Researchers shed new light on dark energy, cosmic speed-up

Nov 07, 2013
The detailed, all-sky picture of the Cosmic Microwave Background in the infant universe reveals 13.77 billion year old temperature fluctuations (shown as color differences) that correspond to the seeds that grew to become the galaxies. Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team

In a new study, Dartmouth researchers rule out a controversial theory that the accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion.

While the findings don't explain the cosmic speed-up, they eliminate one provocative possibility that our planet, solar system and galaxy are at the center of the and that there is no . The findings appear in the journal Physical Review D. A PDF of the study is available on request.

The 2011 Nobel Prize was awarded for the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. One leading idea to explain the acceleration is a new, mysterious substance called dark energy, which is thought to make up nearly three-fourths of the energy of the universe. But another alternative is that the Earth, our solar system and Milky Way galaxy are at the center of the universe. That theory violates the standard assumption that the universe has no center, but if true, then could be explained without dark energy or any new laws of physics.

But Dartmouth researchers found that this model can't hold up to other observational tests. The sky glows with light left over from the Big Bang, also known as the Cosmic Microwave Background, so they calculated how that glow would be affected. Their findings show that the model's prediction is completely contrary to the glow that has been measured.

"Essentially, we held a mirror up to the universe and asked if the reflection was special," says Robert Caldwell, a professor of physics and astronomy who co-wrote the article with undergraduate physics major Nina Maksimova. "The reflection shows that we do not appear to live in a special location, and decisively excludes this explanation for the universe's accelerating expansion. It would be a great relief to be able to understand a basic problem of cosmology within the known laws of physics, but our research is an important step in explaining the physics responsible for the cosmic acceleration."

Explore further: New microscope collects dynamic images of the molecules that animate life

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

Oct 22, 2014

An international team of scientists have become the first ever researchers to successfully reach temperatures below minus 272.15 degrees Celsius – only just above absolute zero – using magnetic molecules. ...

User comments : 131

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

verkle
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2013
Should include a link to an article that summarizes the illision hypothesis:

http://www.livesc...ion.html

mzso
1 / 5 (14) Nov 07, 2013
How about the "materials getting heavier" theory, that also would give the illusion of expanding?
scottfos
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 07, 2013
or the "light is slowing down" theory (proposed by young earth "scientists" like Setterfield, etc) which is easy to prove by tracking speeds tracked from the 1700's & 1800's....but only if you ignore that those #'s were measured with ancient tools....and only if you throw out 3/4 of the (inaccurately measured) numbers and keep those on one end of the bell curve....then it's PROOF! NO ONE CAN DISPUTE IT! IT'S SCIENCE, PEOPLE! and by that of course i mean, non peer reviewed hypothesis with bad statistics and no math :)
Infinite Fractal Consciousness
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2013
or the "all matter is shrinking" theory that I just now proposed?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2013
A pity the article isn't yet out.

The "material/matter" theories doesn't obey local energy conservation and so GR, DE obeys both. (As the vacuum energy is constant, only spacetime volume increases which is precisely what the observations are based on anyway.)

Mentioned extraordinary proposals that shatters thermodynamics and general relativity both has long ways to go, because all of physics has to be replaced. And then vacuum energy and its value would remain an even larger mystery.
brodix
1 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2013
Could redshift be optical? We are at the center of our view of the universe.
http://www.fqxi.o...kets.pdf

1. Introduction

The propagation of waves in linear dissipative systems is well studied but most of the investigations are concerned with the propagation of a single-frequency wave. On the other hand, in any of the practical situations, one is faced actually with a wavepacket, albeit with a very narrow spread around the central frequency. This means that one should take a special care to separate the effects of dispersion and dissipation on the propagation of the wavepacket from the similar effects on a single frequency signal.
5. Conclusions
In the present work, the effect of attenuation and dissipation on propagation of waves governed by the Jeffrey equation is addressed. When packets of small but finite breadth are considered the presence of dissipation changes the central wave number of the packet.
brodix
1 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2013
The distribution of the wave length around the central length is assumed to be Gaussian which is the most frequently encountered case in cosmology when hot stars are observed. Dispersion relation for the damped wave equation is derived and the evolution of the packet density is investigated in time(or space). It is shown that the attenuation acts merely to decrease the amplitude of the shifts packed, while the dissipation damps the higher frequencies stronger than the lower frequencies and shifts the maximal frequency of the packet to lower frequencies (longer wavelengths), i.e., the packet appears redshifted upon its arrival. For Gaussian wavepackets, this kind of redshift is linearly proportional to the time passed or the distance traveled. The coefficient of proportionality contains the ratio of the dissipation coefficient and the initial width of the distribution which means that the thicker packets are redshifted more than the narrower ones for the same distance or for the same time
hemitite
2.3 / 5 (18) Nov 07, 2013
What if the universe has a very slight red (or pink!) tint, then the more space one looks through the redder it looks: The Rose Colored Glasses Theory.
Sionnach
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2013
brodix,

Astronomical observations are not done at single frequency. Or a narrow band of frequencies. The redshift measurements are made using spectra, very wide spectra in various regions of electromagnetic radiation, sub-millimeter up to near x-ray. Other astrometry is done from long radio all the way up to gamma and everything in between. This is exactly why the tired light hypothesis failed. Different wavelengths of light propagate with greater or lesser ease through various media, when you assess the light using various widely separated regions of the e-m spectrum, the medium bias is very easily accounted for.
brodix
1 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2013
Sionnach,
The article does not say such observations are done at a single frequency, but that the tests on which it is determined that light can only be redshifted by recession are. The article doesn't discuss particular mediums, but dispersion over distance and that it affects higher frequencies more than lower ones, so that a multifrequency packet is dampened.
Sionnach
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2013
brodix,

"""""The article does not say such observations are done at a single frequency, but that the tests on which it is determined that light can only be redshifted by recession are."""""

That is completely wrong. Redshift can not be measured in a single frequency. The techniques of measuring redshift is dependent on being able to analyze a wide spectrum. That's why it is call spectroscopy. The emission or absorption lines are very complex and it requires a broad enough spectrum to properly analyze them

All meaningful astronomical observations on cosmic scales depend on being able to take a spectrum of the object. The more e-m regions for a given object the better, but even if only done in UV, visible, or infrared alone, it still is done across a wide spectrum.

Whoever told you that only single frequencies of light were used doesn't know how spectroscopy works.
Judgeking
5 / 5 (2) Nov 07, 2013
Imagine what the creations would have done if this 'center of the universe' theory had panned out. Hell, it might have converted me.
met a more fishes
1 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2013
Infinite,I hate you.I've wanted to bring that up everyone someone mentions expanding universe. You've inspired me to finally make ask account
brodix
1 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2013
Spinnach,
We can't exactly run a controlled experiment on light that is crossing billions of lightyears. I take it to mean the 'packets' are individual photons and the assumption being particular photons are single frequency. Yes, any meaningful amount of light is much more than single photons. Personally my own theory is that since photons are exact quantities of light, for the very distant sources it is taking longer for each photon to be absorbed and since light is traveling as a wave and being absorbed as a quantity, this creates the redshifting of the spectrum. As it is, given this redshift is proportional to distance and distributed evenly in all directions, leaving us the optical center, it makes sense to look for an optical cause of redshift, rather than keep adding enormous conceptual patches, ie, inflation, dark energy, to prop up the notion it can only be actual expansion.
brodix
1 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2013
Also, for this expansion to be relativistic, wouldn't the speed of light have to increase proportionally, in order for the speed of light to remain constant to this expanded space?
Otherwise, since the distance is still being denominated in lightyears, ie, taking more of them to cover the distance, that is still just increasing distance, not expanded space. Remember, 'space is what you measure with a ruler' and the cosmic ruler is lightyears. Saying the expansion is just carrying the light along is like saying my walking and and carrying a ruler stretches space. Also the space between two points is still only one dimension, not four.
Sionnach
1 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2013
"Spinnach,"

Well I suppose by that you mean there is nothing to discuss.

Your ideas on the behavior of light and space are seriously flawed, but you seem to find comfort in them. I hope you enjoy your theorizing and find it productive. You win.
mzso
1 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2013
or the "all matter is shrinking" theory that I just now proposed?

Yeah, but I didn't just pull it out of the air.
http://www.nature...-1.13379
http://phys.org/n...rse.html
brodix
1 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2013
Sionnach,
Sorry about that. In a rush.
I don't find comfort in a model that keeps adding enormous new physical forces whenever theory and observation don't match. I assumed a theory was falsified when its predictions didn't match observations.
Sionnach
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2013
"""""Sionnach,
Sorry about that. In a rush."""""

Okay not a problem. I don't think any "new forces" have been added. Everything is still explained very well with just four fundamental forces. But when new observations find new phenomena, models and theories are tweaked and adjusted. That's how science is done. New phenomena do not necessarily require the discarding of good theoretical models unless there is some compelling reason to do so, such putting forth a newer, more encompassing model that still works for all the past observations. It's not enough just find an exception to the rule to discard the rule. One must explain the exception, and explain why the exception makes the rule false. New theories must explain the new observations and be consistent with previous observations.
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2013
"The reflection shows that we do not appear to live in a special location"
Never trust mere appearances. They are deceiving.
Moebius
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2013
How does the universe not have a center? If it had a center a nanosecond after the big bang how could it not have one now? The universe is 3 dimensional, it's expanding and like any 3 dimensional thing that expands, there must be a center of expansion.
mzso
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2013
How does the universe not have a center? If it had a center a nanosecond after the big bang how could it not have one now? The universe is 3 dimensional, it's expanding and like any 3 dimensional thing that expands, there must be a center of expansion.

