Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Oops - "Good Point?" - Maybe Not!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on April 14, 2003 13:30:05 UTC

" When three objects of equal mass are located similarly to the balloons and are allowed to fall together by gravitational attraction. The time required for the three objects to touch is larger then two objects "

You know, I was thinking about this yesterday and something occurred to me: it might be possible that the assertion above is not correct. Let me explain.

Your math is probably correct, but you are assuming there's a field of gravitational force attracting the three objects to one another. But if gravity is not a force but just the result of an object's expansion, which is my assumption, then the time required for the three objects to touch is exactly the same as for two objects, as you pointed out yourself.

Now bear with me for a while; physics can be tricky at times. I might be wrong as I'm not a physicist, but I don't think we have a way to know the gravitational mass of planets and stars other than by measuring the gravitational effects associated with them. And if that is the case, the only difference from my "expanding balloon" theory and the standard view is that they yield different values for the gravitational masses of celestial bodies - in fact, objects have, in a way, whatever gravitational mass we (indirectly) define for them.

Do you think that makes sense? I think it does, but the real challenge for me has always been to explain orbits with the inflating balloon model. However, I struck upon an idea yesterday that left me awake for hours - I found a way to explain angular motion with a simple combination of inflation and inertial movement. I still have to work the math to see if I can get a full 360 orbit, but I managed to visualize a whole 180 turn in my mind's eye. That alone was interesting enough.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins