How does gravity work?

[aagiants]

How does it work? upon reading some books, this question came to mind. What actually causes the force, i mean if u spin a ball the tangential direction is outwards, not inwards... Its been a while since i was in elementary school..

[nepenthe]

The earth sucks

[Faust]

it has to do with the mass of an object. the greater the mass, the greater (or lesser) it;s gravitational force. generally speaking, this is why the larger the planet or whatever, the greater the gravity compared to Earth...... even size isn't really relevant, as with bodies such as some kind of stars, their mass can bve greater than that of another astral object of the same size... yet their gravitational pull is significantl;y greater because the density is greater (thereofre more mass).

the centrifugal force earth;s rotation has on us and everything around us is not great enough to overcome the gravitational force exerted due to it;s mass.


in other words, everyting with mass has a gravitational force. it;s just when it comes to the gravitational force of things around us (a baseball, a lawn chair, a glass of lemonade for example) within our scope, that force (gravity) is so weak that is it overcome by other forces of nature... (static electricity, wind currents, or even the force of earth;s gravity itself).




how precisely does gravity work?....... heck, if i could confidently explain it, i;d be making a lot more moneys that i do now .



.......or is my understanding, BTW.

[Qwijib0]

Code: Select all

  GM1M2
F=-----
   R^2

G is the universal gravitational constant. The force betwen 2 objects is only dependent on their mass and the distance between them.

[Faust]

Originally posted by Qwijib0

Code: Select all

  GM1M2
F=-----
   R^2

G is the universal gravitational constant. The force betwen 2 objects is only dependent on their mass and the distance between them. [/b]

THERE we go. i was really reaching as it;s been a long time since i was in school learining this stuff. i just couldn;t explain it correctly.

[MadDoctor]

Originally posted by Qwijib0

Code: Select all

  GM1M2
F=-----
   R^2

The G spot on a woman is the universal gravitational constant.

The force betwen 2 objects (i.e. a man and a woman) is only dependent on their mass and the distance between them and where the beer is. [/b]

fixed

[Bastid]

Originally posted by MadDoctor
fixed

oh my

[Paft]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm

[downhill]

If it wasn't for gravity.....we wouldn't need to flush...

[Brent]

forgive me, as i haven't read this thread, just posting what i think i know after reading the first post

if i'm correct it has to do with the core of our earth being a solid object that has a lot of mass, and the earth spins real fast and kinda like an electromagnet a magnetic field is created, somehow this ties into the gravity our earth exhibits

[nepenthe]

Gravity and electromagnetism are different forces.

Review the link provided by Paft.

[brembo]

Originally posted by Brent
forgive me, as i haven't read this thread, just posting what i think i know after reading the first post

if i'm correct it has to do with the core of our earth being a solid object that has a lot of mass, and the earth spins real fast and kinda like an electromagnet a magnetic field is created, somehow this ties into the gravity our earth exhibits

Uhm.....no.

Gravity is a function of mass and distance, thats it. Magnetic forces are a completly different animal.

[Brent]

i'm dumb

[brembo]

Originally posted by Brent
i'm dumb

Nah.

I think the liquid/solid interaction of the core produce the Van Allen belts. Some mighty strong fields that do a nice job protecting the earth from errant radiation. I'm not up on my knowledge like I used to be, fun stuff to study tho.

[Massa]

Generally speaking as long as a particle has mass, it has a gravitational attractive force, the greater the mass, the greater the force, however smaller masses still affect larger ones, the moon creates waves on earth for example.

[Tawcan]

Originally posted by nepenthe
Gravity and electromagnetism are different forces.

Review the link provided by Paft.

They're actually trying to tie gravity into electromagnetism. It's called the "grand unify theory."

Electricity theory and magnetic theory aren't 100% the same.... for one thing there is eletric monopole yet no magnetic monopole (single magnetic charge).

The general idea between gravitiy is that two objects with masses will attract each other. The biggest the mass, the greater the attraction.

[nepenthe]

Originally posted by Tawcan
They're actually trying to tie gravity into electromagnetism. It's called the "grand unify theory."

Electricity theory and magnetic theory aren't 100% the same.... for one thing there is eletric monopole yet no magnetic monopole (single magnetic charge).