Maybe it's not three dimensional. Maybe if you go into one direction lots of light years you reach your point of origin.
Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2013
How does the universe not have a center? If it had a center a nanosecond after the big bang how could it not have one now? The universe is 3 dimensional, it's expanding and like any 3 dimensional thing that expands, there must be a center of expansion.


It's not expanding out from a center, it is expanding everywhere equally. There is no center in a euclidean sense. That's because it is not expanding INTO anything. That is the most counter-intuitive aspect of modern cosmology, and it can't be explained or diagrammed with our daily existence as a reference.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2013
If we would live at the water surface like waterstriders and if we could observe it with its surface waves only, then the 2D space-time observed http://people.rit...4565.jpg with distance for us in the same way, like the space-time inside of our Universe. This model both follows the geocentric model of Universe (we appear at the center of observable Universe), both follows the cosmological principle (we aren't actually at the center of Universe as such).


There ya are, and here am I. Why the new suit Zeph? To be sure ya haven't forsaken the AWT? Or the DAM? I certainly hope not seeing as ya have put so much time and effort into it.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Nov 09, 2013
Redshift can not be measured in a single frequency. .. The emission or absorption lines are very complex and it requires a broad enough spectrum to properly analyze them.


Analyzing individual lines for features such as thermal broadening does require sufficient detail, as you say they are complex at that level. Measuring redshift also usually uses broad spectra but for a different reason, you have to work out which line you are observing and that is most easily done by identifying the element using the wavelength ratio of several lines.

That said, the numerical value is found as the average of the shift measured for each individual line.

Whoever told you that only single frequencies of light were used doesn't know how spectroscopy works.


Hmmm, the redshift is measured per line, broad spectra are required for other reasons.
Fleetfoot
not rated yet Nov 09, 2013
The distribution of the wave length around the central length is assumed to be Gaussian which is the most frequently encountered case in cosmology when hot stars are observed.


dissipation damps the higher frequencies stronger than the lower frequencies and shifts the maximal frequency of the packet to lower frequencies (longer wavelengths), i.e., the packet appears redshifted upon its arrival.


The author is using the wrong terminology, the change of colour due to frequency-dependent attenuation is "reddening", not "redshift". The shift is also limited in range to the width of the original line. Cosmological redshifts are much greater than the original line width.

All forms of "Tired Light" model are also excluded by the time stretching of supernova light curves and of linear features in quasars.

http://arxiv.org/.../0104382

http://physicswor...istances
brodix
1 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2013
Sionnach,
While there is no law against tweeking a theory, the Big Bang theory does have a number of rather major tweeks, from inflation to dark energy and it is not as though only the cranks dare look askance on it. Here is an interesting commentary from some years ago;
http://www.americ...folktale
Given a lot of significant issues, that physics treats this model as unquestioned, rather than speculative, is more social, than logical.
Sionnach
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2013
""""""Given a lot of significant issues, that physics treats this model as unquestioned, rather than speculative, is more social, than logical.""""""

As long as the significant issues are being addressed progress will continue to be made. We are dealing with new abilities to observe and collect data in a young field of study. What aspects of the concordant model do you think is social rather than logical?

'''''''''''the Big Bang theory does have a number of rather major tweeks, from inflation to dark energy""""""

Inflation is offered as a possible answer to questions that remain to be adequately explained. There are competing theories that are still within the realm of good science. But the alternatives have more problems than solutions. The consensus is not a social thing, it is a result of many dedicated people working independently or together to flesh out a new area of science. "Dark energy" is an acknowledgment of phenomena discovered only 15 years ago, nothing more.
brodix
1 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2013
Sionnach,
There just does not seem to be any effort to explore the possibility of redshift being some as yet unknown optical effect and that is because the community is all in on an expanding universe model. If it was optical, it would pretty much be what we do see. We are at the center of our view of the universe, so there would be no need to explain this as space expanding, when there is no relativistic increase in the clock/ propagation rate to keep the speed of light constant to this expanded space.
It would compound on itself, creating a parabolic curve to the redshift, so that what we view as a shift in this redshift at about half the age of the universe, is the mid-point of this curve. There would be no need for inflation, or dark energy, since the stable level of the background radiation would be due to something other than an even expansion of the initial energy and those distant galaxies are not actually moving away.
brodix
1 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2013
What seems to get overlooked as well, is that galaxies are not simply inert points of reference, but gravity sinks and since overall space appears flat, because gravity and expansion balance, it would seem that what is expanding between galaxies, is falling into them at an equal rate. Possibly the expansion of radiation is balanced by the contraction of mass and what we have amounts to a cosmic convection cycle. Convection defines much of stellar and geological activity, why not galactic activity?
To use the ball on a rubber sheet analogy, it is as though the sheet were covering water and it is stretched upward between the gravity wells, proportionally to what gravity is pulling it downward. Its just that the only light we see from those very distant sources, can only have traveled between those gravity wells and across the stretched part.
brodix
1 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2013
Which is mostly to say that we could construct a quite basic and logical cosmology, without most of those unknown forces, just by figuring out how light could be redshifted crossing billions of lightyears. It's not as if we know all there is to know about gravity, or other parts of the physics puzzle, how can we be so completely sure we understand what light does in circumstances we could never test?
Sionnach
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2013
"""""" There just does not seem to be any effort to explore the possibility of redshift being some as yet unknown optical effect and that is because the community is all in on an expanding universe model."""""""

Everything you suggest after that is a dead end because it is premised on the truth of that assumption. Light, EM radiation, and it's behavior and interactions have been relentlessly studied in the most minute detail possible for a very long time. Every experiment that can be devised has been done, and usually repeated many times over. Every new test that anyone thinks of is done by people who wait their entire lives for that experiment which brings to light new science. From high school physics labs to university labs to the great research labs, if the experiment can be done it has been done and redone.

Unless you hold to the tinfoil hat pseudoscience conspiracy theories the experts have probably already thought of all the easy things and most of the really hard things
Sionnach
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2013
brodix,

On rereading your comments and my own, it may be that I came across rather rudely in my last response. I'm sorry about that, you seem very curious and inquisitive and that is a good thing.

Some of the things you may be misunderstanding concerning the faith we place in redshift measurements might arise from having had only a very brief or incomplete explanation of how it works.

Cosmological redshift is very much different than gravitational redshift and Doppler redshift. When light is redshifted by passing through a gravity well, you will observe it redshifted as it passes into the gravitational field, but then it blueshifts as it "climbs" back out of the gravity well. Cosmological redshift does not do this, it is a constant constrained by distance/recession. Doppler redshift is not distance dependent, it is what it is.

Cosmological redshift measurements first became practical over a hundred years ago. Silpher, Curtis, and Hubble were the greatest early pioneers.
brodix
1 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2013
Sionnach,
Obviously I'm just a spectator, but in the overall balance, it does seem we have to keep putting our finger on the scale to make the expanding universe model work. This naturally points a finger back in the other direction, that there is some effect of enormous distances on light, that has evaded theory. Certainly no one knows what this is, but there doesn't seem to be any discussions of the possibility, yet many theorists are willing to devote careers to studying inflation and dark energy, which seem to be equally unknowable gaps in our knowledge. I suppose the bigger the problems are, the more it takes to solve them, but how many generations will put their lives into a theory, before looking in other directions.
Sionnach
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 10, 2013
*******This naturally points a finger back in the other direction, that there is some effect of enormous distances on light, that has evaded theory""""""

You are assuming a priori that some effect is there. That it has been neglected to be properly investigated. This is wrong. Every effect or an observation has been investigated and assessed using every tool and viable experiment available. If something has been neglected, it's only because the tools are not yet available to proceed or because that "question" has already been answered.

"""""Certainly no one knows what this is, but there doesn't seem to be any discussions of the possibility,"""""""

Propagation of light over distance has been studied for years in minute detail. Inflation and dark energy are self-consistent.Tired light is not self-consistent and has been ruled out. Like the ether, the fringe still talk about as if it were viable while it has been experimentally ruled out a hundred years ago. Same with tired light,
Sionnach
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 10, 2013
"""""""Obviously I'm just a spectator, but in the overall balance, it does seem we have to keep putting our finger on the scale to make the expanding universe model work."""""""

That's the way pure science works. You observe. Then hypothesis. Test and question. Refine your hypothesis. Test, observe some more. Tweak your hypothesis. The expansion is not a model being made to work. Expansion is the observation. Not the model. Inflation and dark energy are components of the model to explain the observation. Only arm chair experts claim that inflation and dark energy are the one and only true model. It is most poorly understood. But they happen to be the most viable, self-consistent solutions proposed to date. Newer and contrary solutions are proffered every day. But they are not passing the basic requirements of good science.

