- Thank you received: 0
Gravitons and Push Gravity question.
19 years 10 months ago #12166
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Tom, Then if this is approximately right what is approximately wrong here? What is the wide area of shared control? And do you think a two mass model will behave in the same manner as a single mass model? It seems to me it is quite a bit different in some ways and about the same in other ways.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 10 months ago #12282
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<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 />It seems to me it is quite a bit different in some ways and about the same in other ways.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">At a great distance, the two masses appear to act as one. At a very small distance from either mass, that one mass controls. Everywhere else, you have 3-body orbits, which can be pretty wild compared with 2-body orbits.
There are no simple solutions to the general 3-body problem. -|Tom|-
<br />It seems to me it is quite a bit different in some ways and about the same in other ways.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">At a great distance, the two masses appear to act as one. At a very small distance from either mass, that one mass controls. Everywhere else, you have 3-body orbits, which can be pretty wild compared with 2-body orbits.
There are no simple solutions to the general 3-body problem. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 10 months ago #12283
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
The orbits are a result of angular momentum and that is not included as yet in this study of the force.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 10 months ago #12167
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
Jim,
See if this model helps you understand about "center of mass".
*) Imagine two light bulbs (equal light output, to simulate equal masses), separated by 2 meters. Call one of them A, the other B, and the midpoint between them C (which simulates the center of mass of two equal mass stars orbiting each other). You could call this midpoint a "center of radiation".
*) Now imagine using 3 telescopes to act as sensors. As you move around in the space surrounding the light bulbs, telescope A' is kept parallel to a radial line from light bulb A, telescope B' is kept parallel to a radial line from light bulb B, and scope C' is kept parallel to a radial line from midpoint C.
Arrange the 3 sensors in front of you as you move around relative to the 2 light bulbs and observe the amount of light received by each scope and the spatial orientation of each scope.
(
Some definitions -
1) "Close" means less than 10 times the separation distance between the bulbs
2) "Far" means more than 100 times the separation distance between the bulbs.
3) "Real close" means less than the separation distance between the bulbs.
4) "Real far" means far enough away that the two bulbs appear to be one, except possibly with your most powerful telescope.
)
When you are close to the light bulbs, each of the sensors will generally have visibly different levels of light falling on them.
When you are real close the visual differences betweent the sensors will generally be very large, except for certain special positions. And the orientation of the 3 sensors will generally be different from each other, except for certain special positions.
When you are far away from the light bulbs, each of the sensors will generally receive light levels that are NOT visually different from each other. Sensitive instruments would most likely be able to detect differences, however.
When you are real far away each of the sensors will appear to have the same levels of light falling on them, even if measured with sensitive light measuring devices. The orientation of all three sensors will appear to be the same (they will be parallel to each other) and there will be no special places where light levels or orientation differ.
===
Note, in particular, that in the far case and especially in the real far case the light falling on sensor C' is the same as the light falling on sensors A' and B'. Despite the fact that no light comes from midpoint C. Not a single itty-bitty wave.
In the close and real close cases the light falling on sensor C' is frequently less than the light falling on sensors B' and A'. From many locations around the light bulbs sensor C' will detect no light at all while sensors B' and A' are detecting lots of light.
Regards,
LB
See if this model helps you understand about "center of mass".
*) Imagine two light bulbs (equal light output, to simulate equal masses), separated by 2 meters. Call one of them A, the other B, and the midpoint between them C (which simulates the center of mass of two equal mass stars orbiting each other). You could call this midpoint a "center of radiation".
*) Now imagine using 3 telescopes to act as sensors. As you move around in the space surrounding the light bulbs, telescope A' is kept parallel to a radial line from light bulb A, telescope B' is kept parallel to a radial line from light bulb B, and scope C' is kept parallel to a radial line from midpoint C.
Arrange the 3 sensors in front of you as you move around relative to the 2 light bulbs and observe the amount of light received by each scope and the spatial orientation of each scope.
(
Some definitions -
1) "Close" means less than 10 times the separation distance between the bulbs
2) "Far" means more than 100 times the separation distance between the bulbs.
3) "Real close" means less than the separation distance between the bulbs.
4) "Real far" means far enough away that the two bulbs appear to be one, except possibly with your most powerful telescope.
)
When you are close to the light bulbs, each of the sensors will generally have visibly different levels of light falling on them.
When you are real close the visual differences betweent the sensors will generally be very large, except for certain special positions. And the orientation of the 3 sensors will generally be different from each other, except for certain special positions.
When you are far away from the light bulbs, each of the sensors will generally receive light levels that are NOT visually different from each other. Sensitive instruments would most likely be able to detect differences, however.
When you are real far away each of the sensors will appear to have the same levels of light falling on them, even if measured with sensitive light measuring devices. The orientation of all three sensors will appear to be the same (they will be parallel to each other) and there will be no special places where light levels or orientation differ.
===
Note, in particular, that in the far case and especially in the real far case the light falling on sensor C' is the same as the light falling on sensors A' and B'. Despite the fact that no light comes from midpoint C. Not a single itty-bitty wave.
In the close and real close cases the light falling on sensor C' is frequently less than the light falling on sensors B' and A'. From many locations around the light bulbs sensor C' will detect no light at all while sensors B' and A' are detecting lots of light.
Regards,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 10 months ago #12549
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
LB, well, ok, again. The model you are posting is very interesting on a topic that is different than a gravity force model that I'm working here. Your model is more like a description of real binary star systems-or am I wrong here? My model has nothing to do with real events and is intended to show how a force behaves if that makes any sense. Its only a model and there is nothing real about it other than force laws(gravity). The light from your model would be effected by this force too-don't you think?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 10 months ago #12177
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
Jim,
You are missing the point.
LB
You are missing the point.
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.455 seconds