The general idea between gravitiy is that two objects with masses will attract each other. The biggest the mass, the greater the attraction.

Actually, the proof of the Unified theory has been the "Holy Grail" of physics. It is an attempt to link the 4 or 5 (depending on whom you listen) natural forces. The one force is described as electromagnetism, you are splitting the word.

[Paft]

Gravity, Simplified:

Lim M->Infinity, G->Infinity

As Mass gets bigger, Gravity gets stronger.

[Thcranky1]

Dude,

All I guess I should say is "Yeah man, good question!!" Of course, quite possibly your motive was to simply get people to research it and if the latter was your desired result I commend you for your action. But having read the replies I see that 'research prior to answer' might not have been considered by our counterparts...LOL.

Having said that I must also say that having purchased, built and thus began to use the computer and internet only two years ago in addition to being 33 years old I think it is safe to say that almost all people would consider me a rookie. Moreover, I can safely say that in those two years, well actually two years this March, my intelligence and knowledge on all levels has increased 10 fold. This is irrefutably due to the net but another thing that I have come to discover most people are not privy to and that I personnaly value almost as much as the internet is the documentation of or logging of favorite websites.

The actual file containing all the sites which are listed when you hit the favorites section on the Windows toolbar is located at My Computer/C:/Documents and Settings/this next file will be named whatever the name is used to log into WindowsXP such as for Example John Doe/Favorites. Most should be able to keep this file on a floppy but in my case the file is over 27 Megs so you may see how much it is used updated organized and valued.

I have literally ****loads of sites that explain gravity but brother I'll tell ya, there are so many facets that beg for knowledge as a precursor in order to get to the contemplation of gravity in its real and entire sense.

I mean Einstien's theory of relativity is for all accounts found to be wrong and as a side note to you about those that gave reply to your question with under ten sentence explainations or even better their use of Logic notation it is easy to see their mere google click and copy paste skills are up to par but additionally it is highly doubtful they even know what a predicate, antecedant or modus ponen is.

So my explaination will be significantly more extensive then theirs. I however do not claim to know if there really is a complete answer to your question.

I will supply available links to sites to help you through the process. A process which my good man is going to be for you, me or anyone really in search of the answer to such an excellent question, time consuming to say the least. So let me begin with a web link associative in content to my comment about those posting Logical notation. The best site that I have come to use and honestly I think i reached the most glorified available one in this particular case being that it is Oxford University is:

http://logic.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/

Let me state that all I expect or at least beg from you is that you merely click on them and once there save it into your favorites for future casual research. That is the greatest part about the net-no tests no due dates.

Second I'll simply tell you that consideration of gravity must be done with study of history of great achievers from Aeroistotle to Stephen Hawking but since Aeroistotle has been, as well as many others, proven not necessarily wrong but at least lacking in their ideologies we can skip to this site which begins with a more "popular" legend of gravity's discovery. minor point is the legend has even got it wrong...typical grapevine huh? LOL Here is the site and please pay mind to the java links within this site. They are absolutely the best as far as real understanding goes interwoven with the internet which allows the user visualizations that make it light years better then a teacher and a student has done traditionally.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect ... ngrav.html

For a little seperation between links I'll make some very simplified linguistical approaches to help piece things together. Not that I consider myself anything close to the person it takes to be an educator but I'll continue. For myself I find that it is necessary to say that the posts I have seen to this point not one contains anything close to a correct answer to your question. As to the person who posted that

"Gravity is a function of mass and distance, thats it. Magnetic forces are a completly different animal."

I supply to you this link:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mass

I want to show specifically from that link some definitions that immediately should follow each other in our study.


mass - the property of a body that causes it to have weight in a gravitational field

weight - the vertical force exerted by a mass as a result of gravity

gravitational field - a field of force surrounding a body of finite mass

I think this shows quite a bit of contrast to some simplistic statement of gravity. Please also consider this next definition obtained from that same site but adding to my point of no simple answer:

matter - that which has mass and occupies space; "an atom is the smallest indivisible unit of matter"

But then I ask what about this?