You seem to have an idea that there are some club rules that limit inquiry, the only rule is "It must be self-consistent and fit all observations."
brodix
1 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2013
Sionnach,
I'm not going to make a big issue of it. Obviously you are convinced cosmology is going in the right direction and I have my doubts.
It is a fact of life though, that people do naturally form what amount to clubs around useful propositions. Whether their veracity is absolute, or conditional, only time will tell.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (12) Nov 10, 2013
In fact, the "accelerating universe' of Perlmutter is an example of a successful; swindle based on the unquestioning gullible.
Based on, apparently, a "scientifically" absurd single sample, Perlmutter declared that the galaxy it was in, 5 billion light years away so, therefore, presumably, 5 billion years ago, was moving faster than it should be by the conventional Hubble Constant, derived from the motions of galaxies closer to earth, therefore presumably viewed less long ago in time. The claim, therefore, was that the universe started expanding faster five billion years ago and is still.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (12) Nov 10, 2013
The flaws are immense.
First, the conventional Hubble Constant was derived from motions of galaxies one billion , two billion, thre3e billion light years away, therefore, one, two, three billion years ago, after the supposed "acceleration". But even Perlmutter admits that the conventional constant is less than that suggested by his "research". This means galaxies in the past couple of billions years, after the supposed "acceleration" are moving more slowly than they should, as suggested by the supposed greater velocity of the five billion light year distant galaxy! After the purported "acceleration" five billion years ago, p5roducing the new higher Hubble Constant, galaxies moved away at the lower Hubble Constant! Particles that "accelerate" in their separating do not travel more slowly than the particle which supposedly marked the beginning of the "acceleration"!
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (13) Nov 10, 2013
Also, consider the laughable "explanation" for the "conclusion" about the supposedly "accelerated" supernova.
Perlmutter literally said, by the light curve and the observed brightness, the supernova was further away than the team expected it to be. But how did they know how far away to expect it to be? Because they concluded it to be in a galaxy five billion light years away. In other words, they concluded the =supernova was in a galaxy five billion light years away, but it was further than five billion light years away! And how did they conclude the galaxy the supernova was in was five billion light years away? The galaxy's red shift showed it was receding at a velocity consistent with being five billion light years away by the conventional Hubble Constant. So the supernova is further than the galaxy it's in and traveling faster. Note, they still say the galaxy is five billion light years away, derived from the conventional constant!
Sionnach
1 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2013
If someone would please tell me what is so terribly wrong with the things I wrote it would very helpful. If I wrote something that you disagree with you might point out the flaws in my reasoning. But why are there only poor comment ratings for my comments? I don't feel anything I posted was controversial. Is this a closed club where the mainstream ideas are unwelcome or only for making wackadoodle comments on articles reporting mainstream science? I suppose that you are correct, I don't wish to be a member.
no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2013
If someone would please tell me what is so terribly wrong with the things I wrote... Is this a closed club where the mainstream ideas are unwelcome or only for making wackadoodle comments on articles reporting mainstream science?


Ignore the ratings, they dont mean anything. Some mainstream ideas are as flawed as the "wackadoodle" comments you are referring to.

For example a solar model fusing Hydrogen at the core ignores every observation regarding mass density sorting we have made. Somehow, if you believe mainstream ideas, the sun has forced the LIGHTEST element in the universe to it's core, and this is a GRAVITY based model. The earths gravity can barely retain hydrogen at the uppermost atmospheric level but density sorting dictates this is the only place it can go. A hydrogen core for any body is proposterous, yet it is staunchly defended by people smart enough to know better. I'll be a crank for pointing this out, despite it's scientific validy. No matter.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2013
If someone would please tell me what is so terribly wrong with the things I wrote... Is this a closed club where the mainstream ideas are unwelcome or only for making wackadoodle comments on articles reporting mainstream science?


There is a strong club of cranks here, with voting puppets, as no-fate says: Just ignore them. I collect their 1 votes as validation of my comments.

For example a solar model fusing Hydrogen at the core ignores every observation regarding mass density sorting we have made. Somehow, if you believe mainstream ideas, the sun has forced the LIGHTEST element in the universe to it's core, and this is a GRAVITY based model. ,,,,,,


Ya have the mainstream stellar models wrong. They all model the heavier elements pooling at the core. As the star fuses the light elements into heavier ones, the fusion product sinks, layered like an onion. Heavier at the core and progressively light elements surrounding it.
no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2013
I have never seen one that displayed the elemental organization in the core. Most only state that it is where fusion takes place and that the bulk of the reactions are the p-p chain hydrogen to helium. Can you link anything that shows the pooling?

I say this because for use experimentally, hydrogen has to be kept at such a low temperature or stored at room temp. in reinforced tanks depending on the bar rating until usage -

http://encycloped...GasID=36

It is really touchy stuff, even more so when heated. As a plasma in an earthbound chamber it disregards gravity altogether. Throw a field in there and you can do some pretty cool stuff but most of all you can achieve confinement and produce a structure.

Sorry, getting off topic. If you can link the core info....I tried searching various avenues and couldn't find a model showing it.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 11, 2013
I say this because for use experimentally, hydrogen has to be kept at such a low temperature or stored at room temp. in reinforced tanks depending on the bar rating until usage -


What would that have to do with an object like a star?

It is really touchy stuff, even more so when heated. As a plasma in an earthbound chamber it disregards gravity altogether. Throw a field in there and you can do some pretty cool stuff but most of all you can achieve confinement and produce a structure.

Sorry, getting off topic. If you can link the core info....I tried searching various avenues and couldn't find a model showing it.


http://en.wikiped...ells.svg

Hydrogen here on Earth is not at all like the environment in a new main sequence star. There hydrogen is around 74 % of the entire object, 24 % helium, and about 2 % of other elements. Earthbound chemical reactions don't apply in such an extreme environment.

no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 11, 2013
Thanks for the link, I had never seen that core model before.

"What would that have to do with an object like a star?"

Hydrogen's properties at various temperatures as documented, vs. how stellar models have it behaving simply don't mesh. Ask anyone who has ever worked with it if they believe that it can "collapse" into a new main sequence star under it's own gravity. It's gone as soon as it is hot enough to go...unless it is ionized and magnetically contained.
Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2013
Hydrogen's properties at various temperatures as documented, vs. how stellar models have it behaving simply don't mesh.


Ya realize that the fact these protons sans attached electrons might not be what an Earthbound chemist would experience? 10^30 kilograms at temperatures ranging from 10^7 K to 10^3 are not quite a normal (Earthwise) comparison.

Ask anyone who has ever worked with it if they believe that it can "collapse" into a new main sequence star under it's own gravity. It's gone as soon as it is hot enough to go...unless it is ionized and magnetically contained.


Ask anyone who has worked with 10^30 kilograms of any matter if it can collapse into a gravitationally bound object. It's gone? How? Where? It can't react chemically in the absence of abundant other elements. Helium is chemically nonreactive, the other elements are too rarefied.. Once it starts collapsing, it heats and does become plasma = no chemistry is possible in that state.
Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2013
Thanks for the link, I had never seen that core model before.


Then ya really haven't studied what the mainstream astrophysics has been teaching for more than sixty years.

It's possible ya have been exposed to series of "game changing" videos that A2G and Rubberman were touting here a while back. Warning Warning, Bunk Science Alert. The fellow that made those "light shows" is only more reliable than Zephyr in that he speaks better English, but their science is exactly equal in quality.
no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 12, 2013

"Ya realize that the fact these protons sans attached electrons might not be what an Earthbound chemist would experience? 10^30 kilograms at temperatures ranging from 10^7 K to 10^3 are not quite a normal (Earthwise) comparison." = Plasma

"Once it starts collapsing, it heats and does become plasma"

Really? Try and "collapse" it like you are claiming it happens. I provided the chemical characteristics to illustrate the temperatures/pressures required for each of it's states. The claim that it collapses and heats itself is absurd given the temperature required for it to exist as a liquid...let alone a solid. The pressure required to compress Hydrogen to the point that it begins to heat up can't be generated by its own gravity.

This is basic physics, you inferred you have this type of education and normally post as such. Ask any PHD, is it mathematically possible. I hadn't seen that core model because any model based on gravitationally collapsing hydrogen is bunk science.


no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 12, 2013
I have never seen the physical characteristics of the sun modelled as they truly must be for it to do what it does, by any mainstream astrophysics. The belief that plasma is succeptible to gravitational confinement is as misplaced as the belief that a homegenous cloud of it will align by itself to create magnetic fields.

I was being polite in thanking you for that model of the core of a star 8 times more massive than our sun, it looks closer to the density gradient of a planet, but it is only close to correct if this "collapse" is possible in the first place, it's not.

A2G is Dave Lapoint, Primer fields series. I am curious as to what he is saying that is bunk. People more intelligent than I say it has merit...tested aspects of it and didn't change their minds. Granted it is as far from conventional as our AWT columnist, it does a better job of describing observed reality with what can actually occur than the standard model does. (It uses what's observed, not inferred).

Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2013
This is basic physics, you inferred you have this type of education and normally post as such. Ask any PHD, is it mathematically possible. I hadn't seen that core model because any model based on gravitationally collapsing hydrogen is bunk science.


Anyone with PhD would have to describe the stellar forming process exactly as I have, or they never would have been awarded their PhD. That's how "mainstream" what I presented was. So maybe ya shouldn't comment on what mainstream physicists and mainstream models posit. What I have said is so "mainstream", it's the ONLY thing taught at any level in any university.

That's why Gamov, Eddington, Hoyle, Alpher, Jeans, Bondi and others are household names in stellar astrophysics, and the only people who have ever heard of the A2G fellow are uninformed people who have been exposed to him on the You Tube and internet. Before ya say what is possible or not possible, ya should first learn what is that the mainstream science claims.
no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 12, 2013
Referring to anything someone says as bunk when you don't know what they have said because it is different than your personal view is religion. No place for that in science.

"Anyone with PhD would have to describe the stellar forming process exactly as I have"... Not anyone, just the ones who bought it, like you.

As I challenged CD85 to align the particles without a field. The challenge for your model to work is as simple as collapse the Hydrogen as you claim it does.

