what is the observed distance range of gravity?

PhilJ, The point of where gravity is generated is the mass center-is that right? The mass is distributed throughout the universe-right? Therefore there is trillions of trillions gravity centers and the force is more or less the same everywhere with small scale bubbles of much more force where mass concentrates such as galatic disks and stars within those disk structures. As to the math-you can make anything from that depending on what is assumed. In the current standard model you must assume(as you clearly imply)the center of gravity is at the point where the mass is centered. But, is it not true that only works when the observer is outside the observed structure? Maybe you can locate a mass center from the outside but not from the inside.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />PhilJ, The point where gravity is generated is the mass center-is that right? The mass is distributed throughout the universe-right? Therefore there is trillions of trillions gravity centers and the force is more or less the same everywhere with small scale bubbles of much more force where mass concentrates such as galatic disks and stars within those disk structures. As to the math-you can make anything from that depending on what is assumed. In the current standard model you must assume(as you clearly imply)the center of gravity is at the point where the mass is centered. But, is it not true that only works when the observer is outside the observed structure? Maybe you can locate a mass center from the outside but not from the inside.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The Big Bang model has all the gravity in the universe pulling inward toward the center, but every point is the center. But if the universe is homogeneous, homotropic and infinite in extent, then the total gravity at any point results only from local clusters of mass; the rest of the universe contributes nothing to gravity.

The mass of our galaxy is distributed, more or less, in a disk. But, if Newton's law of gravity is correct and the speed of gravity is infinite, then from where we are, the center of the galaxy's gravity must be at the center of the galaxy, about 3.0 x 10^4 ly away.

That's not the same as all the mass being concentrated at the center.
Inside a uniform sphere of radius R, only the mass inside the smaller sphere of radius r contributes to gravity at r. I believe the same is true of a uniform disk. But proofs of that theorem assume that R is small or the speed of gravity is infinite.

Due to our orbit around the galaxy, the direction of the galactic center moves 360 deg westward about every 2.2 x 10^8 years. If the speed of gravity is 3 x 10^10 c, there should be about 10^-6 year (30 seconds) of delay (aberration) for gravity from the galactic center. We should feel the pull of the galactic center's gravity approximately 360/2.2 x 10^14 = (1.63x 10^-12)deg east of the direction where the galactic center is now, as seen from Earth.

Due to the distribution of mass within the galaxy, the aberration should be less for the near side of the galaxy and more for the far side. I invite you mathematicians to calculate the overall aberration of the galaxy's gravity due to speed-of-gravity delay.

Of course, the math is very different if you accept the arguments of Kopeikin and Carlip. Then, the aberration for the galactic center should be 360 deg x 30 / 2.2 x 10^8 = (4.91 x 10^-5)deg ; but some alleged relativistic effect (which I don't understand) cancels that out.



Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

Perhaps we could get Joe Keller to adapt his computer program to look at the star S2. This is the most studied; they have a complete orbit of it; of the stars going round the super massive dark object at the centre of our galaxy. This thing is really shifting. I did a quick calculation of its relativistic mass but I had the wrong figure for the mass. I thought it was about six solar masses but it turns out to be fifteen. Now it look as though it has a rosetta orbit but we'll have to wait for confirmation. That means that the very elliptical orbit moves slightly round a radius, on each orbit, and the track of it draws out a flower petal shape. Mass wise it will have to vary by more than a solar mass!!!

It's a baby, 15 solar masses and not in the best place for a toddler. Why hasn't gone nova?

Last but not least, how does the idea of a neutrino ball grab ya? One of these at the centre would be pretty wild, huge radii, and invisible.

Oh yeah, nearly forgot, a link to some of the ideas about S2
[url] www.solstation.com/x-objects/s2.htm [/url]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />Perhaps we could get Joe Keller to adapt his computer program to look at the star S2. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Here's a free gravity simulator that you can install on your computer to do the simulation yourself. Just type in the orbital parameters and it will do the rest.

You have to be pretty sharp if you want to modify the program to accommodate a new theory of gravity, though.

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

Ah, that program was mentioned by a south american guy in Joe's thread, now I'm not sure whether Joe adapted that or wrote his own, I am sure that I didn't look at it, because I'm bone idle.

My first thought with the S2 star problem, was to simply scale things down and look at the orbit. That means taking the dark massive thingy and divided it through by 2.5E 6 to make it an average Sol. Then do the same for S2. That makes S2 a terrestrial mass planet. It's way out in the boonies, like Joe's proposed planet.

I did manage to find one paper for free aout neutrino balls, which I haven't read yet. I did have a quick read of the explanation of the rosetta orbit of S2. We need to turn the space around the super massive, whatever it is, into a neutrino ball. Our S2 planet can then dive through this and ignore the mass above it.

I think this ball has to be invented, because the famous rubber space-time sheet is fossilized round such a huge black hole. I'm not a betting man but I think a loaded new test of relativity will be wheeled out for us to marvel at.