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 (), 133 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 9 10
#54098 07/04/15 07:55 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Since we have an abundance of alternate theory experts lets try and see if we can get some real conversation going. I want you to read the article by Ethan Siegel

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/as...le-5ef156bf048d

It actually harks back to a discussion I was having with Bill G/Bill S when they were trying to use a rubber sheet and ball weights as a simulation of gravity and get them to see the problem. Lets just say they didn't get it or the implications but lets try the alternative theory guys.

The key point is that any valid theory is going to have to explain

1.) How does gravity get out of a black hole.

Background: Gravity interacts with itself and everything attracts everything else. So if you create a black hole that stops even light leaving how is it gravity itself is getting out?


2.) Why is the speed of gravity restricted to the speed of light

Background: Gravity has been measured a number of different ways and all put it's speed at between 0.8c to 1.2c and that is consistent with the most likely that it is in fact c (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity)


3.) What is opposing the black hole so that the black hole gravity does not go to infinity (What limits the collapse).

Background: There has to be something opposing gravity otherwise whatever your theory the universe is going to collapse or at the very least start shrinking into every black hole. Worse still try and create the universe if gravity is not opposed.

I don't want crazy other details of your alternative theory but just deal exclusively with the 3 points asked.

Last edited by Orac; 07/04/15 08:24 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Orac #54100 07/04/15 11:16 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I’ve not read the article yet, but here’s a quick shot at the questions.

“1.) How does gravity get out of a black hole?”

It doesn’t. Gravity is not a force, it is a feature of the geometry of spacetime. Spacetime is influenced by the presence of the mass of the black hole; not by anything that has to escape from it.

“2.) Why is the speed of gravity restricted to the speed of light?”

Gravity does not travel. What travels is information about the presence/nature of the mass in question. Exchange of information is limited to “c”.

“3.) What is opposing the black hole so that the black hole gravity does not go to infinity (What limits the collapse)?”

If the centre of a black hole is a singularity, this is defined as a point where spacetime curvature is infinite, so gravity is infinite. Obviously, spacetime could not become more curved, and the area of infinite curvature must be infinitesimally small, so it is self limiting.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #54101 07/05/15 03:14 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Remember: I am not giving an answer and there is no right/wrong from me. I am simply looking at the logic of your responses and ultimately whether I can believe your theory.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
It doesn’t. Gravity is not a force, it is a feature of the geometry of spacetime. Spacetime is influenced by the presence of the mass of the black hole; not by anything that has to escape from it.

So how does it interact with matter and know when to deform ... divine perception(god tells it)?

Being facetious but it highlights the problem there has to be an interaction which you refer to as influence.

Go back to your rubber sheet and ball example the deformation is created by the mass. The mass is opposed by the rubber tension of the runner stretching and that gives you the proportionality that a heavy mass deforms more than a light mass.

Now go back to the gravity example there is proportionality. You may care to think about what are the other possibilities besides proportional and why is proportional selected?

So what you deem as an influence must (a) come out of the black hole and (b) create a proportional response to mass/distance which we write as a formula.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Gravity does not travel. What travels is information about the presence/nature of the mass in question. Exchange of information is limited to “c”.

If gravity does not travel how does it act at distance and how can we even do the experiments to measure its speed?

I sort of get the information bit as that is very QM but you lost me with how something that doesn't travel have a speed at all.

I am guessing you are going to equate "information" to energy along the lines of QM?

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
If the centre of a black hole is a singularity, this is defined as a point where spacetime curvature is infinite, so gravity is infinite. Obviously, spacetime could not become more curved, and the area of infinite curvature must be infinitesimally small, so it is self limiting.

Think more carefully about what you have said gravity is going to reach infinity smile

So we are back to our problem why doesn't the universe get instantly sucked back into the infinite gravity, what stops it?

I guess I could say the universe is a positive infinity and try and balance it but even then I am seeing an issue. Supposedly how many black holes are there in the universe?