Mainstream claims hydrogen collapses gravitationally in vacuum, not even wrong. Impossible. Nuff said on that.
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2013
Mainstream claims hydrogen collapses gravitationally in vacuum, not even wrong. Impossible. Nuff said on that.


Well we're making progress, at least ya finding out a little of what the mainstream says,,,, impossible ya say? Well if it's impossible there is a whole universe of objects out there that aren't there. Gravity is impossible, who would have thunk it? Matter won't clump together under the influence of gravity, who would have thunk it? Mainstream miscreants should know that it is impossible for clouds of gas and dust to collapse into objects under the influence of gravity. How silly of them.
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2013
Referring to anything someone says as bunk when you don't know what they have said because it is different than your personal view is religion.


Are ya A2G? That would explain how personal ya are taking this.

But be that as it may be,,,,,,, If I didn't know what they have said, how would I know it is different from my personal mainstream view? Is that the kind of logic ya found your understanding of physics on,,,, I don't know what they said, but I do know it is different?
no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 12, 2013


impossible ya say? Well if it's impossible there is a whole universe of objects out there that aren't there. Gravity is impossible, who would have thunk it? Matter won't clump together under the influence of gravity, who would have thunk it? Mainstream miscreants should know that it is impossible for clouds of gas and dust to collapse into objects under the influence of gravity.


Very flimsy strawman. They just couldn't have arrived in the manner you were taught they did because hydrogen won't clump together. You keep dodging this one. I suspect because you have checked and know it's true. You can't use a pre existing object as proof of HOW it got there. But if we can then I will choose to use it as proof that magnetic energy focus is correct too.

LOL, I am not taking anything personally, above you dismissed it as bunk because it isn't taught in a PHD program and i extrapolated that you hadn't seen it based on that.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2013
Helium is chemically nonreactive, the other elements are too rarefied

Actually He makes a number of very interesting compounds.
http://en.wikiped...ompounds
Once it starts collapsing, it heats and does become plasma = no chemistry is possible in that state
Again, not so.

"Helium can form unstable compounds, known as excimers, with tungsten, iodine, fluorine, sulfur and phosphorus when it is subjected to a glow discharge, to electron bombardment, or else is a plasma for another reason"

Plasma chemistry
http://en.wikiped...hemistry
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2013
Very flimsy strawman. They just couldn't have arrived in the manner you were taught they did because hydrogen won't clump together. You keep dodging this one. I suspect because you have checked and know it's true.


I'm dodging nothing. I can't explain the Jeans length, Jeans mass, and the Eddington limit on a forum like this. Look them up them up and ya have my answer.It's good physics based on the fundamentals.

You can't use a pre existing object as proof of HOW it got there. But if we can then I will choose to use it as proof that magnetic energy focus is correct too.


Fine by me, if ya are partial to the AWT, EU or PC models that is okay with me. I am comfortable with my model, ya, Zeph, & can'tdrive are entitled to your favorites.

LOL, I am not taking anything personally, above you dismissed it as bunk because it isn't taught in a PHD program and i extrapolated that you hadn't seen it based on that.


I called it bunk because it is only quasi-physical
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2013
Once it starts collapsing, it heats and does become plasma = no chemistry is possible in that state


Again, not so.

Helium can form unstable compounds, known as excimers, with tungsten, iodine, fluorine, sulfur and phosphorus when it is subjected to a glow discharge, to electron bombardment, or else is a plasma for another reason"


We are talking about an environment where 1) All those elements are only in trace amounts. 2) Are heated to millions of degrees and don't exist as atoms. 3) If they don't exist as atoms (ions without electrons) they can not form chemical compounds. Other than that ya might have a point. But we weren't talking about directed and controlled earthbound lab experiments, we were talking about the inside of a thermonuclear furnace at 10^7 Kelvin.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Nov 12, 2013
We are talking about an environment where 1) All those elements are only in trace amounts. 2) Are heated to millions of degrees and don't exist as atoms. 3) If they don't exist as atoms (ions without electrons) they can not form chemical compounds. Other than that ya might have a point. But we weren't talking about directed and controlled earthbound lab experiments, we were talking about the inside of a thermonuclear furnace at 10^7 Kelvin
So I was being pedantic so what? Its still interesting.

"The process of converting an atom or molecule into an ion by adding or removing charged particles such as electrons or other ions can occur in the gas phase. These processes are an important component of gas phase ion chemistry."

Chemistry can take place with partially ionized materials without ever being de-ionized.
http://www.plasma...f_plasma
Q-Star
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2013
We are talking about an environment where 1) All those elements are only in trace amounts. 2) Are heated to millions of degrees and don't exist as atoms. 3) If they don't exist as atoms (ions without electrons) they can not form chemical compounds. Other than that ya might have a point. But we weren't talking about directed and controlled earthbound lab experiments, we were talking about the inside of a thermonuclear furnace at 10^7 Kelvin
So I was being pedantic so what? Its still interesting.

"The process of converting an atom or molecule into an ion by adding or removing charged particles such as electrons or other ions can occur in the gas phase. These processes are an important component of gas phase ion chemistry."

Chemistry can take place with partially ionized materials without ever being de-ionized.
http://www.plasma...f_plasma


Don't get wrong, it is interesting.But there can't be any chemistry going on in a main sequence star.It's too hot.
no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2013
"Fine by me, if ya are partial to the AWT, EU or PC models that is okay with me. I am comfortable with my model, ya, Zeph, & can'tdrive are entitled to your favorites."

I am comfortable with this as well, I am not trying to change your mind or beliefs Q-star. In applicational sciences there is no room for speculation when you have to make something work and everything follows the rules nature has set. The rules for Hydrogen and plasma, as set by nature will not make it conform to the current model of a star which is why i urged you to find someone who works with it, who's opinion you trust of course, and ask them, based on their experience with it, if the solar model is correct.


Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2013
The rules for Hydrogen and plasma, as set by nature will not make it conform to the current model of a star


What rules are these? Why are the current models of stellar formation outside of the rules as set by nature? What principals do ya make this assessment on? Stellar astrophysical models are based on the fundamental principals, they are self-consistent. Unless ya can show how they are in violation of the 1st principals, ya can't claim that they are and be taken at face value.
no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 13, 2013
"What rules are these?"

The rules where the temperature required for hydrogen to gravitationally "collapse" into a dense enough state to initiate nuclear reaction cannot possibly exist because hydrogen expands far too rapidly at far too low a temperature for it to happen.

@ 20 C our atmosphere has a specific gravity of 1 relative to itself (sea level), hydrogen by comparison has a specific gravity of .0696 which means at that temperture a concentration of hydrogen occupies about 14 times as much space as air. I can link this if need be.

James Jean modelled a spherical gaseous mass with a COG, critical temperature and matter content, and did some good math to show how it collapses. Never seen a spherical cloud in space, never seen matter get colder as it is compressed,but most importantly, I have never seen charged bodies "stick" to each other because of gravity before magnetism.

Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2013
The rules where the temperature required for hydrogen to gravitationally "collapse" into a dense enough state to initiate nuclear reaction cannot possibly exist because hydrogen expands far too rapidly at far too low a temperature for it to happen.


Ya want to stick with that line reasoning? Because there are NO rules that preclude hydrogen collapsing into a dense enough mass to initiate core fusion. The rule does not exist.

@ 20 C our atmosphere has a specific gravity of 1 relative to itself (sea level), hydrogen by comparison has a specific gravity of .0696 which means at that temperture a concentration of hydrogen occupies about 14 times as much space as air. I can link this if need be.


Very bad example.There is a slight difference in initial conditions: Minute quantity of hydrogen in a mixed gas in an earth mass gravity field,,, 100 or 1000 solar mass cloud of 74% Hydrogen 23 % helium, < 2% other elements < 1 % dust.

Not quite apples and apples? Eh?
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2013
James Jean modelled a spherical gaseous mass with a COG, critical temperature and matter content, and did some good math to show how it collapses. Never seen a spherical cloud in space, never seen matter get colder as it is compressed,but most importantly, I have never seen charged bodies "stick" to each other because of gravity before magnetism.


There is localized electrostatic "sticking".I've never seen matter get colder when compressed either. That is why a stable main sequence star is in a state of hydrostatic equilibrium, it's very hot . One of the primary factors that account for star formation is a condition which allows heat to radiated away."Hot" clouds don't generally initiate star birth regardless of the Jeans mass/length conditions. As ya advised me, maybe ya should first see what people who understand and know these things have to say about what is "impossible".Youtube light show artists aren't a good place to place all your money on.

Try a Nobel laureate or so
no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
"The rule does not exist."

The rule in this case is made by the hydrogen and it's properties/behaviours. I have to confess I am having a nice yuk with this one: The mainstream guys on this site completely understand when I explain plasmic behaviour to one of the EU guys WRT how it works, particle alignment, magnetic fields and such and you rate highly because you know what I am saying is 100% correct. Yet here i am having a discussion about a body that is 90% plasma by your model that you believe operates on a different base principle. A Principle you believe the universe operates on, when we know 99.9& of everything we are looking at is plasma..and the reasons for this belief are the properties of the neutral ball we grew up on which have been applied to bodies of a completely different nature, hence you think all motion is mass/gravity directed. But 99.9 % of the visible universe is more influenced by the force of magnetism than the force of gravity.

But the real gutbuster...
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2013
I am having a nice yuk with this one: The mainstream guys on this site completely understand when I explain plasmic behaviour to one of the EU guys WRT how it works, particle alignment, magnetic fields and such and you rate highly because you know what I am saying is 100% correct.


