Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
B
bigbangmoma
Unregistered
bigbangmoma
Unregistered
B
I read the interview with this person who believes something called time waves creates gravity and so on… www whataretimewaves com

True or not interesting to read… the site states tiny particles process data we perceive as reality and this data (/ light) has substance to them generating a push and pull… anyway… interesting to read this idea.

.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
bbm,
I couldn't get anything to come up with www whataretimewaves com. Do you have another link or can you fix this one? I'd like to read what you found so interesting.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
If the following is for real--Or it just junk science?--I now know why, since high school, I have alway been attracted to and had a love for physics:

http://www.whataretimewaves.com/home

===========================

Quote:
Our bodies are only machines controlled by the spirit of who we really are. Our spirit controls the way we see things and the way we think and react with others. If one has a spirit of love their thoughts and actions will be of love. The spirit controls who we are as a person. The spirit is the essence of who we are. The essence of which we are never dies. Our bodies die but the spirit knows no death. Our bodies are like leaves on a tree we die off and come back. In the physical world everything is subject to go through a rebirth (die and be created new). In the universe nothing is wasted. Everything is always changing and recycling into something made new. If everything stayed the same it would be a dull static universe. For more see “notizen”


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
It's rubbish. Whatever their 'spirit' is, it's something the survives death, so it's not the conventional spirit of self-consciousness.

Everything's recycled? That's just a restatement of the law of conservation of energy. It doesn't tell you anything that wasn't already obvious. There's lots of fairly useless cold isolated atoms floating around the universe. Many of them used to be part of something bigger and more important, but now they're just broken waste. If you call that 'recycling' then sure.


Originally Posted By: Revlgking
If the following is for real--Or it just junk science?--I now know why, since high school, I have alway been attracted to and had a love for physics:

D
data recovery
Unregistered
data recovery
Unregistered
D
Gravitation, or gravity, is one of the four fundamental interactions of nature. Gravity is the force that causes two particles to pull towards each other.

Last edited by Kate; 08/10/10 08:40 AM. Reason: asshat spammer promoting crap unrelated services
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
Originally Posted By: bigbangmoma
I read the interview with this person who believes something called time waves creates gravity and so on… www whataretimewaves com

True or not interesting to read… the site states tiny particles process data we perceive as reality and this data (/ light) has substance to them generating a push and pull… anyway… interesting to read this idea.



I do not know of any scientific evidence of this bigbangmoma, but gravity is defined as being the curvature of space due to the presence of matter, or mass. For example, the sun is a huge body and a huge amount of mass compared to the earth so that it warps the space around it much, much more than does the earth. The earth orbits around the sun due to the 'dip' in space surrounding the sun as does our moon around the 'dip' created by the earth's mass, and so on. Even light has no choice but to follow the shape of space although it appears to be travelling in a straight line.

In an extreme situation, say in a black hole, the mass involved is so tremendous that it warps space to such a degree that not even light is able to escape it.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: bigbangmomma
True or not interesting to read… the site states tiny particles process data we perceive as reality and this data (/ light) has substance to them generating a push and pull… anyway… interesting to read this idea.


Interesting as the ideas may be, they are presented in a dogmatic form with, as far as I could see, no sound scientific reasoning to back up the assertions.

Originally Posted By: abacus9900
gravity is defined as being the curvature of space due to the presence of matter, or mass.


This makes sense, but causing and maintaining this curvature of space (or spacetime)must require energy. Did Einstein, or anyone else for that matter, identify the source of this energy?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 56

Quote:

This makes sense, but causing and maintaining this curvature of space (or spacetime)must require energy. Did Einstein, or anyone else for that matter, identify the source of this energy?



At present string theory seems to be the most promising model, but time will tell.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: abacus9900
gravity is defined as being the curvature of space due to the presence of matter, or mass.


This makes sense, but causing and maintaining this curvature of space (or spacetime)must require energy. Did Einstein, or anyone else for that matter, identify the source of this energy?

Einstein, E=mc^2 (mass–energy equivalence, i.e.,the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content)


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Einstein, E=mc^2 (mass–energy equivalence, i.e.,the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content)


So, is the mass of the Earth continually decreasing because the Earth is expending energy keeping the moon in orbit?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
So, is the mass of the Earth continually decreasing because the Earth is expending energy keeping the moon in orbit?