To me the logic ends up at one extra big infinity is offset by lots of small infinities ... not sure I like this sort of maths smile

The fact your value can drop to infinity still leaves me questioning proportionality, why doesn't a bit of matter create gravity that instantly drops to infinity? Why does it require a lot of matter to produce the infinity?

I have a much deeper more technical problem with your answer but lets first clear the simple ones.

Last edited by Orac; 07/05/15 04:05 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54102 07/05/15 12:32 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I was trying to frame the argument in terms of what seems to be accepted scientific (hitch-hiker level) terminology, and at the same time stay off my usual “hobby-horse” about infinity.

Quote:
To me the logic ends up at one extra big infinity is offset by lots of small infinities ... not sure I like this sort of maths.


I’m glad you don’t like it. If it makes any sense at all, it is only in terms of mathematical infinities, which are simply bookkeeping conveniences.

Let’s try to dispense with infinities, at least for the time. A black hole exists in time; it has a beginning and, as far as we know, an end. It is finite. Nothing finite can become infinite, so the most we can say about the centre of a black hole is that its curvature is able to increase “infinitely”. This brings us back to the distinction between infinite and boundless.

In the interests of taking one step at a time, can we agree on what we mean when we talk of something becoming infinite? Would this be the same as what we mean if we say that something goes to infinity?

My response to those questions would be that the first is meaningless, and the second refers to boundlessness.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #54107 07/06/15 07:38 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Realistically I don't get hung up on infinity like you seem too, it is a description of a behaviour to me nothing more or less.

My issue is gravity increases to some incredible value and there are 2 obvious issues

1.) What controls the rate of drop off to whatever you want to call that bottom value ... infinity/bound?

This is the issue of proportionality ... here is a plot of Earths gravity well.


Now that is a steep drop why doesn't it keep plummetting to the infinity/bound condition?

GR has an explaination for the rate of dropoff and even why the value doesn't go to infinity/bounds and so any competing theory needs to do the same.


2.) What is the nature of the interaction between matter and gravity?

Ideally an alternative theory would be able to shed light on this although for its part GR does not describe what causes the interaction. GR merely places a curvature relationship in time on all space coordinates radiating out to infinity/universe bounds by some unknown process.

Last edited by Orac; 07/06/15 07:40 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54112 07/06/15 09:17 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Realistically I don't get hung up on infinity like you seem too, it is a description of a behaviour to me nothing more or less.


Pushed for time at the moment, but coming back. Thought I should say I have no objection to using "infinity" in this way; just as long as we all understand how we are using it.


There never was nothing.
Orac #54127 07/07/15 06:18 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
1.) What controls the rate of drop off to whatever you want to call that bottom value?


Looking at your diagram (let’s call it Fig. 1 in case there are more) it is easy to imagine that something needs to act on the Earth to stop it falling further down that well, possibly to infinity. Remember, though, that this is just a small fraction of a 2D model of the real thing. To be a complete 2D illustration there would have to be an infinite number of gravity wells surrounding the Earth. Even without attempting the impossible, you could draw enough gravity wells around the Earth to get rid of that apparent, but totally wrong, view that something – gravity? – is pulling the Earth “downward” in Fig.1.

Gravity is, if it is to be thought of in terms of gravity wells, an infinite number of wells, radiating in 3D from the Earth.

There is no downward direction, except towards the Earth, at the centre of this infinite number of gravity wells.

Why would this be seen as a situation in which any force is trying to move the Earth in any direction from its apparently stable position at the centre of this setup?

If there is such a force, would it not be balanced by an equal force acting on the Earth from an infinite number of directions?


There never was nothing.
Orac #54129 07/07/15 08:31 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
2.) What is the nature of the interaction between matter and gravity?

You might need to be more specific in what you are asking here. There could, for example, be a Q/A sequence that went something like this:

Q. What is the nature of the interaction between matter and gravity?
A. Mass distorts spacetime which results in what we interpret as gravity.

Q. How does mass achieve this?
A. Simply by being there.

Q. Why does this work?
A. “Why” questions take us outside science, and into philosophy.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #54133 07/08/15 05:57 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Why would this be seen as a situation in which any force is trying to move the Earth in any direction from its apparently stable position at the centre of this setup?

If there is such a force, would it not be balanced by an equal force acting on the Earth from an infinite number of directions?

Ummmm ... so again exactly what is curving and how are you measuring it?

You are going to have to do that one from the top for me, I am missing something


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #54134 07/08/15 06:09 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
So lets extend your Q & A session

Orac) How does mass achieve this?
Bill.S) Simply by being there.
Orac) So you have a correlation but no causation?


Orac) Why does this work?
Bill.S) “Why” questions take us outside science, and into philosophy.
Orac) No Bill S if you don't have a "why" you can have a science law but not a science theory.

Big difference between a science law and a science theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

So is what you telling me is you have Bill's law of gravity rather than a theory?

I can't see how Bill's law of gravity is any different to Newton's law of gravity, explain differences please?

You may care to read some quotes of Newton written in 1713 and ponder modern education standards.

Originally Posted By: Newton
"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it."

Originally Posted By: Newton
"I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses... It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies."

Newton man of science knew the difference between a law and a theory and what he was required to do

You will hence forth be known as Bill "hypotheses non fingo" smile

Hmmm wonder how does GR get from a law to a theory? smile

You have it easy all the answers are probably written out on the internet all you have to do is know how to join them up.

First principles is fun isn't it Bill S keeps you on your toes now can you walk the walk laugh

Hint: Hmmmm lets think of a question you once answered, Bill S does a photon create a gravitional pull, does a photon have mass and do you consider it matter? Is this consistent with your laws and statements above?

Last edited by Orac; 07/08/15 09:13 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54139 07/08/15 09:14 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Not ignoring your latest questions/comments; I'm still a few steps further back.

Originally Posted By: Orac
If gravity does not travel how does it act at distance and how can we even do the experiments to measure its speed?


Wikipedia says: “…the speed of gravity is the speed at which changes in a gravitational field propagate. This is the speed at which a change in the distribution of energy and momentum of matter results in subsequent alteration, at a distance, of the gravitational field which it produces.”

“For static fields, such as …… the gravitational field connected to a massive object, the field extends to infinity, and does not propagate.”

Would it not follow from this that gravity is a static field, and that what is being measured is changes within a gravitational field, rather than any intrinsic motion of the field itself?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #54142 07/09/15 02:43 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
“For static fields, such as …… the gravitational field connected to a massive object, the field extends to infinity, and does not propagate.”

Would it not follow from this that gravity is a static field, and that what is being measured is changes within a gravitational field, rather than any intrinsic motion of the field itself?

There is a problem we are going to confront and you haven't yet got to the point where we have introduced the problem.
So for a change I will sort of give you the problem we are about to hit and you decide what you want to discuss.

In the above you suddenly introduce the concept of a field which your idea and laws haven't even dealt with yet.
I will put that aside as I think you started it as a joke and now got buried in your own joke.

Fields were initially described in classical terms and the man that did the greatest contribution is James Clerk Maxwell. The part you need to read is the history of the equations he derived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell's_equations


Again I will be brief and just jump thru it just to sequence things for you. The key point about the equations is they connect electricity, magnetism, and the speed of light.

The problem with the equations and what we call "Maxwell's equations" really are not exclusively Maxwell's at all and its covered in that history. What you need to do is add in the concept of lines of force and vector mathematics to Maxwell's work.

The evolution is well covered in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dynamical_Theory_of_the_Electromagnetic_Field

It is actually discussed in that link that we are going to hit another complication. All that early work is classical and suddenly we are going to need to consider motion and especially speeds getting near the speed of light itself.

Quote:
Albert Einstein used Maxwell's equations as the starting point for his Special Theory of Relativity, presented in The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, a paper produced during his 1905 Annus Mirabilis.

What we are describing is the connections of how and why GR (via it's connection to SR) isn't a law but is indeed a theory and Einstein makes it clear he is seeking to do that by this statement .. sigh I am doing your homework again smile.

Originally Posted By: Einstein
"the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good"

Remember the requirements of a new theory to replace an old theory or laws it must explain all that the old covers and he makes that claim.

Finally we can address your question above and the problem rolls around motion. So do you think you are going to be able to use static field ideas on universal bodies that may well be moving at speeds a good fraction the speed of light? What they sort of hide in the statement above is they expect large objects not to be moving very fast and they sort of wave there hands and say we can thus treat them as static ... that is classically ... it's a justification not a statement of truth. You run into this problem with black holes, a spinning black hole vs a static black hole are very different beasts.

So the statement may be valid in a context of use, where classical physics and static fields would provide a correct answer and you can justify ignoring Special Relativity.
So for a more precise personal view I would need to see the full context. If you are asking is that some sort of "absolute truth" then no Special Relativity is the correct answer in all situations Einstein told you that ... don't you believe him smile

Bonus hint: In the second link was a hint for your journey, let me isolate it "Maxwell's equations can also be derived by extending General Relativity into five physical dimensions."

Last edited by Orac; 07/09/15 04:15 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54143 07/09/15 04:46 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
If you were trying to be cute and got caught let me show you the problem

GR equates local spacetime curvature (expressed by the Einstein tensor) with the local energy and momentum within that spacetime (expressed by the stress–energy tensor).

You have got the first bit you are totally not getting the second bit and haven't introduced it.

The answer starts in the Maxwell link under the section Electromagnetic stress–energy tensor under a curved spacetime (the bit you have got)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations_in_curved_spacetime

As part of the source term in the Einstein field equations, the electromagnetic stress–energy tensor is a covariant symmmetric tensor and that tensor is trace-free or in other words ZERO. Don't fall into the hole that Bill G and Rede did that is very important you need other theories if it isn't true. The justification for the ZERO is electromagnetism propagates at the invariant speed (being c) and conservation of energy in interactions.

You should get the joke when I was asked to define the GR stress-energy tensor and I said Zero. It went straight over some people heads smile

So you can't directly calculate a stress value and you probably can guess why because we actually have nothing to relate it to and so we have to create an indirect measure or a pseudotensor.

In lovely technical language we say this
Quote:
By the equivalence principle gravitational stress–energy will always vanish locally at any chosen point in some chosen frame, therefore gravitational stress–energy cannot be expressed as a non-zero tensor; instead we have to use a pseudotensor.

It does lead to a problem people may and can choose a different tensor definition and again technically we say this
Quote:
In general relativity, there are many possible distinct definitions of the gravitational stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor.

Don't get hung up on it you have seen this everyday or your layman life think metric/imperial smile

If someone uses a different pseudotensor they are describing the same thing in different units and some conversion exists just like metric/imperial.

So you can see my answer of zero was both accurate and a joke and they made it funnier by saying I was wrong and didn't know what I was talking about smile

If Bill G/Rede were more switched on I would have done the GR chicken stress tensor (a play on horse/chicken power) to make a point the choice isn't important laugh

Ask a layman there weight in cartons of beer, sexy girls, sheep manure, feathers etc no problem, but take the concept into a more abstract form and they don't get it smile

Humour aside generally you try a choose a pseudotensor that is not contentious and easy to replicate by anyone and most in the field would know several some examples Einstein, Papapetrou, Bergmann and Møller pseudotensors. If you say look at the Einstein pseudotensor it has a problem it is not symmetric and runs into problems with angular momentum but the name makes sure it is still around today. You really need someone with deeper GR knowledge than mine to give you pro's and con's or each.

