just have a question. not sure if this is the proper forum to ask. i
have no education in mathematics or physics. i'm actually a struggling
art major. though its probably obvious that i'm nither a math nor
physics major...just dont wanna get flamed for this if its an
"uneducated question". was just thinking about mass and how particles
in a gas cloud, out of the influence of any other mass, eventually come
together and become concentrated enough in certain areas to have a
gravitational impact. is there a certain point where, when enough of a
given particle or molecule comes together in a given space, a
gravitational force emerges? or is my assumption, that particles
simply move towards each other over time false? or is it based on the
probability that, given enough of a certain particle and its
characteristics and initial conditions, a number of particles will come
into close enough contact with one another that other, more sub atomic
forces can come into play, such as the strong force? or, is the
distribution of mass, influenced by the forces in a constantly evolving
and expanding universe, impact its constituent parts ie; its sub atomic
particles, in a top down fashion? as if some external force set the
whole process in motion? I was actually thinking about einstein and his
theories and how he came to them. what he experienced or learned that
gave him that perception of the world with its equivellences and laws
that must have seemed to just exist somewhere waiting to be discovered.
is it realistic to believe that one can understand the world in the way
einstein did, without any mathematical understanding of the equations
that confirmed his understanding?
thanks for yer patience.
jtg

wrote:
just have a question. not sure if this is the proper forum to ask.
i
have no education in mathematics or physics. i'm actually a
struggling
art major. though its probably obvious that i'm nither a math nor
physics major...just dont wanna get flamed for this if its an
"uneducated question". was just thinking about mass and how
particles
in a gas cloud, out of the influence of any other mass, eventually
come
together and become concentrated enough in certain areas to have a
gravitational impact. is there a certain point where, when enough of
a
given particle or molecule comes together in a given space, a
gravitational force emerges? or is my assumption, that particles
simply move towards each other over time false?

I assume you're thinking about how stars (and planets and galaxies)
accrete out of space dust...
Gravitational attraction is *always* at play in a collection of dust
particles; it doesn't "turn on" at some threshold. If you had a
collection of dust all at rest, gravity would pull them all together.
The question, really, is whether the extraordinarily weak pull of
gravity is strong enough to overcome other factors that tend to push
them apart, such as thermal pressure. There can indeed be random
fluctuations that make one region more dense than the surrounding area,
and this can be a "seed" (like the microscopic lump that starts the
formation of a bubble in a glass of beer) for a stronger gravitational
pull.

or is it based on the
probability that, given enough of a certain particle and its
characteristics and initial conditions, a number of particles will
come
into close enough contact with one another that other, more sub
atomic
forces can come into play, such as the strong force?

Not in the context in which I'm guessing you're asking.

or, is the
distribution of mass, influenced by the forces in a constantly
evolving
and expanding universe, impact its constituent parts ie; its sub
atomic
particles, in a top down fashion? as if some external force set the
whole process in motion?

Top-down is not something that is customarily built into *most* physics
models. Bottom-up is more customary. That's not a value judgement or a
statement of correctness.

I was actually thinking about einstein and his
theories and how he came to them. what he experienced or learned
that
gave him that perception of the world with its equivellences and laws
that must have seemed to just exist somewhere waiting to be
discovered.
is it realistic to believe that one can understand the world in the
way
einstein did, without any mathematical understanding of the equations
that confirmed his understanding?

This is a common misconception. Einstein knew the physics work that
preceded him very, very well. He did not "clear his desk" and start
from scratch with a brand new idea. What Einstein excelled at was to
take a collection of assumptions and principles and current
experimental results and, after looking at them very carefully, knowing
which assumptions were solid and which were not crucial. Then he was
able to dispense with the noncrucial assumptions and build, using all
the tools in his toolbox (math and physics), a fairly bold and
consistent picture from the solid ones. And, no, you can't do that
without the toolbox, though many in this forum try.
thanks for yer patience.
jtg

PD

thanks for yer time
jtg


PD wrote:
wrote:
just have a question. not sure if this is the proper forum to ask.
i
have no education in mathematics or physics. i'm actually a
struggling
art major. though its probably obvious that i'm nither a math nor
physics major...just dont wanna get flamed for this if its an
"uneducated question". was just thinking about mass and how
particles
in a gas cloud, out of the influence of any other mass, eventually
come
together and become concentrated enough in certain areas to have a
gravitational impact. is there a certain point where, when enough
of
a
given particle or molecule comes together in a given space, a
gravitational force emerges? or is my assumption, that particles
simply move towards each other over time false?

I assume you're thinking about how stars (and planets and galaxies)
accrete out of space dust...
Gravitational attraction is *always* at play in a collection of dust
particles; it doesn't "turn on" at some threshold. If you had a
collection of dust all at rest, gravity would pull them all together.
The question, really, is whether the extraordinarily weak pull of
gravity is strong enough to overcome other factors that tend to push
them apart, such as thermal pressure. There can indeed be random
fluctuations that make one region more dense than the surrounding
area,
and this can be a "seed" (like the microscopic lump that starts the
formation of a bubble in a glass of beer) for a stronger
gravitational
pull.

or is it based on the
probability that, given enough of a certain particle and its
characteristics and initial conditions, a number of particles will
come
into close enough contact with one another that other, more sub
atomic
forces can come into play, such as the strong force?

Not in the context in which I'm guessing you're asking.

or, is the
distribution of mass, influenced by the forces in a constantly
evolving
and expanding universe, impact its constituent parts ie; its sub
atomic
particles, in a top down fashion? as if some external force set
the
whole process in motion?

Top-down is not something that is customarily built into *most*
physics
models. Bottom-up is more customary. That's not a value judgement or
a
statement of correctness.

I was actually thinking about einstein and his
theories and how he came to them. what he experienced or learned
that
gave him that perception of the world with its equivellences and
laws
that must have seemed to just exist somewhere waiting to be
discovered.
is it realistic to believe that one can understand the world in the
way
einstein did, without any mathematical understanding of the
equations
that confirmed his understanding?

This is a common misconception. Einstein knew the physics work that
preceded him very, very well. He did not "clear his desk" and start
from scratch with a brand new idea. What Einstein excelled at was to
take a collection of assumptions and principles and current
experimental results and, after looking at them very carefully,
knowing
which assumptions were solid and which were not crucial. Then he was
able to dispense with the noncrucial assumptions and build, using all
the tools in his toolbox (math and physics), a fairly bold and
consistent picture from the solid ones. And, no, you can't do that
without the toolbox, though many in this forum try.
thanks for yer patience.
jtg

PD