Why should it be expending energy? If it is, then where does that energy go? Also, if it is, there's no reason that energy should be taken from the mass of the Earth, it could be kinetic which is not included in E=mc^2.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Einstein, E=mc^2 (mass–energy equivalence, i.e.,the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content)


Originally Posted By: Kallog
there's no reason that energy should be taken from the mass of the Earth, it could be kinetic which is not included in E=mc^2.


Can you both be right?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Einstein, E=mc^2 (mass–energy equivalence, i.e.,the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content)


Originally Posted By: Kallog
there's no reason that energy should be taken from the mass of the Earth, it could be kinetic which is not included in E=mc^2.


Can you both be right?


Yes, depending on how you define mass and if no other type of energy besides mass and kinetic is present.

m could be rest mass (m0 in the formula below) or relativistic mass, m in the formula below.


I prefer to define mass as a property of an object, rather than a combination of a property and a relationship between the object's speed and the observer's.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: K


Unfortunately, the maths is beyond me. Does it translate into saying that the Earth holds the moon in orbit without expending any energy?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: K

Unfortunately, the maths is beyond me. Does it translate into saying that the Earth holds the moon in orbit without expending any energy?


Hehe you must be one of those people who're put off by ugly looking formulas :P It's very simple:
E = mc^2
m = m_0 / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
If you put v=0 you see that both types of mass are the same.
If you have v=c then relativistic mass m and the total energy E become infinite.



Regarding the moon you can use classical mechanics. If the orbit was circular:

F = ma
work = F * (distance traveled in the direction of F).

There's acceleration because of the curved orbit, so there's a force F. However that force is always perpendicular to the direction of motion, so the 2nd equation says no work is done.

It's not really circular but where there's a component of F in the direction of motion, kinetic energy is given to the moon. That's cancelled out by kinetic energy the moon loses in another part of the orbit when there's a component of F opposite to the direction of motion.


Last edited by kallog; 09/17/10 07:28 AM.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Alternatively, Bill, there's General Relativity explanation, according to which no acceleration is being applied to the Moon. Instead, the Moon follows a geodesic through the curvature of spacetime caused by the mass of Earth.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Alternatively, Bill, there's General Relativity explanation, according to which no acceleration is being applied to the Moon. Instead, the Moon follows a geodesic through the curvature of spacetime caused by the mass of Earth.


This does not answer the question. The question is "how does the presence of the Earth hold the geodesic in shape without expending energy?"

I shall have to give Kallog's maths a bit of thought before trying to respond to his post.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: K
Regarding the moon you can use classical mechanics. If the orbit was circular:

F = ma
work = F * (distance traveled in the direction of F).

There's acceleration because of the curved orbit, so there's a force F. However that force is always perpendicular to the direction of motion, so the 2nd equation says no work is done.



Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding of the work function is that it is an engineering device given by the following equation: W = F d, where W is the work done, F is the force used and d is the distance over which the work is carried out. Great for calculating the amount of coal needed to take your train from A to B.

The W F does not necessarily assess the amount of energy expended in a given operation.

Picture a situation in which a horse is being used to try to move an enormously heavy object. If the attempt is successful the work function can be applied to it, but suppose the horse is unable to move the object. The distance then becomes zero, so F in the second half of the work function equation must be multiplied by 0. Obviously, any quantity multiplied by zero must equal nothing, so the equation becomes W = 0. No work has been done; therefore no energy has been expended, notwithstanding the possibility that the horse might be totally exhausted by its attempts to move the object. An owner who then argued that his horse had done no work, and therefore needed no food, would soon find he had a seriously undernourished horse.

You will probably point out that in order to apply the work function to an orbiting situation you have to add the term “cosθ”, but does that improve things? The equation then becomes W = F d cosθ. The angle “Θ” represents the angle between the direction in which the object is pushed, or pulled, and the direction in which it actually moves.

In the case of an orbiting object the direction of movement lies at 90 degrees to the direction of pull, so cosθ becomes zero, thus F d must be multiplied by zero. No work, no energy expenditure! Try swinging a heavy weight on a rope for a while and see if you agree that you are doing no work and using no energy.



Last edited by Bill S.; 09/17/10 07:34 PM.

There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Ok. Did I do something wrong? &#952 appeared instead of theta. Please do your own translation.

my son did his best to explain this, but even he could not post a "theta". I feel much better about it.

Last edited by Bill S.; 09/17/10 07:37 PM.

There never was nothing.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5