Then ask some of the "mainstream guys" about stellar formation and evolution. And how ya are 100% correct. Because your idea that gravitation does not drive star formation is unphysical. I will await one of the "mainstream guys" to show me my error in not knowing "what is impossible".
no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
Is the search for the answer by the mainstream group as to why the math doesn't work without the DM component. I mean seriously, literally thousands of astronomical pictures showing charged particles following magntic field boundaries but a heap of clever math shows that if conditions are just right, gravity can do it too. The entire realm of science is based on the frequency range we can measure in the EM spectrum, all of the radiation we measure in space apart from IR blackbody comes from Hydrogen in motion as a plasma and a magnetic field surrounds every stable particle...but gravity keeps it all together...sure it does. Gravity can collapse a cloud of hydrogen into a star...sure it can...YUK!

The only thing that can collapse a Hydrogen cloud into a star is creative math.

I like your jocularity with the "ya's" and your staunch defence of what you believe are solid scientific principles, but get yourself to lab son!

Play with the elements you claim to understand...test...learn.
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2013
But 99.9 % of the visible universe is more influenced by the force of magnetism than the force of gravity.

But the real gutbuster...


Yes it is a real gutbuster,,,, ya are A2G, I thought that might be the case.
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2013
I like your jocularity with the "ya's" and your staunch defence of what you believe are solid scientific principles, but get yourself to lab son!

Play with the elements you claim to understand...test...learn.


Ya's is a habit of speech that I grew up with. No more, no less.

Labs are good and fine. But hydrogen being squeezed, compressed, with an outside source of energy being added into the system (the TANK, the JAR, or the BOTTLE) being subjected to an external power source, might not be quite the same as hydrogen not in a container, not being squeezed, compressed and shocked with an external power source. Especially since in the lab ya are only dealing with grams and kilograms, not with 100's or 1000's of solar masses WITHOUT an external power source. But keep trying to say they are the same.

I'm still waiting for a list of hydrogen rules that precludes it gravitationally interacting.
no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
." Because your idea that gravitation does not drive star formation is unphysical."

Actually, the idea that gravity does drive star formation is unphysical. For the temperatures that exist during formation and the elemental composition present, if the matter wasn't being directed and compressed by a field the thermal pressure would win out and the condensing object would expand. You may want to consider that one of the measured effects of gravity is it's decrease when moving towards the center of mass....the exact same region where thermal pressure increases according to a mainstream model...major discord...not a stable body. The gravity math fails, ironically due to mass effects. Irony is one of my favorite things, and I thank you for the entertaining discussion.

You seem young enough that you will be around while the universe beats the truth into humanity, ironic the tools built to solve mysteries keep creating them when you refuse to accept what you are looking at...love irony.
no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
"the TANK, the JAR, or the BOTTLE"

Has to equate the force of gravity in your model. This is very simple, the PSI required to compress Hydrogen to the point of fusion at the temperature the current model has it occurring at during stellar formation requires more gravity than the mass can generate to offset thermal expansion. Hydrogens rate of expansion at increasing thermal regimes make fusion via gravitational compression impossible, along with the issue i mentioned above regarding gravity in general. This is why people who see stars for what they actually are have turned to magnetics and plasma to explain them. Models being created directly in front of me which explain so many of the "mysteries" particle physics can't are all based on magnetic behaviour, the measuments and the math are in sync, it works on the Quantum scale and the Macro.

Particle physics has it's place in this, but it's the back seat...maybe the roof rack if it can't sit still and shut up for the ride.
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2013
For the temperatures that exist during formation and the elemental composition present, if the matter wasn't being directed and compressed by a field


It is,,, a gravitational field.

the thermal pressure would win out and the condensing object would expand.


The condensing object does expand, until it radiates enough energy to balance out the thermal pressure,,, we call that condition hydrostatic equilibrium. As long as there is fuel (hydrogen then helium then carbon then etc) the thermal pressure prevents gravitational collapse. When the fuel runs out then the gravitational collapse continues until ya have a white dwarf, neutron star or black hole depending the mass. All very physical. All very quantifiable. And all observable. And most importantly, self-consistent. (And all based on elementary physics.)

Magnetic super energy generators? Na, not so physical, quantifiable, or self-consistent.

Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2013
Has to equate the force of gravity in your model. This is very simple, the PSI required to compress Hydrogen to the point of fusion at the temperature the current model has it occurring at during stellar formation requires more gravity than the mass can generate to offset thermal expansion.


10^30 kilograms of hydrogen creates a strong enough gravitational field to do a lot of compressing. So how does a magnet create enough force to cause such extreme compression? Do the maths, calculate the magnetic energy required to condense hydrogen to the point it starts fusion. Or do ya think the thermonuclear part is wrong too? Then ya might explain where that "magnetic power supply" comes from (but only after ya have show me that ya really know the magnitudes involved, not some qualitative only supposition of this in the lab so it must be in the cosmos).Real numbers that will get ya there. That's where the self-consistent failure emerges in any model not based on gravitation.
no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2013
"It is,,, a gravitational field"

No, it is a magnetic field.

"until it radiates enough energy to balance out the thermal pressure,"

Heat, generated at the core of a condensing object, radiates through the condensing matter, which in this case is hydrogen, which expands tremendously when heated. Your model has this process due to mass accretion...laughing now...of mostly hydrogen...which is being heated and expanded...another mathematical fail.

Keep your faith until it is proven misguided Q-star. But don't plug your ears and bury your obviously intelligent brain in the sand when the evidence continues to mount, that other than the miniscule neutral bodies orbiting the equitorial plane of stars, the entire universe operates on magnetic plasma principles, and gravity plays a small role, only in the immediate solar system.

It has been fun.
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2013
It has been fun.


Does that mean ya aren't going to point me to a model with the maths worked out of this magnetic star model? A paper or two that the computations have done that lay out how this magnetic star formation takes place that is consistent with its self and consistent with observations?

I didn't think so.
no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2013
I won't need to point it out, you'll see it. REAL scientists like to make sure to account for all known variables if at all possible, not just the ones that make the model work.

On that note, think about the decreasing gravity towards the center of mass and how your model shows fusion due to gravitational compression taking place where there is the least amount of gravitational compression, none of the guys in your program ever questioned this? I guess not if there is math that says to ignore it....the actual math makes a laughing stock of the model.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2013
On that note, think about the decreasing gravity towards the center of mass and how your model shows fusion due to gravitational compression taking place where there is the least amount of gravitational compression


Okay I'll bite. That means the pressure in, say, the ocean, gets lower and lower, as ya get deeper (close to the center of gravity)? Or say, the pressure and density in the atmosphere gets lower the lower in the atmosphere ya get. High barometric pressure means high altitude? Well tickle me with a rusty nail, all these years I thought the more stuff ya had on top of ya the more ya would be compressed.

In a gravitationally bound body, the pressure increases with depth.

none of the guys in your program ever questioned this? I guess not if there is math that says to ignore it....the actual math makes a laughing stock of the model.


The laugh is in thinking that greater depth doesn't mean greater density pressure temperature. Self consistent.
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2013
REAL scientists like to make sure to account for all known variables if at all possible, not just the ones that make the model work.


REAL scientists know how to treat a gravitationally bound system. REAL scientists KNOW that pressure increases with depth. Density increases with depth. Compression increases with depth. REAL scientists know that the more stuff ya have on top of ya the more squished ya are going to get. But don't take my word for it, take a diving trip and see how much more compressed ya get at 1000 feet, than at 10 feet (don't forget to make out a will first.) Or sky dive at 100,000 feet and compare the pressure from exit with the pressure reported that day at the airport.

REAL scientists indeed.

no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2013
The laugh is that at the center of mass there is an equal amount of mass in every direction, so gravity at the center of mass = 0. At the perimeter of the mass is where the most gravity is (top of the atmosphere of a planet), since gravity is mass dependent, you experience the gravity of the mass all around you. You are taking the force at the surface of mass and projecting its effect from the center of mass as though a point near the center of mass experiences the same force in the same direction as a point on the surface, it is impossible for this to happen BECAUSE of the laws of gravity. Atmosphere and ocean are poor examples of the point you were trying to illustrate because there is far more earth mass below the bottom of the ocean/atmosphere, but technically yes there is less gravity there. No difference in a star, this applies to both. I didn't say there was only one thing wrong the current model. Like i said, you always have to follow the rules, gravity is no different.
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2013
Like i said, you always have to follow the rules, gravity is no different.


Like I said. Ya have to know the science. The acceleration due to gravity is an entirely different effect than the pressure due to weight. At the center of gravity in a gravitationally bound object, yes ya will encounter zero acceleration due to gravity, but ya will also experience the weight of everything on top ya due to the acceleration of gravity on all of it. This is physics at it's more elementary. It just has no other explanation.

The Sun has been radiating energy at the rate of 3.8 X 10^26 joules per second for five billion years. There is no source of energy known to physics today that can produce that except thermonuclear fusion. Any thing else in all of known physics would have exhausted the supply billions of years ago.

Ya know how much power that is, right? 3.8 x 10^26 watts. Ya know how long that is, right? 5,000,000,000 years. Every second for 5,000,000,000 years. A magnet?
Zephir_fan
Nov 15, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
no fate
1 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2013
Explain how zero acceleration due to gravity translates to still feeling the pressure of weight....please. This must be one hell of a PHD program if they teach you one thing is independant of the other. Being as you require gravity to feel the pressure of weight and all....
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2013
Explain how zero acceleration due to gravity translates to still feeling the pressure of weight....please. This must be one hell of a PHD program if they teach you one thing is independant of the other. Being as you require gravity to feel the pressure of weight and all....


