Gravitational shadowing effect

More
21 years 3 weeks ago #7500 by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />When a common object at the earth's surface passes directly between the earth and moon, should not its weight differ from an identical mass on the opposite side of the earth since it is then shielded both by the earth on its bottom and the moon from its top while the one on the other side of the earth is shielded from just one side?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ordinary gravitational force occurs when one body (such as the Sun) <i>shadows</i> another from a small portion of the space-filling graviton flux. If ten bodies line up in a row, each adds a bit more shadowing to a point at the end of the row, essentially independent of the others.

<i>Shielding</i> is a different effect wherein one or more bodies become so dense that no gravitons can reach parts of their interior, so these deep parts do not register in the external "gravitational field" because they are not blocking anything. A shielding effect makes a body's gravity weaker than it should be for its inertial mass. This is a small effect never yet reliably observed.

You seem to be asking about ordinary gravitational force here, so I will answer your questions in the context of shadowing, and ignore shielding.

The object on Earth's surface is shadowed by both Earth and Moon independently, as if the other body did not exist. The result is identical to what pulling gravity gives: The object is pulled in the same direction by Earth and Moon in one case, and pulled in opposite directions in the other case. So its weight is slightly less in the latter case. That is what we have come to expect of gravity. We are all slightly lighter when the Moon is overhead than when it is in the nadir, even if it is not enough to notice.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I mean here if an object is shielded equally in all directions, would it not then be weightless?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If shadowed equally from all directions, it would still be in a uniform gravitational flux, and would have no net acceleration. "Weight" would be difficult to define or measure in such a configuration.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And then, would not an object being between the earth and moon partake (to some measurable degree) of that weightlessness?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You lost me. How can any object in the Earth-Moon neighborhood be shadowed equally from all sides? And what do you mean by "weightlessness"? An astronaut in orbit is weightless, yet still in a strong gravity field. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 3 weeks ago #7441 by EBTX
Replied by EBTX on topic Reply from
The more I examine the idea of "pushing" the more plausible it looks as an alternative since it has that quality of explaining the same general observations (one for one) without any strain. It's a question of becoming more familiar with what is not presently "in the wind".

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 3 weeks ago #7442 by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />The more I examine the idea of "pushing" the more plausible it looks as an alternative since it has that quality of explaining the same general observations (one for one) without any strain. It's a question of becoming more familiar with what is not presently "in the wind".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well said. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 2 weeks ago #7688 by Meta
Replied by Meta on topic Reply from Robert Grace
Gravity is neither a pull or a push.

Meta
'[|)]'

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 2 weeks ago #7206 by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
Meta,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Gravity is neither a pull or a push.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


Statements come easy. Now for something more difficult. Explain your alternative to pushing or pulling.







"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
21 years 6 days ago #7405 by Meta
Replied by Meta on topic Reply from Robert Grace
To Mac,

The real hard part is to comprehend what this idea is saying:

Gravity is transference of life information.
Both local and pure gravity is what space does....vortexes.
Tom's Elysium is local gravity.
Aether is universal, pure, virgin gravity.
Pure Aether gravity is not distorted by mass.
Pure Aether gravity does not push or pull.
Pure Aether gravity is based upon Phi, the Golden Ratio.
Elysium local gravity exponentially curves and distorts the closer it gets to its own centers.

Met

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.346 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum