Post by: guest39538 on 07/05/2015 16:04:57
When an object is on the ground is it still falling?
How far can an object fall?
why does the surrounding ground of a hole in the ground not stop an object falling?
why does an object falling centrally into a hole not have a diagonal path?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/05/2015 16:20:27
http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36878&p=1367362#p1367362
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/05/2015 16:27:21
What makes an object or a medium fall to the ground?
Gravity.
When an object is on the ground is it still falling?
The earth is pushing up against the object and preventing it from falling further. If ground is not solid then you will continue falling through that medium until it again becomes solid.
How far can an object fall?
Ultimately until it reaches the centre of gravity if the path is not obstructed.
why does the surrounding ground of a hole in the ground not stop an object falling?
The gravity of the mass of the whole earth is acting on the object which is cumulatively stronger than the ground in the immediate vicinity.
why does an object falling centrally into a hole not have a diagonal path?
That depends upon how far you observe it falling. For the short distances that we can observe unaided you would see little deviation.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/05/2015 17:00:14
What makes an object or a medium fall to the ground?
Gravity.When an object is on the ground is it still falling?
The earth is pushing up against the object and preventing it from falling further. If ground is not solid then you will continue falling through that medium until it again becomes solid.How far can an object fall?
Ultimately until it reaches the centre of gravity if the path is not obstructed.why does the surrounding ground of a hole in the ground not stop an object falling?
The gravity of the mass of the whole earth is acting on the object which is cumulatively stronger than the ground in the immediate vicinity.why does an object falling centrally into a hole not have a diagonal path?
That depends upon how far you observe it falling. For the short distances that we can observe unaided you would see little deviation.
You say the Earth is pushing up against the object according to Newtons third Law and the Fn=0.
An object falls towards the center of gravity, centripetally, for something to push, it has to have force, so what force are you suggesting that enables the ground to push away from the center of gravity and push back at an object to an equal and opposing force to maintain Fn=0?
I suggest the ground is also centripetally being forced in the direction of the earths core and is destination bound, the same as the object to the core, I suggest the ground has no ability to push back against an object because they are both travelling the same direction under the same force, I suggest an object is always falling but can not fall any further because of a traffic jam of matter in the way being stopped isotropically by a central point of pressure.
I suggest an earthquake pushes back,
What would your opinion be of this?
Post by: Colin2B on 07/05/2015 17:26:46
I'm not responding to your questions for reasons I've given before.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/05/2015 17:28:18
If you are going to put up your own theory, it ought to be in New Theories.
I'm not responding to your questions for reasons I've given before.
it is a discussion with question marks, not a theory,what do you think?
Post by: David Cooper on 07/05/2015 17:43:08
What makes an object or a medium fall to the ground?
A medium is a special case - if he or she is in communication with someone dead at the time, he/she may float above the ground and not fall.
Quote
When an object is on the ground is it still falling?
It's still being pulled in a downward direction, but it's now being slightly compressed by this force as it's being blocked from moving down any further. Clearly it is not falling.
Quote
How far can an object fall?
All the way down.
Quote
why does the surrounding ground of a hole in the ground not stop an object falling?
Because it's in the wrong place to stop an object that goes through the hole.
Quote
why does an object falling centrally into a hole not have a diagonal path?
What is a diagonal path in this context?
Quote
I suggest the ground is also centripetally being forced in the direction of the earths core and is destination bound, the same as the object to the core, I suggest the ground has no ability to push back against an object because they are both travelling the same direction under the same force, I suggest an object is always falling but can not fall any further because of a traffic jam of matter in the way being stopped isotropically by a central point of pressure.
Don't bring the word centripetal into this. Other than that though, you're thinking in the right direction - there's a pile up which results in a high pressure building up, and the force pushing back upwards is that pressure, but it's important to understand that the pressure is powered by inwards/downward gravity.