Because all that stuff on top up you is being pulled down towards you. The more stuff on top of ya, the more it weights. The pressure ya feel has nothing to do with the gravity ya feel pulling ya down,,,, the pressure is dictated by the stuff above ya that gravity is working on. If ya go down to the center of the Earth, gravity is not going to pull on ya,,,, but it is going to pull everything above ya towards ya.....

It's starting to get down to junior high school level here. Things at the bottom, feel the weight of everything up to the top. Things in the middle feel the weight/pressure of everything above them, but not the weight of the things below them.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2013
Speaking of teaching,,,,,

Here in the office we have a syntax checker / plagiarism software thing. I apologize for wrongly assuming that ya were A2G.

What happened to the rubberman persona? What is the significance of the new "no fate"?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2013
hoowee, now I understand the change of persona,,,,,, I've been reading over your last little bout of trying to teach basic physics to us educationally challenged poor souls.

How's the "photons carry either negative or positive charges theory" going? Better than your understanding of gravitation I hope, but it wasn't very promising either. Ya should have stuck with that and left something that works as well Newtonian & relativistic gravitation alone, ya really don't presume that ya could have improved on Newton or Einstein do ya?
jalmy
1 / 5 (10) Nov 16, 2013
I'm laughing so hard reading this. "The entire universe operates on magnetic plasma principles, and gravity plays a small role, only in the immediate solar system." This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever, ever read. Any 8 year old who has played with a magnet one time can tell you magnetism is indeed strong, but its TINY range makes it completely useless on the macro scale. Gravity which is weaker but has infinity longer range than magnetism OBVIOUSLY runs the show. Gravity is obviously what forms stars. To be anything else is absurd, if you can't see how it happens in math. You need to change your math. Observation trumps math. If stars were formed by ANYTHING else, they would not be spheres. Does magnetism look spherical to you? There is a reason scientific method starts with "observation" and not "make stupid math formula based on misunderstood or wrong preexisting principles."
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013

Because all that stuff on top up you is being pulled down towards you. The more stuff on top of ya, the more it weights. The pressure ya feel has nothing to do with the gravity ya feel pulling ya down,,,, the pressure is dictated by the stuff above ya that gravity is working on. If ya go down to the center of the Earth, gravity is not going to pull on ya,,,, but it is going to pull everything above ya towards ya.....

It's starting to get down to junior high school level here. Things at the bottom, feel the weight of everything up to the top. Things in the middle feel the weight/pressure of everything above them, but not the weight of the things below them.


I wish I could have let this go, but what is written above is so anti-physics I just couldn't. At the center of mass there is no "below" or "above". Being surrounded by equal mass on all axis translates to equal gravitational acceleration in all directions. At this point nothing has weight or experiences pressure.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
Instead of your identity hunt, focus on the topic of debate and you may not say something so far "below" the junior high level. Your understanding of the mass mechanics and gravitational acceleration at specific points inside of a sphere of matter isn't coherent with the mass/gravity relationship and is not supported by real math, just an equation you think pertains to the object in question. The math says that gravitational acceleration decreases as you travel through a mass towards it's center, clearly because you are changing the position of the mass in relation to the point you are measuring. If there is no gravity where you think it is the strongest, how correct is your model?

I can see this is way above your head based on your comments and preoccupation whom ever you assume I am, but anyone reading this thread who has an understanding of mass knows what I am saying is 100% correct, and by default, so is my original point of debate regarding gravitational "collapse" of anything.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2013
I wish I could have let this go, but what is written above is so anti-physics I just couldn't.


At the center of mass, everything is above ya. At the center of the Earth, everything is above (towards the outside) ya. Difficult concept, I know, but one a kindergartner usually masters before starting school.

Being surrounded by equal mass on all axis translates to equal gravitational acceleration in all directions. At this point nothing has weight or experiences pressure.


What then causes the pressure of the atmosphere pressing against ya? Could it possibly be that atmospheric pressure is greater at the bottom because there is MORE atmosphere above ya than there is if ya were in the middle of the Earth's atmospheric layer. Why is it that as ya go deeper in the ocean, that pressure increases? Could it be that more water is on top of ya?

Can ya not realize, that pressure ya feel of the things above ya are not the same effect as the gravitation ya feel from below?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2013
Your understanding of the mass mechanics and gravitational acceleration at specific points inside of a sphere of matter isn't coherent with the mass/gravity relationship and is not supported by real math, just an equation you think pertains to the object in question.


Mine is the most conventional, and most well tested and most taught view.

The math says that gravitational acceleration decreases as you travel through a mass towards it's center, clearly because you are changing the position of the mass in relation to the point you are measuring. If there is no gravity where you think it is the strongest, how correct is your model?


Because the mass above ya is being pulled down on ya, irrespective of the gravity ya are experiencing.

but anyone reading this thread who has an understanding of mass knows what I am saying is 100% correct, and by default, so is my original point of debate regarding gravitational "collapse" of anything.


Then ya should request a poll.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
I take it back, your brain isn't intelligent. You can't grasp what a sphere is. You cannot not grasp that at the center point of a sphere there is no "below". Do you not comprehend that gravitational acceleration of mass ALWAYS happens in the direction of the mass?
That IS gravity.

"Mine is the most conventional, and most well tested and most taught view." - I know, that is why they call it "mainstream".

This model has amounted to every year since it was accepted being wasted by doing math around it. It has led to the most rediculous conclusions smart people ever made and dedicated monumentally expensive resources on the attempts at verifying these conclusions. I find it hilarious, personally.

Your inability to grasp that what you are saying is just plain stupid is also pretty funny. But keep restating it...it just gets funnier when you do.

no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013

"At the center of mass, everything is above ya. At the center of the Earth, everything is above (towards the outside) ya. Difficult concept, I know, but one a kindergartner usually masters before starting school."

Your saying 2 totally different things are the same junior. Think about it,,,,,ready? If you are surrounded by matter floating in a vacuum, encased in it, how do discern "up" from "down"? So it must be back to nursery school since it now appears Kindergarten is above your level of comprehension of spatial concepts...you instill ever more confidence in your program with every word...keep talking.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2013
I take it back, your brain isn't intelligent. You can't grasp what a sphere is. You cannot not grasp that at the center point of a sphere there is no "below".


That's what I said, everything is "above" the center.

Do you not comprehend that gravitational acceleration of mass ALWAYS happens in the direction of the mass?
That IS gravity.


The mass above ya manifests as weight, towards the center. It is is above ya, it pushes towards ya.

Your inability to grasp that what you are saying is just plain stupid is also pretty funny. But keep restating it...it just gets funnier when you do.


Glad ya think it entertaining. How about ya returning the favor and explain what REALLY causes increased pressure at deeper and deeper depths?

Ya're becoming unhinged. I'm not so very busy today, school me and tell me what causes pressure in a gravitationally bound mass. How the deeper ya go, the pressure decreases.

My physics/maths are so uninformed offer up better
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
"What then causes the pressure of the atmosphere pressing against ya?"

That would be the gravitaional acceleration of the ENTIRE earths mass minus that of the atmosphere (it is part of the whole) being "below" me.

"Why is it that as ya go deeper in the ocean, that pressure increases? Could it be that more water is on top of ya?"

"That would be the gravitaional acceleration of the ENTIRE earths mass minus that of the atmosphere and ocean being "below" me."

"Can ya not realize, that pressure ya feel of the things above ya are not the same effect as the gravitation ya feel from below?"

Can ya not realize that mass attraction generates the gravitational acceleration that causes the pressure of weight? Being at the bottom of that ocean, without the earth below that bottom, you wouldn't feel the "pressure" because there would be nothing to accelerate the water. This is as simple as the rest of the stuff you aren't understanding.

Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2013
Can ya not realize that mass attraction generates the gravitational acceleration that causes the pressure of weight? Being at the bottom of that ocean, without the earth below that bottom, you wouldn't feel the "pressure" because there would be nothing to accelerate the water. This is as simple as the rest of the stuff you aren't understanding.


There is no bottom, consider a super massive spherical ocean, a water-world, as ya go deeper ya feel more pressure, as ya pass through the center, the pressure starts decreasing, because ya now moving toward the surface.

There is no need to keep calling me stupid, unintelligent, and ignorant. Everything I'm saying is conventional and well established. Everything I'm saying is also said by 99.9999% of the physics community. I'm in good company. Ya are on the fringe, not me. This is established science.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
"Glad ya think it entertaining. How about ya returning the favor and explain what REALLY causes increased pressure at deeper and deeper depths?"

It is still the acceleration of gravity. You just can't grasp that it diminishes every millimeter towards the center of mass you travel. Let's call that direction forwards, toward that point. Moving in that direction, all the mass that you put "behind" you works to accelerate you away from that point. That is gravity, that is mass attraction, I can't state how it works any simpler.

This is example #5 in this thread of the concept you are having so much trouble with, how many is it going to take?
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
"There is no need to keep calling me stupid, unintelligent, and ignorant. Everything I'm saying is conventional and well established. Everything I'm saying is also said by 99.9999% of the physics community."

