HeadingNorth Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Hang on... "Graviton"? Is that a unit of gravity...? It is the name given to the postulated "unit of gravity," but we can't prove it exists yet. Personally I've always thought that auto98uk's argument (also being put forward by Karis) made more sense, but modern science has very little truck with it. It is assumed that in order to have a gravitational effect on each other, two objects must interact; in order to interact they must exchange some sort of sub-atomic particle or wave form; that particle/waveform is called a graviton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabberwocky Posted February 26, 2012 Author Share Posted February 26, 2012 Right, Im off for a while, this is turning into an interesting thread with some fascinating stuff on it! I look forward to returning later to see what else I can learn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabberwocky Posted February 26, 2012 Author Share Posted February 26, 2012 It is the name given to the postulated "unit of gravity," but we can't prove it exists yet. Personally I've always thought that auto98uk's argument (also being put forward by Karis) made more sense, but modern science has very little truck with it. It is assumed that in order to have a gravitational effect on each other, two objects must interact; in order to interact they must exchange some sort of sub-atomic particle or wave form; that particle/waveform is called a graviton. Ok got that! Very interesting stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Personally I've always thought that auto98uk's argument (also being put forward by Karis) made more sense, but modern science has very little truck with it. It is assumed that in order to have a gravitational effect on each other, two objects must interact; in order to interact they must exchange some sort of sub-atomic particle or wave form; that particle/waveform is called a graviton. Yeah. I'll go with that. Even though I don't want to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karis Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I also agree with that. There's still so much we don't know and so many really fundamental questions left unanswered... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I think part of the problem is that people think that space/time is in some way related to just space, so think the limitation of light speed applies. If you're going to argue it doesn't, what alternative explanation do you have for the results of the Michelson/Morley experiment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaxiBaz Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 The extension produded in a spring is directional proportional to the load applied. Provided the elastic limit is not exceeded. Oh, hang on a minute, long time since I got my O'Level physics It's 9.81 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2 on earth. Hope no one else has posted this. I didn't read the whole thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 It's 9.81 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2 on earth. Hope no one else has posted this. I didn't read the whole thread I don't think they have. However, when Jabberwocky refers to the "speed of gravity" he doesn't mean the acceleration that it will cause in an object; he wants to know how long it takes for the existence of planet A to affect the motion of planet B, assuming that planet A just suddenly appeared out of nowhere. If you remember that the formula for spring extension is called "Hooke's Law," named after Robert Hooke, you might interested to know that Robert Hooke tried to steal credit for the laws of gravity discovered by Isaac Newton. He was a notorious credit-grabber in his day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabberwocky Posted February 26, 2012 Author Share Posted February 26, 2012 Or if the gravity from an object say a million light years away is the gravity from today or a million years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Imagine a trillion mile long pole. If I pull on one end, the other end moves instantantly. Now, imagine that stick was a sheet, and that sheet was space/time (we will keep it simple, the newest theories are a lot more complicated that just space/time lol. So if gtravity was suddenly applied somewhere, it would be felt immediately elsewhere. I have a problem with this analogy in that the elasticity of the pole determines when the removal of force at one end is felt at the other. A pole of iron would still need a period of time for its effect to be felt, albeit a smaller period of time than for one made of, for instance, wood. Similarly, if we look at the effects on earth of the removal of a large gravitational object, i.e. one which has a discernible effect on earth, the elapsed time between its removal and our measuring the effect of its removal would have several determinates such as the force of the gravity exerted (a constituent of the relative masses of the object and earth), the distance between the object and earth, the make up of the constituent matter between the object and earth, etc. In a nutshell, I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now