Quote
I suggest an earthquake pushes back,
Why would you want to bring that in here?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/05/2015 17:59:53
What makes an object or a medium fall to the ground?
A medium is a special case - if he or she is in communication with someone dead at the time, he/she may float above the ground and not fall.QuoteWhen an object is on the ground is it still falling?
It's still being pulled in a downward direction, but it's now being slightly compressed by this force as it's being blocked from moving down any further. Clearly it is not falling.QuoteHow far can an object fall?
All the way down.Quotewhy does the surrounding ground of a hole in the ground not stop an object falling?
Because it's in the wrong place to stop an object that goes through the hole.Quotewhy does an object falling centrally into a hole not have a diagonal path?
What is a diagonal path in this context?QuoteI suggest the ground is also centripetally being forced in the direction of the earths core and is destination bound, the same as the object to the core, I suggest the ground has no ability to push back against an object because they are both travelling the same direction under the same force, I suggest an object is always falling but can not fall any further because of a traffic jam of matter in the way being stopped isotropically by a central point of pressure.
Don't bring the word centripetal into this. Other than that though, you're thinking in the right direction - there's a pile up which results in a high pressure building up, and the force pushing back upwards is that pressure, but it's important to understand that the pressure is powered by inwards/downward gravity.QuoteI suggest an earthquake pushes back,
Why would you want to bring that in here?
The diagonal path was in relationship to curvature, I mentioned earth quakes because the seismic waves from beneath force the ground to wave up and down by tectonic plate movement, I though this was in relationship to a build up of something being released, and the ground being pushed the opposite way to gravity,
I understand the earth wants to implode , but I still do not understand how it can push an object back, surely the object is pushing the ground?
And is the force you mention that pushes back , not KE and the magnetic field?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/05/2015 18:04:51
IIRC the time taken for an object to fall through a hole in the centre of the earth is about 42 minutes, though the figure has been revised from time to time as we learn about the inhomogeneities of the planet.
If we ignore air resistance (and why not? We are ignoring pretty much everything else we know about the earth!) and consider the planet to be a perfect sphere, the object's acceleration can be calculated at every point by subtracting the contribution of the shell above it. As it passes the centre it will slow down (there now being more mass "above" than "below") until it pops out of the hole in the Antipodes, reaches a height above ground exactly the same as the height you dropped it from, and returns whence it came.
Plenty of mathematicians and physicists have solved the equations, and it used to be part of the undergraduate general physics syllabus, but I understand that the questioner isn't particularly interested in physics or maths.
The most readable treatment of the question that I have come across, is "The Krone Experiment" - a brilliant novel by a geophysicist, sadly turned into a crap DVD by the author's brother - in which the antihero makes a small black hole and, of course, drops it. Neat trick because of course the black hole creates its own tunnel! There are a couple of equations in the book (including corrections for rotation) but they aren't vital to the plot and there's also enough sex and violence to interest an unsophisticated mind. Enjoy and learn....
Post by: guest39538 on 07/05/2015 18:17:14
For the time being I'm prepared to accept this as a genuine question because it has a classic answer.
IIRC the time taken for an object to fall through a hole in the centre of the earth is about 42 minutes, though the figure has been revised from time to time as we learn about the inhomogeneities of the planet.
If we ignore air resistance (and why not? We are ignoring pretty much everything else we know about the earth!) and consider the planet to be a perfect sphere, the object's acceleration can be calculated at every point by subtracting the contribution of the shell above it. As it passes the centre it will slow down (there now being more mass "above" than "below") until it pops out of the hole in the Antipodes, reaches a height above ground exactly the same as the height you dropped it from, and returns whence it came.
Plenty of mathematicians and physicists have solved the equations, and it used to be part of the undergraduate general physics syllabus, but I understand that the questioner isn't particularly interested in physics or maths.