Hence you have all agreed that the model i am telling you is incorrect is actually correct. You are debating from that standpoint, the standpoint of increasing density gradient all the way to the core, I have provided several examples as to why this is flawed, not using "fringe" ideas, but using the very definition of how the mainstream model of gravitational acceleration works...based on the location of mass. It begs the question: how do you miss this variable when modelling any sphere in space?
Q-Star
4 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2013
You are debating from that standpoint, the standpoint of increasing density gradient all the way to the core, I have provided several examples as to why this is flawed, not using "fringe" ideas, but using the very definition of how the mainstream model of gravitational acceleration works..


No ya have not. Ya may say it as often as ya like, ya are only misusing the mainstream models and don't realize it. There must be one person on this site that can explain to me better than ya seem to be doing. Maybe ya could point me to mainstream paper or textbook that backs ya up, I have access to just about anything that might have been published. If it is so true and simple as ya say, how come no one in the physics world agrees with ya? Are ya the only one smart of enough to see it? Who are some other smart people who would deny that pressure increases with depth? All the way to the center?

References please?
Walters1
Nov 18, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zephir_fan
Nov 18, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
"ya are only misusing the mainstream models and don't realize it. There must be one person on this site that can explain to me better than ya seem to be doing. Maybe ya could point me to mainstream paper or textbook that backs ya up".

There isn't one, you (mainstream) all agree on the density gradient as you have it modelled. And I am not "misusing" anything. The amount of gravitational acceleration generated by a mass is proportionate to the amount of mass contained within the boundary of an object, this is why it is highest at the boundary. Inside the object, gravitational acceleration due to mass isn't unidirectional anymore because of the location of mass. If mass is responsible for generating gravity, which all models assume it is, then all mass generates gravitational acceleration towards itself, regardless of where in the body the mass is...this is #6.

Still not getting it?

Perhaps someone else does need to explain this to you. Perhaps an engineer or lab tech is nearby?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Nov 18, 2013
Perhaps someone else does need to explain this to you. Perhaps an engineer or lab tech is nearby?


Plenty of them close by. Unfortunately they all learned the same silly notions I have, ya know those silly notions of Dalton, Hook, Boyle, Newton, Einstein, Kirchhoff, Charles, Helmholtz, Kelvin, Joule, Watts, Thompson, Jeans, Wien, Boltzmann, etc, etc, etc,,,,, thick witted all I know,,,, but then they didn't have ya around to set them straight.

I'll ask again, reference or source of something that supersedes their work please? To be sure someone, at least one person, has seen fit to publish this new physics ya are proposing?
Zephir_fan
Nov 18, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2013
Resorting to name dropping to support yourself, weak. I am challenging your understanding of the fundamental force you claim to understand best, so far six accurate examples of how it has to operate because of the fundamental relationship between mass and gravity reveal nothing more than your own cognitive dissonance in your inability to accept any of them. You just keep saying I am right because I was taught that the model is and all these guys who made it are really smart.

That's the same reason CD85 thinks he's right.

Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2013
Resorting to name dropping to support yourself, weak.


I am name dropping because these people have produced bodies of work that can accessed and that has been tested and confirmed many times over. Their work has stood the test of time, and hundreds of smart people trying to prove them wrong.

You just keep saying I am right because I was taught that the model is and all these guys who made it are really smart.


That's why everyone (who knows and understands science) knows their names and their work, they ARE really smart.

That's the same reason CD85 thinks he's right.


He only drops their names with some philosophical quotes, and usually out of context. Nice try.

Once more, will ya name some sources please? (I won't accuse ya of name dropping).

@Zephyr fan,

Please don't try to help me, I really don't need/want it. Zephyr needs all of your efforts and devotion. Ya aren't helping. One person calling me names on one thread is enough.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
I gave you a 5 on that one for the Zephir fan comment.

"That's why everyone (who knows and understands science) knows their names and their work, they ARE really smart."

Understands it the way you do for clarification, and yes they are/were all smart people. Which again begs the question, how would they miss something like this? The fact that Zephir fan is in your corner should be sending up some very large red flags. For source evidence, google "magma". Check out the density profiles of the various types. It is always less dense than mantle or crust, the least viscous magma originates from the greatest depth. The observations show us the complete opposite of an increasing density gradient.

Why are you asking for sources to back up what I am saying...it's simple math. If someone elses group has also made these conclusions I am not aware of them and no one in your arena will ever question the current model, you have repeatedly said this.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
To clarify something else. I am not continuing this discussion in the hopes of convincing you or anyone else with pre-conceived notions that YOU are wrong, this is for anyone without that affliction who is reading, and understands that physics has to follow it's own rules when dealing in reality, so all the mathematical plausibility in the world doesn't make anything real. When you do the math that applies to the earth model, or the sun model, you have factor in the mass on all vectors, just like a multi body problem, except that in this case the multi-directional acceleration happens because you are INSIDE the mass of a single body.

Your logical fallacy here is the same as noted earlier in this thread, you can't grasp that ALL mass attracts gravitationally, part of the 1G at earths surface has to factor in the gravitational acceleration acting upon the surface by the atmosphere, the fact that it has mass means that it gravitationally accelerates mass towards it.

#7
Zephir_fan
Nov 19, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2013
Your logical fallacy here is the same as noted earlier in this thread, you can't grasp that ALL mass attracts gravitationally, part of the 1G at earths surface has to factor in the gravitational acceleration acting upon the surface by the atmosphere, the fact that it has mass means that it gravitationally accelerates mass towards it.


And your logical fallacy here is that ya don't understand pressure, what causes it, and how it is distributed in a gravitationally bound body. Ya are conflating an objects gravity and the force upon that same object by gravity acting on the stuff (objects) surrounding it.

Ya seem to think that thousands of people over the centuries all read the same five page paper and stopped there, that entire life times have been spent without seeing something so simple as what ya have discovered. None of them were smart enough to realize that what they were doing was unphysical. They were all wrong, but ya are right.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2013
@ no fate,,, or anyone else who may be interested,,,,

There is a man I know well who has written one the best treatments of stellar formation and life cycles for the general reader. The science and the reasons for the modern stellar models are clearly laid out in great detail. So is the history of discovery which lead to the modern stellar modeling.

AND for ya magnet and plasma fans, he's also the one of the leading researchers in the field of plasma-magnetic phenomena as applied to stellar astrophysics.

"The Life And Death of Stars"
2013 Cambridge University Press
Kenneth Lang, Tufts University

It's as current and up to date as anything out there. He primary field of research is stellar evolution and magnetically generated "explosions" in stars.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
If he is using a model with an increasing density gradient, all of the info. in his book regarding stellar formation, planetary formation, is wrong. I hope he makes alot of money off it, in our lifetimes it will be re-classified as science fiction...like most of Hawkings stuff.

I have a far better understanding of pressure and how it ties to gravitational acceleration than you do:

"The acceleration due to gravity is an entirely different effect than the pressure due to weight. At the center of gravity in a gravitationally bound object, yes ya will encounter zero acceleration due to gravity, but ya will also experience the weight of everything on top ya due to the acceleration of gravity on all of it."

This is your understanding of pressure/weight/gravity as you stated above,(you use contradictory logic twice in the quote) I wouldn't show this to your piers...

jalmy
1 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2013
Let's all just agree to disagree.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
You admit that there is zero acceleration due to gravity at this point, then say that due to it, at this point, you feel pressure from the mass on all sides of you. If there is no acceleration at this point, there is no pressure at this point. The 2 are inseparable in this context, is it that it is too simple for you to fathom?

#8
jalmy
1 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2013
I wouldn't show this to your piers


The word is peers. A pier is something you should walk off of on your way back to the third grade. Which is the apparent level of your English as well as your Physics.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
I wouldn't show this to your piers


The word is peers. A pier is something you should walk off of on your way back to the third grade. Which is the apparent level of your English as well as your Physics.


Thanks for the spelling tip...go play with Zephir fan, this is out or your league.
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2013
If he is using a model with an increasing density gradient, all of the info. in his book regarding stellar formation, planetary formation, is wrong. I hope he makes alot of money off it, in our lifetimes it will be re-classified as science fiction...like most of Hawkings stuff


I only suggested it as an example of the most current models in stellar astrophysics. Ya are becoming unhinged. In arguing something that is unphysical. Giant magnets are unphysical. Magnetic power plants at the center of stars replacing fusion are unphysical. That ya think ya know something that people who have devoted their lives study missed is unphysical.

But in thinking that ya have discovered things that all the greats have missed, and stating it's so obvious that anyone who doesn't immediately acknowledge your "theory" being elementary physics is ignorant,,,,, then ya are showing a pathological & grandiose delusion as to your abilities.

Reference please? Not foot stamping and No! No! No!

jalmy
1 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2013
Giant magnets are unphysical. Magnetic power plants at the center of stars replacing fusion are unphysical.


Q-Star. Most of the things you are saying are accurate and I agree with most of your thought process and reasoning, but...This part here is just wrong. Giant magnets are very physical and real. The earth and sun are just two examples. I have no doubt magnetism plays a very important role in maintaining the conditions in stars that keep them stable and burning. I am sure that both gravitational powered fusion as well as dynamo theory BOTH are necessary.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
You are igonoring the physics of the discussion, attempting to strawman by deflection of topic, and resorting to the comfort of your reality, the same stance you are debating from. You are the one stamping your feet saying no no no , and you have been unhinged since you engaged me in this thread as evidenced by your "understanding" (actually it is a complete lack of) of how pressure is exerted gravitationally.