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.c ... %20problem

In the posts I saw this link and completely disregarded after getting to the second sentence. I highly suggest to everyone to elliminate 'how things work' from any physics reference or searches for information.

There are two forces in nature that we experience every day: gravity and magnetism. You may have magnets on your refrigerator, and you know that a magnet will attract a refrigerator with a certain amount of force. The force depends on the strength of the magnet and the distance between the magnet and the metal. You also know that magnets have two poles -- north and south. Either pole will attract iron or steel equally well, north will attract south, and like poles will repel one another---freakin hogwash and elementary to say the very least. I say that with some hesitance in fear that I might have unintentially offended a fifth grader who knows more then this....my apologizies. LOL

I experience a lot more forces then only two and in a comical state I suppose then the writer of that quote has never needed to take a ****. That's force that I experience almost daily> LOL But please also note that he said "and you know that a magnet will attract a refrigerator...no I didn't know that!!!! I thought magnets delt with polarity and such not refridgerators but while we are speaking of refridgerators would you mind grabbing me a couple bottles of

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.c ... physics%29

which brings us back kind of in a full circle to the first link posted at the beginning...full circle was a joke...get it? Anyway...

Additionally I wanted to reference the 'spin' which was also discussed incorrectly simply to help illiminate the ignorance to its assumption into an answer to the question of gravity. Before I do however I wanted to also say in no way was anything meant to be taken personally here but rather in light. I mean everyone is ignorant in some respect, if they weren't then they would be God. Who is probably the best One to answer the original question.

Forces from spin...inward and outward or better still pushing away on and pulling towards the center of...

Centrifugal and centripital:
I found out while shooting rifles at the range the specifics between the TWO types of force there are. Funny how we learn stuff sometimes. The one we all know from fifth grade science or maybe those of us who may have placed a lego on their 'G.I. Joe Book and Record' 45, is centrifugal force. That is the force pushing on an object as it moves about a center. The other that some may not be as familiar with is the one that acts on things, like with a bullet from my case scenerio, which is called centripital force. This is the desired force from the spin that the rifling inside the barrel of a firearm causes on a slug. "Centripital force" is the force acting on a body causing it to move to a center.

I am going to leave this from here and to the postulator of the question I specifical hope this at least assissts you in your quest for knowledge...well or at least drops the ball in reference to the gravity issue. Did I say drop........Later man!!!!!

--Thcranky1

[Thcranky1]

oh yeah centripital force is created from the spin causing the bullet to travel in a more straight line...sorry I missed that part

[Massa]

Hey cranky1,

your answer while very long and wordy, was not necessary. Most physics text books describe how gravity works in only one or two lines, and this is material written by those with a PhD in physics. Rest assured it is very complex but i fail to see a structured argument behind your post. You linked to some good explanations but to tell the truth, some of the shorter ones were just as good.

[kmax]

Originally posted by nepenthe
The earth sucks

lmao!! quoted from one of my friend's aim profiles:

"Gravity is a myth.
The reason we don't fall off is because the world sucks so much."

[Thcranky1]

Hey man,

Take this with a grain of salt but I expected negative rhetoric because it seems that nay-sayers breed like jack rabbits in public forums but as to your specific case let me simply ask, "Is it quite possible that your nay-saying has evolved not only to the point of posting nothing but opinionated, negative, regurgitations that only add a bad smell to the blog but to the point where you are creating criterion so that you may add your nay-say to someone's post?

I would think that such delusions could only be ignited from either sheer hatred for someone's efforts to do good or give assistance to another or possibly it stems from jealousy. The reasons that I come to this conclusion are:

First, you apparently sense that you can tell someone, quite accurately, if their response which has nothing to do with you is "too long or too wordy." You rise to this grandiose seat excluding the fact that the website itself allows over 22,000 more words then were included in my post you so readily debunk. More still towards your psychosis-through-pompousnes you seem to think that there was to ba an argument in this blog. I quote " but i fail to see a structured argument behind your post." Where did this person's question and my answer turn into an argument? You fail to see structured argument because you are the only person looking for an argument.

Additionally, if you would show me one real physics text that only involves one or two lines to explain something that as recently as 1996 has turned Einstein's Theory of Relativity on its ear, then either that text is an upper education text such as college level. Which has as a prerequisite not only calculus and trigonometry but it also requires or at least highly suggests to students that chemistry high school physics has been achieved with c averages or better.

It is as plain as the sun is shining that you have no concept of what physics involves. More to your own quotes; if you are reading physics text that only contain two lines of information you need to check and see if the bus that takes you to school is short like a van.

Don't you dare try to tell me any critiques neither for nor against, when it is obvious that you are involving yourself in something well out of your league and have also prooven your eneptitude for even being here.

I can easily see that you are a perfect example of the type of people that gravitate to such a website as 'how stuff works' to get their definition of one of the most involved subject matter researched by mankind. You are a fool and I feel that I can say such after considering your elementary response to my post.

You might want to contact someone about those delusions as well. That stuff can really get out of hand if not supressed by medication. At least that is what I learned in my 7 credits earned in college. I suppose you might be able to refer me to a PhD. that has explained this subject in a few lines as well.

p.s. Highlights children's development studies magazines don't count.

[Thcranky1]

hey guy,

the funny thing I noticed after that post I just gave to you? I'd like you to show me Newton's law of gravity in only one or two lines. Obviously since this is when gravity was in its infancy it surely contains the least amount of information compared to modern advancements.

So in reference to your multitude of text of modern day PhD's giving full disclosure on gravity in only two sentences surely you can completely explain in only a couple of words Newtonian gravity.


I await the response with gravitas,

Thcranky1

[mccoffee]

Throw someone u hate of off a 10 story building watch them fall gravity in action.

Maddocs is better.

[brembo]

Thcranky1-

I was answering Brent's question about how magnetic forces and gravity interact. A simple answer was all that was needed. He was under the impression that gravity's effect was somehow linked to magnetic fields. My post was a reply to that statement, not what gravity "is".

Yes, gravity is a horrendusly complex beast, and prolly cannot be expressed in terms I can understand. But the honest-to-God truth of the matter is, gravity as a force is simply: mass and distance. Ask any person who's job it is to know what gravity is gonna do to a heavenly body and they'll ask for "mass and distance"....possibly a vector and speed to figure out the trajectory for an object.

Scientists know what pi is to some wacky number, but all they really use is 3.1459, no point in making the formulas terribly complex. Ever hear of K.I.S.S? Keep it simple, stupid. I hold that dear to my heart.

Besides Brent is not a dummy, he's not gonna assume that "mass' means some sorta gathering on a Sunday. He'll use a bit of intelligence and figure out it means a constant measurment of atomic weight.

[Faust]

Originally posted by Thcranky1
blah, blah blah... blah blah blablah

good lord......


i'd expect "holier that thou" replies in an abortion or religion thread..... but one of science?


c'mon, man...... i would have been interested in that laboriously long post if you hadn;t turned me off with your attitude.

[Thcranky1]

Einstein as well as all physicists should then take heed when pondering anything in the future. Keep it short ans simple and simply assume that the whole is understood by explaining only part but surely not the sum.

But what I am seeing ever more apparently with each post is that people are not really considering all that is involved with gravity. This is still the outcome even when they apparently have read my entire response.

Now I'll state exactly what I intended by the insertion of the second to the last link I posted in the original response. This involves a quanta which completely does away with Newtonian and Einstienian laws. Noone has addressed this issue because as I stated already noone first of all has a clue that the things of Einstein and Newton are gone. They do not answer the question. They have been for every account of every aspect been prooven lacking and finally wrong. WRONG!!!!! Not one person in here is even remotely aquainted to science of the 21 Century. If you take 10 minutes and simply read through the discussion of Dark Matter you will begin to scrape the surface of the way thingsd really are.

Your assumptions and simplifications only show your complete lack of undertanding and I say that begging the return of prooven ability to learn. i.e. I am leaving the stupid word out until you bring me to no other choice. Let me add one last attempt to bring you into true Physics...

I pray that noone simplifies this by telling me "how stuff works." LOL

May I be the first to welcome all of you 'two sentence explaination physicists' and the so so vast 'Newtonian experts' we have seen on this blog.........