The most readable treatment of the question that I have come across, is "The Krone Experiment" - a brilliant novel by a geophysicist, sadly turned into a crap DVD by the author's brother - in which the antihero makes a small black hole and, of course, drops it. Neat trick because of course the black hole creates its own tunnel! There are a couple of equations in the book (including corrections for rotation) but they aren't vital to the plot and there's also enough sex and violence to interest an unsophisticated mind. Enjoy and learn....
Thank you for understanding that is just questions, a dropped black hole is a very interesting idea, the sex and violence irrelevant.
I will make a small analogy
If you can imagine a sphere shaped magnet, and some way dropping iron fillings isotropic onto the magnet they will form an even layer, repeat and keep repeating, at no time do the iron fillings push back?
added - the magnetic field of the earth pushes back em radiation from the sun?
Post by: alancalverd on 07/05/2015 18:22:31
As long as you have a convergent magnetic field, iron filings will converge on it.
Quote
added - the magnetic field of the earth pushes back em radiation from the sun?no.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/05/2015 18:25:24
A dropped black hole is just a hypothesis, and the equations are pretty trivial. Sex and violence are much more relevant to real life, completely absorbing, and way beyond understanding.
As long as you have a convergent magnetic field, iron filings will converge on it.Quoteadded - the magnetic field of the earth pushes back em radiation from the sun?no.
I thought the Em field blocked harmful UV rays and gamma radiation , is that not an opposing and equal force?
added - and blocks the solar wind?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/05/2015 20:40:49
why do clouds not fall to the ground when they have more mass than air per part?
Post by: chiralSPO on 07/05/2015 20:53:21
Post by: guest39538 on 07/05/2015 21:06:27
Clouds don't have more mass per volume that air--that's why they float. When they get dense enough they precipitate (rain, snow, etc.)
thank you, so when a cloud gains more mass (becomes denser) before it precipitates, does the cloud sink to a lower altitude?
Post by: chiralSPO on 07/05/2015 21:27:16
Post by: guest39538 on 07/05/2015 21:35:08
I think that clouds can get lower as they get denser, but you can't really think of clouds as discrete objects, so some of the intuition that goes with objects doesn't really apply here...
I know you may think clouds have gone off topic but clouds contain falling ''objects'' such as rain and hail.
Does rain or hail contain any net charge?
Post by: Colin2B on 07/05/2015 22:34:14
I think that clouds can get lower as they get denser, but you can't really think of clouds as discrete objects, so some of the intuition that goes with objects doesn't really apply here...As you know clouds are formed by warm moist air rising due to it's buoyancy, as the air rises it will cool due to natural atmospheric cooling with height (1degC/300m for saturated air). When it hits dew point it will condense and form cloud. If a cloud did go below the dew point level the moisture would evaporate. The bottom of a cloud is continually in an in between state. All this assumes the air is stable, ie not much intermixing due to wind or air currents.
Alan will know a lot more about it, I only know mountain and surface effects.
Post by: alancalverd on 07/05/2015 23:22:11
A cloud is not a "thing" but a dynamic collection of droplets of water or ice. The appearance of semipermanence is due to water evaporating at the interface with drier air, or condensing as the air cools, either as a result of expansion or radiation. The processes are quite sudden and the interfaces therefore quite sharp - there can be as little as 10 feet altitude change between clear air and "solid" fog with visibilty less than a foot.
Post by: guest39538 on 08/05/2015 08:09:52
The earth does not have a significant electromagnetic field, and even if it did, that would have no effect on radiation from the sun.
A cloud is not a "thing" but a dynamic collection of droplets of water or ice. The appearance of semipermanence is due to water evaporating at the interface with drier air, or condensing as the air cools, either as a result of expansion or radiation. The processes are quite sudden and the interfaces therefore quite sharp - there can be as little as 10 feet altitude change between clear air and "solid" fog with visibilty less than a foot.
Your answer is rather confusing , anything is technically a ''thing'' , droplets of water or ice? that is certainly a thing that has mass, so why? before they ''fall'' do they stay floating, water and ice are heavier than air.
