Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
22 online now:
AlexCaledin, Dr Adequate, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,770 Year: 16,806/19,786 Month: 931/2,598 Week: 177/251 Day: 6/59 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Black Holes Don't Exist
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15384
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 36 of 174 (741400)
11-12-2014 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Colbard
11-12-2014 7:54 AM


Re: Mass and gravity thing
Words fail me. The collapse of the material does not reduce the mass, it only concern grates it into a smaller volume. Now would that reduce the gravity ?

Even with a high school understanding of Newtonian gravity you should know that the gravitational force pulling the material inwards would increase (because it is getting closer to the centre, not because the mass is changing).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Colbard, posted 11-12-2014 7:54 AM Colbard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 11-12-2014 8:13 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15384
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 39 of 174 (741406)
11-12-2014 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
11-12-2014 8:13 AM


Re: Mass and gravity thing
You're mostly right, but missing a bit.

Assuming that the density is uniform the effect of increased gravitational force applies everywhere except the exact centre. To explain, the gravity cancels out at the centre because you'd have an equal force pulling in every direction. With a denser sphere of the same mass the component forces would be greater, but still cancel out. But if you move away from the centre the net force towards the centre would be stronger in the denser sphere, at any given distance from the centre.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 11-12-2014 8:13 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2014 11:13 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15384
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 42 of 174 (741414)
11-12-2014 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Colbard
11-12-2014 8:42 AM


Re: Mass and gravity
The fact that you have wacky ideas does not make your misunderstanding of real science any better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Colbard, posted 11-12-2014 8:42 AM Colbard has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15384
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 48 of 174 (741446)
11-12-2014 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by NoNukes
11-12-2014 11:13 AM


Re: Mass and gravity thing
quote:

I may have missed some limitation on 'everywhere', but absent some limitation, your statement is wrong. It would violate Gauss' law.

Yes, you missed the context. We're only talking about the material that is collapsing and the forces operating it.

quote:

No. Only for distances inside of the original surface of the sphere. I would further add, that most people would not be making a comparison to points inside of that original surface because those points are generally inaccessible.

Since the denser sphere is entirely contained within the original surface I defy you to find a point that is in the denser sphere, but that is not inside the original surface. I would also point out that in the case where we are talking about a gravitational collapse if is entirely sensible to talk about the gravitational force acting on the collapsing material.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 11-12-2014 11:13 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019