Welcome to your world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/q ... inning.jsp


Thcranky1

[Thcranky1]

To the holier then thou guy I see you didn't read my post either you assumptive as well as judgmental ass. Don't invent things and then start calling me them budd...or did you not read this in my first post...obviously not...

"For a little seperation between links I'll make some very simplified linguistical approaches to help piece things together. Not that I consider myself anything close to the person it takes to be an educator but I'll continue"

Well you didn't see this either...

'Before I do however I wanted to also say in no way was anything meant to be taken personally here but rather in light. I mean everyone is ignorant in some respect, if they weren't then they would be God. Who is probably the best One to answer the original question."

Now tell me you read the post and that I think I'm holier then thou. Ponder for a second if you can, exactly WHO has judged WHO.

That my friend will tell exactly who is being grandiose.

Thcranky1

[Spicer]

Originally posted by Thcranky1
To the holier then thou guy I see you didn't read my post either you assumptive as well as judgmental ass. Don't invent things and then start calling me them budd...
"

LOL!!....No Doubt!

Spice

[Thcranky1]

and to think all I did was spent MY time and MY efforts to try to fully assist someone with an answer to their question. You punks are all judging me now and my person from simply an effort that was for the better. In your jealousy you didn't even read my post or you would have seen that I am ready beyond any of your table turning personal attacking abilities can even begin to contemplate. Having come to this point let me make the most grandious pompous proclaimation yet...consider Galeleio and the late years of life he had to live and come back and contemplate this blog and tell me who is the supressed and who is the supressor. Now that really is bringin out the holy holy gunnery!!!

Hmmm...maybe I should add the same closing as I did in the first post I did prior to the responses...

PEACE!!

Thcranky1

[brembo]

That article explains how light is not acting in a classical mode, not plain jane physics. I read that last tidbit, and the very last few lines say pretty clearly that when dealing with objects(not photons or quanta) classical physics just a dandy job. Most of this stuff is far above my head I can't even see the bottom of it..okay? So a simple statement of: gravity is a function of mass and distance would answer that well enough.

Its doubtful I'll ever need to know much more, seeing as how NASA is not gonna hand me a Titan 5 booster and tell me to drop a lander on an asteroid in the near future. Now if that WAS my job, darn tootin I'll explore the minutia of quantum physics and get a better grasp.

Its mighty hard to drink from a firehose, ya gotta start at the bottom and work yer way up.

[Spicer]

Originally posted by Thcranky1
and to think all I did was spent MY time and MY efforts to try to fully assist someone with an answer to their question. You punks are all judging me now and my person from simply an effort that was for the better. In your jealousy you didn't even read my post or you would have seen that I am ready beyond any of your table turning personal attacking abilities can even begin to contemplate.

PEACE!!

Thcranky1

.. ......Cya Spice

[Faust]

i am not going to entertain your arguments, crank.

i/we run across your kind here with great regularity...... "what did i say? i didnt do anything! it;s YOU guys that have the problem, not me!".

your "highbrow" remarks condescending us aren;t as highbrow as you think.... "Highlights childerns developmental magazine"..... what exactly are you insinuating?

frankly, at this point we really don;t care how smart you would like to think you are.

you need to brush up on your social skills, bud.

[Cypher]

Disregard all other replies.
Gravity works by magic. It's Gods way of keeping everything in place.

[newbie1]

well isn't somebody cranky today

it has been really entertaining and educating reading your posts Thcranky1, have a nice day!

[MadDoctor]

I thought the atmosphere pushed us down. The moon doesn’t have very much atmosphere (no clouds up there) so it’s easier to float away. The earth has lots of clouds and stuff (to include pollution) so we get pushed down real hard. If you think about it… you feel heavier on a cloudy day than a sunny day.

*goes for another shot of vodka*

[zooner]

can't wait until the atom smasher in france is built.

theory goes that if gravatrons disappear, it'll prove parrell universes and the superstring theory.

interesting stuff.

interesting time we live in, if we choose to observe.

[CableDude]

I thought this post was going to be about the newsreader.

Zooner, nice avatar.

[TonyT]

surely you can completely explain in only a couple of words Newtonian gravity

What goes up must come down. (the end of 'up' is atmosphere)