gravitational constant G 6.673(10) x 10-11 N*m2/kg2
F = G (M1 * M2)/r^2
solving for r
r = (F/(G* M1*m2) ^ 0.5)
r = 12.02540008 meters
Two Neutrons more than 12 meters apart will not be gravitationally attracted to each other. Could this be right?
I was a bit surprised by that figure, so that means much to my surprise that gravitational attraction does add and would extend indefinitely throughout the Universe with sufficient mass to bend the Space Time.
Could you check this Trippy please?
This thread is quite ironic really for I couldn't even spell "Planck" yesterday.gravitational constant G 6.673(10) x 10-11 N*m2/kg2
F = G (M1 * M2)/r^2
solving for r
r = (F/(G* M1*m2) ^ 0.5)
r = 12.02540008 meters
Two Neutrons more than 12 meters apart will not be gravitationally attracted to each other. Could this be right?
I was a bit surprised by that figure, so that means much to my surprise that gravitational attraction does add and would extend indefinitely throughout the Universe with sufficient mass to bend the Space Time.
Could you check this Trippy please?
.
Helo again, wiminex.
Forgive me if I seem dense, but the very fact that Trippy USED the qualifier "If they exist" implies that they ARE 'hypothetical' entities. No? So that means he does not treat them as 'a given'.
He then went further and combined that with the statement/requirement that any such Hypothetical entity would have to satisfy certain criteria/limits imposed on that hypothetical by all the available evidence with which it would have to be 'consistent' in order to even 'speculate' on such entities properties/actions to begin with (including "mechanism")..
In short, I am nonplussed as to why you seem to take issue with what he admits is hypothetical and admits is only speculation as to the 'possible' nature/characteristics of such a hypothetical in the context of the conventional scientific/physics paradigm.
I understood perfectly his stance in the matter, and I can find nothing in his statements so far to make me take such a 'combative' tone towards him as you seem determined to pursue.
May I recommend that you ALL go back to 'square one' and sidestep whatever misunderstandings may have prompted the perplexing (to me) 'combative' turn in some of the side-discussions?
Please understand that I posted this only in the interests of clarity and polite/productive scientific discourse. I am also reading with interest since the subject matter impinges on my own overarching perspective on everything (to be published soon, I hope) which includes a 'graviton-like' physical entity as a possible 'real' Planck Scale entity BUT without the two-way action ascribed to it by QM hypotheses for same.
Cheers, wiminex, and good to speak with you, and everyone!
.
You are saying they attract, and therefore move. But I'm saying if the force is too small to make it move by less than it will move by quantum mechanical fluctuations, then it has not moved and it cannot be moved by gravitational attraction.
The point is (and this is one of the reasons I wanted someone else to check your assumptions) your calculations assume space and time are inherently smooth, because that's what relativity assumes, however, your logic that you're applying effectively asumes space and time are quantized, which contradicts the assumptions implicit in your calculations.You are saying they attract, and therefore move. But I'm saying if the force is too small to make it move by less than it will move by quantum mechanical fluctuations, then it has not moved and it cannot be moved by gravitational attraction.
We can all have opinions but I used principles from Quantum Mechanics, Uncertainty principle, Einstein Space Time bending and Newtonian Gravitational attraction to prove that gravitational attraction can be effectively zero.
I can see your point though for you could say if you placed another neutron beside the ones already there the two Gravitational fields will overlap and the particles at 12 meters will move. So it wasn't zero for they were able to add their strengths.
Taking this to the limit you end up with 2 super massive BHs, and you end up having to keep separating them, to the point where their attraction is incapable of moving them.
For very large bodies like super massive BHs I don't know the separation required for them.
Could you explain that a little more, for all I did was apply the formulas, I definitely didn't consciously think of space and time like you imply.
One would have to think so if the mechanism was a graviton, but what I was getting into trouble over on another forum, and some might already see the implication here, is that even before galaxies have dropped out of sight, they maybe already beyond effective gravitational attraction. I.e. the gravitational attraction even though is still present it is insufficient to create acceleration (movement) at even the 1 Planck length per second ^2..
Hi everyone.
Very interesting discussion.
Quick question....
Assuming the universal expansion/recession scenario is as per the standard model; and that the furthest galaxies from us at opposite ends of our observable universal are destined to go beyond the 'observational horizon' due to their eventual 'separation' at greater than lightspeed with respect to their counterparts at the 'other end' of our observable universe, then, since gravity effect is said to propagate at lightspeed, would the gravity of those opposite galaxies on their counterparts become effectively ZERO? In other words, since they would 'drop out' of LIGHT-exchanging 'contact' with each other, they must also 'drop out' of GRAVITY-exchanging 'contact' with each other. No?
Gotta go. Cheers all.
.
In a reputable mainstream peer reviewed journal or do you mean you'll upload a text file to some website?
You're solving $$Ma = \frac{GM^{2}}{r^{2}}$$ for $$a = \frac{L}{T^{2}}$$ so $$\frac{ML}{T^{2}} = \frac{GM^{2}}{r^{2}}$$ so $$r = \sqrt{\frac{GMT^{2}}{L}}$$.
The formulae are from relativity/newtonian mechanics (more or less).Could you explain that a little more, for all I did was apply the formulas, I definitely didn't consciously think of space and time like you imply.
You maybe right, for this science is rather new to me. As I was saying I couldn't even spell "Planck" yesterday, let alone use the concepts correctly, but I had a go.