Here is the whole lot I have run thru with less detail in layman style
https://diracseashore.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/everyday-physics-the-stress-tensor/
See how you go.

Last edited by Orac; 07/09/15 07:47 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54150 07/10/15 02:33 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
May be a couple of days before I can get back to this, but I'm still here.


There never was nothing.
Orac #54152 07/11/15 05:59 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
If you were trying to be cute and got caught


We should clarify a few things.
1. I’m not proposing a theory.
2. I’m not trying to be clever.
3. I’m not trying to score points.
4. I am trying to learn.
5. If I suggest something might be the case, I am happy to have it confirmed or shot down. Either way, I learn.
6. If you are trying to bog me down in maths or obscure science, don’t bother. It’s too easy so it's a waste of time with.

I have enough training and experience in teaching to know that answering a question with a question is a standard didactic technique, but to treat it as though it were the only technique often results in missing important points. I’m too old, and too short of time to take the long route to everything, so a few straight answers would be appreciated.


There never was nothing.
Orac #54153 07/11/15 06:14 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
I’ve had a look at your links and suspect you may be trying to drown me in maths and tech stuff. smile
Let’s step back a bit.

Originally Posted By: Orac
How does gravity get out of a black hole?


Originally Posted By: BS
It doesn’t. Gravity is not a force, it is a feature of the geometry of spacetime. Spacetime is influenced by the presence of the mass of the black hole; not by anything that has to escape from it.


Originally Posted By: Orac
So how does it interact with matter and know when to deform ... divine perception (god tells it)?


If you want me to try proposing an idea (I will not call it a theory), I’ll have a go, and try something a bit more imaginative than "God tells it".

QM indicates that zero is not a possible value of electromagnetic energy. The Casimir Effect supports this.
QM tells us that matter is composed of wavelike energy. We might conclude from this that empty space and matter are the same thing, differing only in their energy states. We might continue this line of thought to say that matter/energy and space/time are the same thing. Changes of energy in matter may lead to detectable changes; e.g. expansion/contraction. The presence of matter/energy in space/time may involve a transition between matter/energy and space/time which results in transitional phenomena, such as expansion/contraction. One might expect that the expansion/contraction would effect both matter/energy and space/time, and that it would be more perceptible in the latter.

The “classic” example of what the Earth would feel (and when) if the sun just vanished is obviously just a thought experiment which relies on a physical impossibility. Matter does not spontaneously appear and disappear.

Excluding individual particles, matter becomes present in masses of increasing size by a process of accretion; thus, the interaction between matter/energy and space/time is an ongoing complex relationship in which the expansion/contraction/deformation of space/time – giving rise to what we experience as gravity – is an integral part.

There is no external influence, the process is integral to the formation and evolution of the Universe.


There never was nothing.
Orac #54154 07/11/15 06:46 PM
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Point 1)

1.) How does gravity get out of a black hole.








...p1....p2....p3....................M >>> motion





^ F
m

(mass m = We right now are registering Grav. signal from past )


Many years ago ( 1000.......00000 Light Yers) Big Mass M was in past in point 1..2...3...

small mass m ( we right now ) are registering very very old position big mass M


WHY WE CAN NOT SEE big MASS M why it is BLACK HOLE ?


light must hit black hole and back to observer ??? Yes
please use HUGE DISTANCE and INVERSE SQUARE LAW


What is very intresting ! small mass m is registering force but
big mass M is not registering any force that is can slown down motion ( I invented this effecte - it is ACTION without reaction model NEWTON III law is too short to be real )



I MADE VERY IMPORTANT DISCOVERY ( easy to prove )
NOT EXIST IN UNIERSE LINE MOTION ( mass m1 is not falling down on mass m2 MASS m1 IS FALING DOWN ON POINT WHERE m2 was in past )

m1=m2

..1...2...3...m1 >>> motion


..1...2...3...m2 >>> motion


mass m1 is faling down on point p1,p2,p3 ....









Point 2)

2.) Why is the speed of gravity restricted to the speed of light

To understand what is Gravitation we must study very old Fact for physics


short theory :

James Clerk Maxwell, in 1861–64, published his theory of electromagnetic fields and radiation, which shows that light has momentum and thus can exert pressure on objects.


Engineers are using Si units system not Idiotics theory


ENERGY / SPACE = Joul/ cubic meter

N*m/m^3 = N/m^2 ( PASCAL !!!! )


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-C1cgolGV6r0/VUCw2IWncwI/AAAAAAAACWQ/8RhssZGNGKA/s1600/22.JPG



GALILEO NATURAL FALL LAW = MISTAKE

we remember famous experiment on Moon


please compare natural fall down time

1 kg steel ( 7850 kg/m^3 ) and 1 kg EPS ( 58 kg/m^3)

we can compare steel and wood ( remember about Maxwell 1861)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-AOVx_ljzTqQ/VP_xutwjrUI/AAAAAAAACQw/HzanrOGF4mA/s1600/CIMG3701.JPG





EXIST TWO TYPES Electro-Magnetic Pascal

Dynamic and Static similar like
Static and Dynamic Air's preasure

We must find ANALOGY !!!( below my interpretation )





IN UNIVERSE exsist many many stars !

Each star is pushing Earth !!! How heavy is Earth

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BHgIIFU8ON8/VP_zX3KcL3I/AAAAAAAACQ8/5nk25md2wEk/s1600/CIMG3705.JPG




WE HAVE IN PHYSICS NORMAL AIR PREASURE ., TEMPERATURE and ...

FUTURE MY OWN CLAIM

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-G8XXBln--6k/VP_2zF35VwI/AAAAAAAACRg/oFtCjI5NMtE/s1600/CIMG3703.JPG






GRAVITATION it is ELECTRO MAGNETIC CAVITATION

Earth is like a big truck
PLACE WHERE EARTH WAS IN PAST = LOWER DENSITY AREA chamber

( photons from stars are hiting Earth - dark colour ground or water ( mirror) energy is changing form

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XpgMRvGldH4/VFTgIuJjM3I/AAAAAAAACC8/sBIWRXC5fF4/s1600/CIMG3377.JPG


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iNHYy6u9bRg/VF9En99DNmI/AAAAAAAACFA/vOX3fZYchx4/s1600/em.jpg




VERY IMPORTANT PROBLEM FOR PHYSICS
MOTION !!!!



m-----M------m >>> motion ???

how big force is registering left /right m ?

very important is place where Gravitation started life

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fEJmNXHYWEE/VUOIBqAuAGI/AAAAAAAACXM/9gbCFna4fb0/s1600/333.png


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bi__UJHCX-Q/VUmXV-mvsvI/AAAAAAAACYs/w8VIgCYDGfQ/s1600/grav.jpg





NEW PHYSICS YES WHY NOT !!!

MICHELSON MORLEY BUT !!!! FORCE EDITION

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mfX1X9yDqDw/VLuo2Th_6_I/AAAAAAAACNQ/YaGD36e4PRk/s1600/mar.jpg


https://youtu.be/K8aJHtvlBzw

























Last edited by newton; 07/11/15 07:07 PM.
Bill S. #54157 07/12/15 03:15 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I have enough training and experience in teaching to know that answering a question with a question is a standard didactic technique, but to treat it as though it were the only technique often results in missing important points. I’m too old, and too short of time to take the long route to everything, so a few straight answers would be appreciated.

Ok you are dealing in a complex area and I don't like to say "this is the answer just trust me", it is important you make sure the answer you arrive at you are happy with the logic. I can give you what I think but I will draw short of saying this is the answer.

