/sci/ - Science & Math

>If you were somewhere in space nowhere near any galaxy, as far as you can possibly go from a gravitation point - then would the gravity of the nearest galaxy still drag you to it?

The gravity of all the galaxies in the universe would be pulling on you and you would be sent in the direction that pulls hardest which would involve a lot of factors.

>>3613546

thanks

>>3613546

is there a distance where it is not effectual?

that is, are we genuinely being pulled by everyother object in the universe? even bodies at the very edge?

>>3613594
We assume gravity and the elcetromagnetic force reach "infinitely far".

>>3613546

>The gravity of all the galaxies in the universe would be pulling on you

Since the power of gravity effects all, slowly but steadily, if great distances are at hand; Then wont the heaviest black hole in the world eventually pull smaller black holes towards itself, and as time goes, it will eventually consume all other black holes, faster and faster as it grows larger?

>>3613594
I'm not sure we're pulled by *every* object in the universe since the effect of gravity is limited by the speed of light, and there are galaxies that formed so far away that they are out of causal contact (I think). It gets a bit complicated when cosmology comes into it, but basically, if you can see it you are also interacting with it gravitationally.

>>3613594
Everything is pulling everything. Gravity is fairly weak but it has incredible reach.

If you were 10 million lightyears away from the Milky Way the escape velocity would still be more than what's needed to leave Earth

>>3613615
There are other factors involved. The expansion of the universe, for example. It seems like galactic clusters might turn into insanely huge black holes after a few trillion years

Yeah. Your weight on earth may be 165 pounds, but you also have a weight relative to every other celestial body that we can see in the universe.

Your weight relative to the sun is about 0.1 pounds

>>3613594
Yes infinite distant.

Dude, here's the equation for gravity.

F=G(constant)*m1*m1/(r^2)

The question is when does F=0, and the answer is when r =infinity.

>>3613666
m1*m2

>>3613643

Since this is an Anonymous board, i´m just going to hypothise about this.

MAYBE, if all mass in the universe will eventually become a part of a one enormous black hole, then the gravitational pull would be so insane, that it would start dragging space in as well, so eventually, everything will go to shit and space and time wont exist anymore, the black hole would have consumed everything that has ever been. Then something happens and all that matter that the black hole has sucked into itself during its lifetime, will burst out again due to some reason, and space will start expanding again alongside with time. And this would be the reason for our universe as well.
It sounds like a kid talking, i know, but can anyone disprove me? Since science doesnt understand black holes very well, then does this hypothesis have any logical errors?

>>3613691
yes. namely it's a bullshit fantasy. perhaps the black hole will then turn into acquire your faggotry. because, you know, it's so massive.

>>3613712

Instead of calling me a faggot, try to just use your superior scientific knowledge to disprove the baseless assumptions i came up with.

I have no scientific knowledge whatsoever, and you seem to do, you arrogant little bitch, so disprove me.

>>3613730
disproof: there is no evidence that gravity can 'pull in space', just like there's no evidence that it can pull in your faggotry.

not sure if idiot or weak troll.

>>3613646
so that means Im the heaviest at midnight?

>>3613691
>Then something happens
>due to some reason

That's impossible. If there is no time, there can be no cause for anything.

>>3613741

Yea, but theres also no evidence that if the whole matter in the universe was combined into a one point in space, that it wouldnt. Thats why its called a hypothesis. If i ever get into physics, i will be better than you, because i´m

1. indefinitely smarter than your arrogant egotistic ass
2. im much more creative in thinking. You may have learned shit, but you will never contribute anything with your narrow minded tool head.

i didnt know gravity had infinite range, that shit is whack yo

The universe is expanding at an increasing rate so there's nothing at the moment that would indicate that there's any reason to believe that it will one day collapse on itself

>>3613777
Gravitational influence is however limited by the speed of light

>>3613788

meaning that if the sun teleported across the galaxy, we'd continue rotating around where it was until its lack of gravity propagated to us a few minutes later?

SHIT IS WHACK YO

>>3613821
Yep, however we wouldn't even know that it dissapeared or teleported across the galaxy until the same moment that the gravitational influence would also happen to dissapear

>>3613858

which is WACK YO

Not OP, but is gravity instantaneous?
For example if you are in a vacuum and far far away a planet is created from nothing, would you be instantaneously affected by the gravity?

If you have enough speed, you can go an infinite distance from an object, despite its gravitational pull. This speed is called the escape velocity.

>>3613891
It's experimentally confirmed that gravity travels.

>>3613956
Cool. Do we even know the speed?
Also "how" does it travel?

>>3613976
The speed is the speed of light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_waves

>>3613891
Instantaneous action violates causality (hence Newtons Gravity theory and the special theory of relativity don't work together.)

Does Special relativity imply that time, seen from an observer's standpoint that time is continuously changing, when for examply the earth is the gravitational body and reference point; the observer is a moving object (which may be manned) then the timerate here on earth, would constantly keep changing for him?
Then when he comes back, he's coming back to the earth's gravitational well and the clock are all fine again.
But has he aged faster than the people on earth?
My guess is no, since it's meant from a local point of view. If we'd scale it all up a magnitude, "time" would still go on, unchanged.
Whatcha think?

>>3614003
I think that you should word your questions in a readable manner and maybe read the wiki article on "twin paradox" first.

>>3614003
A person leaves on a spaceship and goes 99% the speed of light. He then returns to earth at what he conceives to be 15 minutes later, however on earth, people have endured 50 years of time.

He would not be 50 years older even physically, he would only be 15 minutes older.