What this Universe would have been if there were no gravity?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: A nomenclature puzzle about gradients, divergences and fields
Next: Newton's law of gravitational attraction
From: BradGuth on 28 Sep 2009 09:10 On Sep 28, 4:31 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > Jonah Thomas wrote: > > jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >> BradGuth wrote: > >>> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > > >>>> Based on what you wrote here, you seem to think that matter was > >>>> made and then gravity was added. Do you know what space-time > >>>> is? > > >>> w/o gravity atoms would still be atoms. Obviously you got a problem > >>> with that. > >> Gravity is what you measure when there are lots of atoms in an > >> volume. Why do you think there wouldn't be any gravity to measure > >> if all existing atoms are equally disbursed throughout space? > >> You may not be able to discern its existence but outside the > >> space-time one should be able to measure the constant. > > > He's asking what kind of universe we'd have if the gravitational > > constant was zero. > > > I think he wants to assume that this could be changed without changing > > any fundamental laws, just make this one change. > > > I don't know whether that could be done since I don't have any idea how > > to change the gravitational constant at all. > > But he's keeping the definition of mass. > > /BAH Electrons and Positrons would still attract, as well as the magnetic force of attraction would still function. Therefore atoms should still join up with one another in order to create a given volume of those atoms. What good is the weak force of gravity if those other forces are supposedly so much stronger? How much gravity does one atom of hydrogen acting upon the gravity of another hydrogen atom at one meter represent? (1.868e-64 N) ~ BG
From: Anthony Buckland on 28 Sep 2009 12:46 "BradGuth" <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:778dfce7-c45a-4d14-8a2d-48db146e8302(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > ... >Electrons and Positrons would still attract, as well as the magnetic >force of attraction would still function. Therefore atoms should >still join up with one another in order to create a given volume of >those atoms. > >What good is the weak force of gravity if those other forces are >supposedly so much stronger? > ... To get back to the subject: without gravity the Universe would be extremely boring. In the abstract, that is, since there would be nobody around to get bored. Stars form because gravitational attraction causes hydrogen to compress and heat up. No gravity means no stars, no elements beyond helium, no galaxies of course, no life, just a very, very long cooling down of hydrogen, helium and various wandering particles. Everything would get further and further apart, the expansion of the universe would never slow down in the slightest (and might or might not accelerate, depending on how dark matter and dark energy work out). Atoms would join up with each other, but would form nothing more than hydrogen and helium molecules. What good is gravity? It's weak, but long range, and everything attracts everything else, with nothing gravitationally repelling anything else. It untiringly drags things together, and that has led to all the interesting aspects of the universe.
From: BradGuth on 29 Sep 2009 09:59 On Sep 28, 9:46 am, "Anthony Buckland" <anthonybucklandnos...(a)telus.net> wrote: > "BradGuth" <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:778dfce7-c45a-4d14-8a2d-48db146e8302(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > > ... > >Electrons and Positrons would still attract, as well as the magnetic > >force of attraction would still function. Therefore atoms should > >still join up with one another in order to create a given volume of > >those atoms. > > >What good is the weak force of gravity if those other forces are > >supposedly so much stronger? > > ... > > To get back to the subject: without gravity the Universe > would be extremely boring. In the abstract, that is, > since there would be nobody around to get bored. > Stars form because gravitational attraction causes > hydrogen to compress and heat up. No gravity means > no stars, no elements beyond helium, no galaxies of > course, no life, just a very, very long cooling down > of hydrogen, helium and various wandering particles. > Everything would get further and further apart, the > expansion of the universe would never slow down in > the slightest (and might or might not accelerate, > depending on how dark matter and dark energy > work out). Atoms would join up with each other, > but would form nothing more than hydrogen and > helium molecules. > > What good is gravity? It's weak, but long range, > and everything attracts everything else, with > nothing gravitationally repelling anything else. > It untiringly drags things together, and that has > led to all the interesting aspects of the universe. But our weak gravity attraction to the Sirius star/solar system is so much greater than say Sedna, and yet others here claim that we're not in the least bit gravity tidal associated to that impressive star system. What gives? Gravitational Force Calculator http://www.calculatoredge.com/chemical/gravitational.htm ~ BG