Last edited by Orac; 07/12/15 03:15 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #54159 07/12/15 04:36 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: BS
QM indicates that zero is not a possible value of electromagnetic energy. The Casimir Effect supports this.

Ok you have bought in QM which technically isn't need to do GR but lets go with where you want to go. QM and Electromagnetism are formally joined in the theory of Quantum Electrodynamics and it is one of the most tested and precise theories in our science knowledge. It is a relativistic quantum field theory and that means it incorporates relativity (specifically Special Relativity), QM and electromagnetics and so it embodies 3 other sets of understanding within it. Yes along with the casmir effect you therefore arrive at a vacuum expectation value of energy in each point in spacetime.

There are however some problem worth noting, if spacetime is infinite in it's points in space your universe vacuum energy is an infinite quantity. When you use the value you get as a quantum gravity theory the value you get for the cosmological constant is massive compared to it's measured value.

Originally Posted By: BS
QM tells us that matter is composed of wavelike energy. We might conclude from this that empty space and matter are the same thing, differing only in their energy states. We might continue this line of thought to say that matter/energy and space/time are the same thing.

No there are extensions of QM that do that but not all, is it the favoured possibly but again science isn't a consensus vote you can take a personal view on that issue.

You may care to review the tenets of quantum mechanics which says none of that except the wavelike behaviour bit.

Originally Posted By: BS
Changes of energy in matter may lead to detectable changes; e.g. expansion/contraction. The presence of matter/energy in space/time may involve a transition between matter/energy and space/time which results in transitional phenomena, such as expansion/contraction.

Ok now you are getting in to trying to describe interactions and we need to get into details and perhaps I will give you some.

What Einstein noticed is that forces can arrive centred on a point in space based solely on motion you know these as centripetal forces in classic physics. There are several key points to this so lets deal with them

1.) The "fictional force" is focused to a single point in spacetime
2.) The force seems to be transparent to the focal point in spacetime. That focal point in spacetime does not see the force like a media would and you can't seem to create a force so large it crushed or shatter the point. This goes to the point that GR locally takes it's stress tensor to zero and you can't directly measure the force directly on a single point in spacetime well at least one that non zero.

Originally Posted By: BS
One might expect that the expansion/contraction would effect both matter/energy and space/time, and that it would be more perceptible in the latter.

One might expect it based on the matter/energy but the above detail casts a lot of doubt on space/time because at the interface we see and measure nothing.

However what Einstein also realized is he had seen behaviour before in hydraulics. He also knew a basic fact that hydraulic systems will work most efficiently if the hydraulic fluid used has zero compressibility and zero viscosity. Think about the behaviour above. What he ended up at was very different but it was a useful starting point. I am not sure how much you want to go into that so leave that up to you.

Originally Posted By: BS
The “classic” example of what the Earth would feel (and when) if the sun just vanished is obviously just a thought experiment which relies on a physical impossibility. Matter does not spontaneously appear and disappear.

As far as we know all that is correct smile

Originally Posted By: BS
Excluding individual particles, matter becomes present in masses of increasing size by a process of accretion; thus, the interaction between matter/energy and space/time is an ongoing complex relationship in which the expansion/contraction/deformation of space/time – giving rise to what we experience as gravity – is an integral part.

Yes but there is a problem does the gravity come first or the particles, you have a chicken and egg problem.

Originally Posted By: BS
There is no external influence, the process is integral to the formation and evolution of the Universe

Simply no way to answer that we have no evidence there is an external force but let me give you a stupid answer which at present you cant refute. Gravity is because a big green giant has the whole universe in his hand and is swinging us around and it is really the centripedal force of that motion.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #54161 07/12/15 02:02 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Orac Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
If you want to review the basics of QM Lubos has just put up a new article on the basics of QM which is worth a read.

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/boolean-logic-is-sufficient-to-work.html#more

Again all this is up to you but as you will note is doesn't say the sorts of things you say above.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 9 10

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