Caedes: The intuition behind your argument is correct, however (by definition) the gravitational field on the inside of the hollow sphere due to the sphere is zero. The question is if a gravitational field of zero mean there is no gravity; I would tend to say yes because otherwise I would not know what no gravity means. Viv seem to distinguish between no acceleration and no total acceleration which is so silly I think it is beyond me to correct that misunderstanding.
the flood, mammoths, elphants, and food.
by Crazyguy 280 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Viviane
Caedes: The intuition behind your argument is correct, however (by definition) the gravitational field on the inside of the hollow sphere due to the sphere is zero. The question is if a gravitational field of zero mean there is no gravity; I would tend to say yes because otherwise I would not know what no gravity means. Viv seem to distinguish between no acceleration and no total acceleration which is so silly I think it is beyond me to correct that misunderstanding.
Show me, mathematically, how mass produces zero gravity and I'll agree. You promised math. We're waiting.
Also, BTW, nothing here is "by definition". It's something that has been proven, it was not by fiat. Your statement shows you STILL are not grasping shell theorem. The entire point, again, is that the entirely of the mass of a sphere has a net gravitational effect internall of zero such that any calculations between two bodies can be done using center mass. It, in no way, doesn't, hasn't nor ever will say there is no gravitational field inside of a hollow sphere.
Mass warps space. If you disagree, please, for the love of science, show us all how. I'm just guessing, but I will bet you will never ever do that and will continue to make smaller and smaller arguments until you eventually say the exact same thing I have been saying all along and simply claim I misunderstood and you were right the entire time.
-
bohm
Viv: Show me, mathematically, how mass produces zero gravity and I'll agree. You promised math. We're waiting.
I did not claim this. I claimed the gravitational field exerted by a hollow sphere at an interior point was zero. Since you are so crazy that people ust show you math here is my derivation, properly there are a few constants wrong here or there:
Now, could you be so kind as to explain what is wrong in this derivation and could you kindly (if you prefer, WITH MATH!!!111 and without the arrogance and name-calling) explain the meaning of:
Viv: Because it's not "no acceleration on an object inside the sphere", it's "total acceleration is equal to zero". Very different things.
-
bohm
Viv: As I have now used math i assume it will be fair if I ask you to clarify a few of your more puzzling remarks "with math"? You know, if you insist it of others, i suppose that would only be fair?
-
bohm
Viviane:
It [shell theorem], in no way, doesn't, hasn't nor ever will say there is no gravitational field inside of a hollow sphere
Meanwhile, in the real world:
2) If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
The shell theorem plainly state the gravitaional field of a hollow sphere will vanish in all points on the inside of the sphere. I notice you have begun to slip in the gravitational effects of other objects; sure, if you add other objects they too will have a gravitational field. You can have fun knocking down that strawman, it is as accurate as saying the gravitational field of the sun is not spherically symmetric because there is also the earth, the other planets and the milky way galaxy. Certainly this is a nice strawman!
-
Caedes
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/sphshell2.html
The maths on that link is fairly straightforward and usefully it diagrammatically shows why your net force is zero. It isn't because there is no gravity it's because the forces are balanced.
-
bohm
Viv: Mass warps space. If you disagree, please, for the love of science, show us all how.
I have already discussed the diference and similarity with the GR and newtonian situation in my other posts. I do not claim mass do not warp space in general. Please show me where I made that statement as I think it is very dishonest of you.
I'm just guessing, but I will bet you will never ever do that and will continue to make smaller and smaller arguments until you eventually say the exact same thing I have been saying all along and simply claim I misunderstood and you were right the entire time.
I have just proven this wrong by my previous post. please oh pretty please don't move the goalpost.
-
Viviane
I did not claim this. I claimed the gravitational field exerted by a hollow sphere at an interior point was zero. Since you are so crazy that people ust show you math here is my derivation, properly there are a few constants wrong here or there:
Let's see. You wrote:
I will be happy to help you with the required integration if neccesary:
That's offering to do math. Not only have you not done it, you are denying that you ever offered. People do remember what you wrote, you know.
Now, could you be so kind as to explain what is wrong in this derivation and could you kindly (if you prefer, WITH MATH!!!111 and without the arrogance and name-calling) explain the meaning of:
There has been no arrogance or name calling. Stop with the butthurt and discuss like a grownup.
So, to answer, what is wrong with it? The opening statement. The whole point of shell theorem is to be able to calculate gravitational effects between two bodies. You ignore that and the entire point of it out of the gate. Anyway...
Your equations appear to be correct from a quick glance and show exactly what I said, net gravitaional effect is zero. It doesn't mean "no gravity exists". Explain how mass can fail to produce a gravity field. So far you're doing an excellent job of supporting me. I appreciate that, sincerely.
-
Viviane
Viv: As I have now used math i assume it will be fair if I ask you to clarify a few of your more puzzling remarks "with math"? You know, if you insist it of others, i suppose that would only be fair?
You can assume anything you like. As I said, I've already done the math I argued about in the thread. It's not my issue if you are puzzled.
-
Viviane
Meanwhile, in the real world:
2) If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell.
Yeah, exactly, no NET force. If you can't grasp the idea of "not force" and compare that to "no NET force", I really can't help you. That's EXACTLY what I have been saying. Thanks for practically quoting me.