From: BradGuth on 29 Sep 2009 12:55 On Sep 28, 9:46 am, "Anthony Buckland" <anthonybucklandnos...(a)telus.net> wrote: > "BradGuth" <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:778dfce7-c45a-4d14-8a2d-48db146e8302(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > > ... > >Electrons and Positrons would still attract, as well as the magnetic > >force of attraction would still function. Therefore atoms should > >still join up with one another in order to create a given volume of > >those atoms. > > >What good is the weak force of gravity if those other forces are > >supposedly so much stronger? > > ... > > To get back to the subject: without gravity the Universe > would be extremely boring. In the abstract, that is, > since there would be nobody around to get bored. > Stars form because gravitational attraction causes > hydrogen to compress and heat up. No gravity means > no stars, no elements beyond helium, no galaxies of > course, no life, just a very, very long cooling down > of hydrogen, helium and various wandering particles. > Everything would get further and further apart, the > expansion of the universe would never slow down in > the slightest (and might or might not accelerate, > depending on how dark matter and dark energy > work out). Atoms would join up with each other, > but would form nothing more than hydrogen and > helium molecules. > > What good is gravity? It's weak, but long range, > and everything attracts everything else, with > nothing gravitationally repelling anything else. > It untiringly drags things together, and that has > led to all the interesting aspects of the universe. However, it seems our weak gravity attraction to the Sirius star/solar system is obviously so much greater than say Sedna, and yet others here insist that we're not in the least bit gravity tidal associated to that impressive star system. What gives? Sirius and us(our solar system) are very much indeed inseparable, at least according to those regular laws of physics pertaining to the mainstream accepted notions of Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics that seems more than sufficient for everything else were told to accept, and especially if little Sedna can be turned around at a tidal radii of 1.459e14 m thats worth merely 2.975e13 N, whereas Sirius at 8.6 light years and worth 1.417e17 N (20 thousand fold stronger tidal radii), and to think that weve been gaining on this 3.5 solar mass of Sirius by 7.6 km/sec, plus most likely and unavoidably accelerating towards our next close cosmological encounter. However, its pretty much all nothing but another mainstream infowar, of media damage-control by way of a mainstream tactical disinformation gauntlet of carefully orchestrated lies and conditional physics, plus deceptions and systematic obfuscation is apparently what its all about. When Ive merely expected of others to share information and to otherwise constructively ponder and contribute to this topic and many similar ones before, all we ever got at best was a stone cold shoulder, and otherwise mostly negativity and banishment, as well as from a certain racist and kosher bigotry spouting potty-mouth rabbi none the less. However, the laws of physics are seldom if ever politically correct or otherwise faith-based, and as such they simply do not lie, and even the best available science doesnt support many of those established mainstream notions of excluding anything and everything that rocks a given faith-based boat. Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius) http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/calculators/gravity-calculator.html The cosmic molecular cloud of what created Sirius, as being worth at least 1.25e6 solar masses, while at a center to center distance of 100 ly and using our solar system mass of 2.05e30 kg for that same era, we get the following results for 100 ly (9.46053e17 m), 50 ly (4.7303e17 m) and 10 ly (9.46053e16 m). 2.05e30 kg and 2.5e36 kg at 100 ly = 3.819e20 Newtons 2.05e30 kg and 2.5e36 kg at 50 ly = 1.528e21 N 2.05e30 kg and 2.5e36 kg at 10 ly = 3.819e22 N current (sun ~ earth) gravitational force of attraction: 1.989e30 and 5.974e24 kg at 1.496e11 m = 3.541e22 N current (sun ~ mars) gravitational force of attraction: 1.989e30 and 6.418e23 kg at 2.2794e11 m = 1.639e21 N current (sun ~ pluto) gravitational force of attraction: 1.989e30 and 1.305e22 kg at 5.906e12 m = 4.964e16 N current (solar system) ~ Sedna/average gravitational attraction: 2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 7.867e13 m = 1.023e14 N current (solar system) ~ Sedna/aphelion gravitational attraction: 2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 1.459e14 m = 2.975e13 N current (solar system) ~ Sirius gravitational force of attraction: 2.02e30 and 6.9615e30 kg at 8.1365e16 m = 1.417e17 N Not to further nitpick, however theres 2005-VX3 / damocloid(asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg, thats hanging all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.4e14 m) thats worth merely 1.71e9 N, and even its not going away from our solar system's tidal radius. Thats representing a Sirius/XV3 ratio of nearly 83e6:1 greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be headed back towards Sirius at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating as any elliptical Newtonian trek should. Being that a molecular cloud of perhaps at least 1.25e6 solar masses is going to have a diameter of nearly 100 light years, as such I might suggest that we use the 50 ly parameter for the adjusted distance from the core density of such a molecular cloud, as for mutually binding us at the weak gravity force of 1.528e21 N. Of course by doubling that distance cuts this tidal binding force of radial gravitational attraction down to a forth, whereas even at 500 ly its still worth 1.528e19 N, and at the 2.5e37 solar masses brings that 500 ly distance right back up to being worth 1.528e20 N. The cosmic creation of the Sirius star/solar system was no small matter of any wussy little molecular cloud. This was an extremely large cloud and subsequent stellar birthing event of relatively recent times (250~300 MBP), and as such it would have been entirely visible to the naked human eyes of that era (not that any intelligent human via Darwin or intelligent design even existed at that time, although Ed Conrads Man of Coal seems to be of that era), and as of most recently transforming the red supergiant phase of Sirius B into a white dwarf required a helium flashover (slow nova) about as close as you can safely get, if not a little too close. By way of reading from what others claiming to know more than most anyone else (must be Einstein clones), it seems theyd have no problems with suggesting the 1e6:1 cosmic molecular cloud of having been worth 1.25e7 solar masses that created the Sirius star/solar system, and if still using 2.05e30 kg mass for that of our solar system of that same era results in yet another 10 fold increased force of attraction for that same 50 ly distance, representing 1.528e22 N (nearly half of the sun~earth attraction), and 99.9999% of this 1e6:1 molecular cloud thats oddly nowhere to be found, by rights should have greatly affected our solar system. Try to remember that this wasnt a one brief time kind of a cosmic drive-by shooting, but most likely worth at least ten million years of persistent gravity pull before that massive molecular cloud ever having cranked out those impressive Sirius stars, and for at least another million some odd years of having blown everything else (99.999% of that molecular cloud) far away. Once again, how can this kind of nearby cosmic event and of such horrific original mass not have affected our solar system? This one shouldnt be so hard to answer, but then our resident wizards seem unable, and/or unwilling to share and share alike without involving a great deal of bloodshed. ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet
From: BradGuth on 29 Sep 2009 15:38
On Sep 28, 9:46 am, "Anthony Buckland" <anthonybucklandnos...(a)telus.net> wrote: > "BradGuth" <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:778dfce7-c45a-4d14-8a2d-48db146e8302(a)s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > > > ... > >Electrons and Positrons would still attract, as well as the magnetic > >force of attraction would still function. Therefore atoms should > >still join up with one another in order to create a given volume of > >those atoms. > > >What good is the weak force of gravity if those other forces are > >supposedly so much stronger? > > ... > > To get back to the subject: without gravity the Universe > would be extremely boring. In the abstract, that is, > since there would be nobody around to get bored. > Stars form because gravitational attraction causes > hydrogen to compress and heat up. No gravity means > no stars, no elements beyond helium, no galaxies of > course, no life, just a very, very long cooling down > of hydrogen, helium and various wandering particles. > Everything would get further and further apart, the > expansion of the universe would never slow down in > the slightest (and might or might not accelerate, > depending on how dark matter and dark energy > work out). Atoms would join up with each other, > but would form nothing more than hydrogen and > helium molecules. > > What good is gravity? It's weak, but long range, > and everything attracts everything else, with > nothing gravitationally repelling anything else. > It untiringly drags things together, and that has > led to all the interesting aspects of the universe. It seems our weak force of gravity attraction to the Sirius star/solar system is obviously so much greater than say icy Sedna, and yet others here insist that we're not in the least bit gravity tidal associated to that impressive star system. What gives? Sirius and us(our solar system) are very much indeed inseparable, at least according to those regular laws of physics pertaining to the mainstream accepted notions of Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics that seems more than sufficient for everything else were told to accept, and especially if little Sedna can be turned around at a tidal radii of 1.459e14 m thats worth merely 2.975e13 N, whereas Sirius at 8.6 light years and worth 1.417e17 N (20 thousand fold stronger tidal radii), and to think that weve been gaining on this 3.5 solar mass of Sirius by 7.6 km/sec, plus most likely and unavoidably accelerating towards our next close cosmological encounter. However, its pretty much all nothing but another mainstream infowar, of media damage-control by way of a mainstream tactical disinformation gauntlet of carefully orchestrated lies and conditional physics, plus deceptions and systematic obfuscation is apparently what its all about. When Ive merely expected of others to share information and to otherwise constructively ponder and contribute to this topic and many similar ones before, all we ever got at best was a stone cold shoulder, and otherwise mostly negativity and banishment, as well as from a certain racist and kosher bigotry spouting potty-mouth rabbi none the less. However, the laws of physics are seldom if ever politically correct or otherwise faith-based, and as such they simply do not lie, and even the best available science doesnt support many of those established mainstream notions of excluding anything and everything that rocks a given faith-based boat. Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius) http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/calculators/gravity-calculator.html The cosmic molecular cloud of what created Sirius, as being worth at least 1.25e6 solar masses, while at a center to center distance of 100 ly and using our solar system mass of 2.05e30 kg for that same era, we get the following results for 100 ly (9.46053e17 m), 50 ly (4.7303e17 m) and 10 ly (9.46053e16 m). 2.05e30 kg and 2.5e36 kg at 100 ly = 3.819e20 Newtons 2.05e30 kg and 2.5e36 kg at 50 ly = 1.528e21 N 2.05e30 kg and 2.5e36 kg at 10 ly = 3.819e22 N current (sun ~ earth) gravitational force of attraction: 1.989e30 and 5.974e24 kg at 1.496e11 m = 3.541e22 N current (sun ~ mars) gravitational force of attraction: 1.989e30 and 6.418e23 kg at 2.2794e11 m = 1.639e21 N current (sun ~ pluto) gravitational force of attraction: 1.989e30 and 1.305e22 kg at 5.906e12 m = 4.964e16 N current (solar system) ~ Sedna/average gravitational attraction: 2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 7.867e13 m = 1.023e14 N current (solar system) ~ Sedna/aphelion gravitational attraction: 2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 1.459e14 m = 2.975e13 N current (solar system) ~ Sirius gravitational force of attraction: 2.02e30 and 6.9615e30 kg at 8.1365e16 m = 1.417e17 N Not to further nitpick, however theres also 2005-VX3 / damocloid (asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg, thats hanging all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.4e14 m) thats worth merely 1.71e9 N, and even its not going away from our solar system's tidal radius. Thats representing a Sirius/XV3 ratio of nearly 83e6:1 greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be headed back towards Sirius at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating, exactly as any elliptical Newtonian orbital trek should. (typo correction) Being that a molecular cloud of perhaps at the very least 1.25e6 solar masses is going to have a diameter of nearly 100 light years, as such I might suggest that we use the 50 ly parameter for the adjusted distance from the core density of such a molecular cloud, as for mutually binding into us at the weak gravity force of 1.528e21 N. Of course by doubling that distance cuts this tidal binding force of radial gravitational attraction down to a forth, whereas even at 500 ly its still worthy of 1.528e19 N, and at the 1.25e7 solar masses brings that 500 ly distance right back up to being worth 1.528e20 N. The cosmic creation of the Sirius star/solar system was by no means any small matter of a wussy little molecular cloud. This was an extremely large cloud and subsequent nearby stellar birthing event of relatively recent times (250~300 MBP), and as such it would have been something entirely visible to the naked human eyes of that era (not that any intelligent human via Darwin or intelligent proto-design of humans even existed at that time, although Ed Conrads Man of Coal seems to be within that era), and as of most recently transforming the red supergiant phase of Sirius B into a white dwarf required a substantial helium flashover (slow nova) about as close as you can safely get, if not a little too close. By way of reading from what others claiming to know more than most anyone else (must be Einstein clones), it seems theyd have no problems with suggesting the 1e6:1 cosmic molecular cloud ratio of having been worth 1.25e7 solar masses that created the Sirius star/ solar system, and if still using 2.05e30 kg mass for that of our solar system of that same era results in yet another 10 fold increased force of attraction for that same 50 ly distance, representing 1.528e22 N (nearly half of the sun~earth attraction), and 99.9999% of this 1e6:1 molecular cloud thats oddly nowhere to be found, by rights should have greatly affected our solar system. Try to remember that this wasnt a one brief kind of a cosmic drive-by shooting, but most likely worth at least a million years of persistent gravity pull before that massive molecular cloud ever having cranked out those impressive Sirius stars, and for at least another million some odd years of having blown everything else (99.999% of that molecular cloud) far away. Once again, how can this kind of nearby cosmic event and of such horrific original mass not have affected our solar system? This one about our being unavoidably attracted and tidal influenced via the impressive Sirius star/solar system shouldnt be so hard to answer, but then our resident wizards seem rather unable, and/or unwilling to share and share alike without involving a great deal of their kosher mainstream damage-control of obfuscation and if need be bloodshed. ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / Guth Usenet |