance is less than, greater than, or equal to displacement. Do you understand that artificial gravity is the means to achieve these folding of space-time goals?<br /><br />Fold space-time for what purpose? Increased Health? Longevity? Space Travel? Travel in general? Visualize traversing points A and B instantaneously. However, there is great risk involved with long distances.

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

aaahhh..I see..<br /><br />very clear and informative..<br /><br />--- Do you understand that artificial gravity is the means to achieve these folding of space-time goals? ---<br /><br />yes..<br />in fact, I was thinking about it too..<br />just like folding a paper so both ends could touch each other without need for travel..<br /><br />I hope one day man could create such effect ( artificial gravity)<br /><br />Thanks...<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Correct.

 

[eric2006]

"There are two types of strings: One is closed; the other is open, but why is the other open?"<br /><br />Could Hawking Radiation be another example of time dilation? If an anti-particle was trapped in a black hole and the particle was released. Since they would annihilate one another then one must be frozen in time as it reached the singularity while the other some how escaped???<br /><br />I have read theories using aether dynamics that would suggest gravity is strongly connected to electromagnetism. Though I am am somewhat skeptical, it is an interesting theory though. <br /><br />Can you see how there would be a connection using Hawking Radiation as an example?

 

[jatslo]

If the galaxies are twisted and linked, then yes, Hawking may have a time dilation annihilation event horizon; however, I do not think that galaxies, or black holes have sufficient mass. If there is a hungry monster, then gravitational oscillations will accelerate mass to critical speeds and/or velocities that will obliterate/annihilate matter.<br /><br />Just because something is black, does not mean that it is a hole. A star can burn opaque, or black, if the mass and density allow it to.<br /><br /><font color="orange"><b>Hydrogen Metal on the Horizon</b> <br />However, it appears that metal hydrogen becomes <b>opaque</b> under compression. But, it is a good link for understanding the pressures it appears are required. I'll scout around for updates on the research and see if there is anything out there. At 290 GPa, LeToullec and colleagues discovered that the hydrogen sample turned white, then yellow, orange and red, before becoming <b>opaque</b> at 320 GPa. They also established that its structure remains stable above a pressure of 160 GPa.</font><br /><br />http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/6/4/6/1<br />