Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 0/83 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where does the gravity go?
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5514 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 46 of 49 (206934)
05-11-2005 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by coffee_addict
05-10-2005 10:24 PM


Re: back to energy and gravity
MAssively Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs) are normal baryonic matter. This means big lumps of matter that isn't shining. Brown dwarves, black holes, neutron stars, planets escaped from a solar system, etc. We know they exist, but the numbers in which we know they exist are not sufficient to balance the books.
The major alternative is Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs). This is the non-baryonic alternative. There's good reason to think they exist, both on the basis of particle physics and cosmological observations. The notion is that (like neutrinos) there are many of these passing through us all the time. Problem is that we can't detect them because the interactions with matter are so weak. There are experiments trying to get very sensitive detectors able to notice a passing WIMP; but so far... nothing.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by coffee_addict, posted 05-10-2005 10:24 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 49 (212975)
06-01-2005 3:08 AM


related question
Related to the question about gravity and where does it go is there anyone there that can explain to me the physical law or formula that would prove how our atmosphere is not a conduit for increased gravitational attraction. I have tried unsuccessfully to locate anyone that could properly explain this. When I try to compare the forces required to keep a satellite in low orbit verses outside the attraction of our atmosphere I am pointed towards the drag coefficient or friction that our atmosphere places on a satellite thus causing the need for additional energy to be expended to maintain a lower orbit but that does not cut it. If that was the case then that would not explain why astronauts in an orbiting satellite high above the planet are weightless where the same satellite inside our atmosphere would not cause them to be weightless.
Does that not prove that our atmosphere must be a conduit for gravity and then taking that to a larger and smaller extreme, the density of particles between any two objects would therefore be a factor in their gravitational attraction ?

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 287 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 48 of 49 (212985)
06-01-2005 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Buzsaw
02-27-2005 11:59 PM


Then what are the Gluons for?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Buzsaw, posted 02-27-2005 11:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Kraniet
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 49 (215659)
06-09-2005 2:14 PM


with string theory they are talking about gravity being a particle; graviton. More so it is a closed loop string that freely moves between all dimensions (all 10) and therefore is hard to study in our 4 dimensional space.
Im not sure though how gravity being a particele add up with the "pull" of gravity. Is gravity then an exchange of particels between objects just like light is "given" from the sun. And how does this differ from Newtons idea about gravity being some kind of force tying objects to each other?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024