You keep asking me for references. Here: http://www.qrg.no...ity.html

I even like the way they reference that we pull on the earth too, but it clearly demonstrates the force is all mass pulling on all mass, it doesn't limit the direction the way your model does.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2013
Q-Star. Most of the things you are saying are accurate and I agree with most of your thought process and reasoning, but...This part here is just wrong. Giant magnets are very physical and real. The earth and sun are just two examples. I have no doubt magnetism plays a very important role in maintaining the conditions in stars that keep them stable and burning. I am sure that both gravitational powered fusion as well as dynamo theory BOTH are necessary.


Of course their are giant magnets,,,,, I was merely meaning a magnet giant enough to produce enough energy for the sun to radiate away 3.8 x 10^26 J of energy, every second, for billions of years. No magnet could be that giant without sucking in every satellite, all the autos on Earth and even the watch on your arm. That giant of a magnet would be so "in your face" through instrumentation that we would not be having this discussion. That giant of a magnet is unphysical. 3.8 x 10^26 J, every second, for billions of years.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2013
You keep asking me for references. Here: http://www.qrg.no...ity.html

I even like the way they reference that we pull on the earth too, but it clearly demonstrates the force is all mass pulling on all mass, it doesn't limit the direction the way your model does.


Gravity is not pressure. They are not the same. Gravity is measured in length per second squared. Pressure is measured in force per area squared. They are two different things, yes they are related, but they are not interchangeable phenomena. Pressure gradients are very well understood. They are measured day and day out. Their altitude/depth dependency is measured every day in day out. Altitude/depth dependent density are measured every day, day in and day out.

The deeper ya go, the more pressure and density ya will experience. That is a physical truth.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
I have not said once during this discussion that there was no fusion in the sun, or that there was a giant magnet...these are called strawmen and are meant to deflect attention away from a topic when the person who creates them displays a complete lack of understanding of debated topic....in this case gravitational acceleration as it relates to mass, weight and pressure. And if we go back to the Hydrogen discussion that started it all you don't appear to understand thermal properties of Hydrogen either. Let's try this:

Why, Qstar, do you think the mass "above" you DOESN'T gravitationally accelerate you it it's direction? Or, if you acknowledge it does, why do you think that this WON't apply pressure in that direction?

jalmy
1 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2013
You admit that there is zero acceleration due to gravity at this point, then say that due to it, at this point, you feel pressure from the mass on all sides of you. If there is no acceleration at this point, there is no pressure at this point. The 2 are inseparable in this context, is it that it is too simple for you to fathom?

#8


If you take the curvature of space caused by the earths gravity and remove the earth from it so that you were in a vacuum. You would fall in towards the center accelerating all the way, pass through the center (the zero gravity does not make you stop) and immediately start decelerating until you arrived at the opposite side from which you started where your vector would be the same as that from which your started. Pressure also works in this way. It does not stop at the center due to lack of gravity. The "weight" of the world would literally be upon your shoulders and would squish your ignorant ass regardless of if you believed in it or not.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2013
And if we go back to the Hydrogen discussion that started it all you don't appear to understand thermal properties of Hydrogen either.


Of course I do. The thermal properties all matter actually.

Why, Qstar, do you think the mass "above" you DOESN'T gravitationally accelerate you it it's direction? Or, if you acknowledge it does, why do you think that this WON't apply pressure in that direction?


The mass of the air above does gravitationally interact with me. But compared with the mass of the Earth below me,,,,,,,,,,

Pressure is directed to the center. It is the weight of everything above me that I feel. Everything below me is also being attracted toward the center to,,, away from me. I'm adding pressure to everything below me. Now that wasn't hard was it? A scale only measures what's on top of it, not what is below it. A column of air, water, moon rubble hydrogen, or pixie dust weighs more when ya make that column taller, more stuff = more pressure.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
"The deeper ya go, the more pressure and density ya will experience."

Only until you get a certain point, it doesn't extend all the way to the center of mass, once you get to a layer deep inside the earth, where say, 40% of the mass is above you, and 60% is below, the matter in this region is experiencing 20% of the gravitational acceleration towards the core that the same matter would on the surface.

Jalmy, if you remove the earth it doesn't still generate gravity where it used to be. Get a grip.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
Pressure of weight is caused by gravitational acceleration, you have to have a force to generate pressure. If you reduce the strength of the force causing the pressure the pressure doesn't remain at the same level as when the force causing it was stronger, this is also basic physics and as it happens, variation #8 of the same simple concept. A column of anything only exerts pressure because the force of gravity is acting on it. Stand on a scale on the ISS...how much pressure can you put on it? Zero without gravity to help you.
jalmy
1 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2013
I said if the curvature of space was still present without the earth. It requires imagination. Just as your speed would be highest at the center. So is pressure. Although I think Q-Stars version is easier to understand than mine.
jalmy
1 / 5 (9) Nov 19, 2013
no fate why do you think the pressure goes away? Where does it go? Of course it is still there even if the force causing it gradually decreases. The force it exerted is still present on all that mass. Do you think it just evaporates into the ether with the rest of your 18th century understanding of physics?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2013
I have not said once during this discussion that there was no fusion in the sun,


Pardon, ya must have meant that there was fusion but not hydrogen fusion when ya said,,,,

For example a solar model fusing Hydrogen at the core ignores every observation regarding mass density sorting we have made.


Be that as it may be, ya still are confusing gravitational acceleration, and pressure. They are measures of two different things.

The mass of the Sun is 2 x 10^30 kilograms. It's diameter is 1.4 x 10^9 meters. Are ya seriously maintaining that the mass density is constant all the way thought it? The pressure is less as ya get near the center because ya are getting closer to the center of gravity?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2013
Pressure of weight is caused by gravitational acceleration, you have to have a force to generate pressure. If you reduce the strength of the force causing the pressure the pressure doesn't remain at the same level as when the force causing it was stronger, this is also basic physics and as it happens, variation #8 of the same simple concept. A column of anything only exerts pressure because the force of gravity is acting on it. Stand on a scale on the ISS...how much pressure can you put on it? Zero without gravity to help you.


Replace the scale with yourself,,,, start piling bricks on top of yourself, as the stack gets taller ya feel more pressure, the gravity ya feel from the Earth will not change, but as ya find yourself deeper and deeper in that pile of bricks, ya must feel more pressure, even if ya feel the same or less gravity. Pressure is not the gravity ya feel, pressure is what ya feel from gravity operating on the matter pressing down on ya.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2013
@ no fate,,,

Ya win,,,, ya wore me out. In the future, before ya tell people how they are missing well known science, how ignorant they are, how they should hide their thoughts from their piers{sic}, how out of touch they are,,,, first spend a few moments to make sure that ya know the basics of quantification and measurements.

There is a reason that gravity is quantified in meters per second squared. And pressure is measured in force units per meter squared. They are two different qualities. Gravity can create a pressure, but its not what defines a pressure. A pressure is specified by force/area. Gravity is specified by force/mass. Until ya know these things, ya won't get far.

Ya win, I lose, congratulations.
jalmy
1 / 5 (10) Nov 19, 2013
I refuse to relent because the funny thing is, it's even worse than we have made it out to be thus far because as you go inward the area is exponentially decreasing, all that pressure is inversely increasing exponentially on the remaining area. If he finds the simple part hard to process, this is going to blow his f'ing mind.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
"Be that as it may be, ya still are confusing gravitational acceleration, and pressure."

I am saying pressure, as we are discussing it, doesn't happen without gravitational acceleration. You keep pulling out examples of what happens on the surface regarding pressure, with all of the earths mass beneath your feet. Remove 50% of that mass and suspend it above you... how much pressure are you putting on the scale?

You are the one confused about the relationship between gravity and pressure. You have been taught that the gravitational field of a body is a uniform value through the body to the "center" of gravity, and apply the value as measured at the surface as though it affects all of the bodies mass to that point equally, hence the density gradient and why you think all of the densist material should go to this point. The laws of gravity as applied to mass say that you have to do the math differently at different layers due to changing mass distribution at each layer. #9



Q-Star
4 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2013
You have been taught that the gravitational field of a body is a uniform value through the body to the "center" of gravity, and apply the value as measured at the surface as though it affects all of the bodies mass to that point equally, hence the density gradient and why you think all of the densist material should go to this point.


I have been taught no such thing. And I have never said any such thing. The reason ya think I have is ya just don't know the difference between gravity and pressure. The fundamentals. The primary stuff.

What defines: Pressure?

What defines: Gravity?

Ya need to learn something call first principles. Ya are mixing and matching your terminology concepts. Pfffft,,, ya are really needing a "newer" & "improveder" account name. This one has reached the point of photons carrying away a portion of an electron's charge,,, that was not as silly as this notion, but it was pretty silly.
no fate
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2013
Qstar, thanks. And yes gravity and pressure are measured exactly as you say. An object falling does so at a velocity in meters per second due to gravitational acceleration...until it hits a surface, then the force it hits with is measured in PSI, the force of the pressure is directly proportional to the gravitational acceleration and the mass of the falling object.

Jalmy, have fun in the land of disappearing earths that leave a gravity footprint to fall into and the place where your math leads to a blackhole a giant diamond at the center of all masses. Good luck with that. Reality will be here when you get back.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2013
Qstar, thanks. And yes gravity and pressure are measured exactly as you say. An object falling does so at a velocity in meters per second due to gravitational acceleration...until it hits a surface, then the force it hits with is measured in PSI, the force of the pressure is directly proportional to the gravitational acceleration and the mass of the falling object.


Well ya are getting closer. Actually what ya just described is not a pressure, it is a closely related thing, Impulse. Or a translation of momentum. That is a: mass x length / time. It is a vector quantity, like gravity,,,,, whereas pressure is a scalar quantity.