Gravity and the big bang

Thank you, I am extremely interested

"J. Scott Miller" wrote in message
...
If you really are interested in what the big bang theory does (and does
not)
say, I recommend the following site:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

All matter has it's own gravity. Let me explain it like this... If the
tennis ball weighed more than the earth, despite it's size or shape,
the earth would fall towards the tennis ball. If they weighed the same
they would both meet half way. You and the monitor you're looking at
want to fall towards eachother, but on such a small scale that no
instuments presently exist that are sensitive enough to measure it, so
you along with your monitor fall towards the earth instead. But if your
monitor weighed 1,000,000,000,000,000 times more all the oceans in the
world would be headed for your room.

1st of all what anomaly are you expecting to find? It wouldn't be an
anomaly at that because whatever you would find there would be just as
predicted in science, nothing unexpected. 2nd, the big bang did not
occur in a single point in space rather than everywhere at once, since
it was an explosion of 3 things; matter, time, and even space itself.
Before the big bang there was nothing, not even empty space. Therefore
one could not conclude that the big bang occured at any specific point
in space since it was the creation of space. 3rd you stateted that you
could not find any measurements that prove that the gaps between stars
are increasing. Well thats you. And I'm sure you're talking about
galaxies and not individual stars. Science has well established that
galaxies are moving away from eachother at an increasing speed. This is
determined by the red shifting of the light emitted by galaxies as they
move away from us, much like a doppler effect of light. You can hear
whether a train is coming towards you or moving away by the pitch of
the sound it's making. If the sound is increasing in pitch the train is
coming towards you. If the sound is decreasing in pitch the train is
moving away. Light works in a similar way in which if an object is
moving toward you fast enough, the light emitting from it appears to
take on a bluer shade. If the object is moving away from you it takes
on a red shade. The speed at which the object is moving towards or away
from the observer can be determined by the degree that the object has
blue shifted or red shifted. Pretty much all galaxies move away from
eachother in much the same way that raisins in bread dough move away
from eachother as the dough rises. If you were a raisin near the center
of the dough you would notice that the raisins near the outside are
moving away faster than the ones right next to you. This is also the
case with galaxies in the universe. I hope those measurements suffice
in answering your question about the gaps between stars. As far as the
moon thing... well... who knows.

P.S. To be honest I wasn't exactly sure what your question was centered
upon, but if it was to explain gravity I would be happy to do my best
upon request. -Shadowmega

JRS: In article , dated Wed, 8 Sep
2004 19:33:50, seen in news:sci.space.science, Phych
posted :
Dr John Stockton wrote in
:

To be elementary, the body must be spherically symmetrical, but need
not otherwise be homogeneous. It is, of course, the field of the body
to which you refer; the total field at the centre of a tennis ball is
one gee. In that case, symmetry alone is sufficient; any symmetrical
law of gravity would give the same result.

The interesting result, requiring the inverse square law and otherwise
only elementary arguments, is that the field *anywhere* within a
homogeneous spherical shell due to the shell is zero.

I lack an equally elementary argument for the field outside a
spherical shell; but I have Ramsey's version of Newton's.


Are you saying that all spherical bodies have their
own gravitational field, simply based on their
spherical shape, and perhaps density and size?

No.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

Phych wrote:

Thanks, wow, I've read in various science new stories that
their is some rough estimate of where the universe center
is located. Is this the method by which that estimate is taken?

Well... For there to be a center that can be detrmined, the
universe needs to be closed and have a purely 3d shape that
can be determined. Such properties are not known to be absolutely
true as things stand.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

As for the tennis ball, (I wrote also in another response) does
a tennis ball have gravity simply based on its spherical
shape, mass, and density? If true, I suspect measurements
have been taken on such isolated bodies. I would like
to read further on that subject. Any references?

No. A tennis ball has gravity based on its mass alone.

Measurements have, in fact, been made on small bodies. I don't know the
reference off the top of my head, but the experiment is pretty simple:

Get three equivalent weights, a tripod, a length of string, and a bar.
Attach two of the weights to opposite ends of the bar. Hang the bar from the
tripod with the string and balance it. Wait for it to come completely to
rest. Place the third weight a short distance away from one of the other two
weights. Wait a few days. If the string isn't too springy / resistant to
twisting, then the gravity of the two weights will have pulled the together.

-l.
------------------------------------
My inbox is a sacred shrine, none shall enter that are not worthy.