Fog interesting you should mention fog that hugs the surface, is fog a cloud at low level? if yes, what is the difference to a cloud at altitude?
My original question was , What makes an object or a medium fall to the ground?
The answer given was gravity, so you should be able to tell me exactly what gravity is? if you can not then gravity can not exist in a sense and in my opinion would be along the lines of Unicorns.
Matter only contains so much, something of matter causes gravity, so what is it?
the list is one long...I will re-phrase my question, what make an atom attract to another atom to form density?
Post by: Colin2B on 08/05/2015 14:37:46
.........so why? before they ''fall'' do they stay floating, water and ice are heavier than air.Water vapour is less dense than dry air and hence buoyant. This is described above. As the vapour rises it gets colder and more moisture condenses out to start forming droplets, these often freeze because of the low temperature at altitude and being heavier start to fall. The exact physics is too complex to discuss here. As an example this paper covers air density, read at your leisure http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JAS-D-11-085.1
Fog interesting you should mention fog that hugs the surface, is fog a cloud at low level? if yes, what is the difference to a cloud at altitude?Yes, fog is a cloud at low level. I don't understand your follow up, I've said there is no difference, so why do you expect an explanation of the non existent difference??
The only reason it stays where it is is to do with temperature eg in some circumstances the fog is trapped under an inversion layer.
My original question was , What makes an object or a medium fall to the ground?Why don't you stick to your original questions?
"...........The answer given was gravity, so you should be able to tell me exactly what gravity is? if you can not then gravity can not exist in a sense and in my opinion would be along the lines of Unicorns.
You have been given answers about gravity before, but you have your own theory. According to you we are wrong. That's ok we can live with it, move on.
the list is one long...I will re-phrase my question, what make an atom attract to another atom to form density?This is not a rephrasing, it is a new question. Start a new thread if you genuinely want to know, or if you have your own theory put it in New Theories along with the rest of your gravity theory.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/05/2015 09:11:15
I will answer some of these as other genuine enquirers will be watching.........so why? before they ''fall'' do they stay floating, water and ice are heavier than air.Water vapour is less dense than dry air and hence buoyant. This is described above. As the vapour rises it gets colder and more moisture condenses out to start forming droplets, these often freeze because of the low temperature at altitude and being heavier start to fall. The exact physics is too complex to discuss here. As an example this paper covers air density, read at your leisure http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JAS-D-11-085.1Fog interesting you should mention fog that hugs the surface, is fog a cloud at low level? if yes, what is the difference to a cloud at altitude?Yes, fog is a cloud at low level. I don't understand your follow up, I've said there is no difference, so why do you expect an explanation of the non existent difference??
The only reason it stays where it is is to do with temperature eg in some circumstances the fog is trapped under an inversion layer.My original question was , What makes an object or a medium fall to the ground?Why don't you stick to your original questions?
"...........The answer given was gravity, so you should be able to tell me exactly what gravity is? if you can not then gravity can not exist in a sense and in my opinion would be along the lines of Unicorns.
You have been given answers about gravity before, but you have your own theory. According to you we are wrong. That's ok we can live with it, move on.the list is one long...I will re-phrase my question, what make an atom attract to another atom to form density?This is not a rephrasing, it is a new question. Start a new thread if you genuinely want to know, or if you have your own theory put it in New Theories along with the rest of your gravity theory.
Thank you Colin for your answers, you think my questions are new questions, I think my questions are relevant to my fist question and a part of the question.
A fog cloud hugs the ground, clouds float, air rises and air sinks , a convection process.
The question to my question torn apart to the basics, is why does an atom attract to an atom to form density?
Clouds form to make density, so what attracts the water vapour/gas to other water vapour/gas to form density?
The water vapour/gas becomes dense then falls back to the ground, the same force of attract that holds the density together in the first place of the cloud.
My questions are on topic, most things are connected in some way , to dig deep we have to consider all aspects of the question to get an appropriate answer.
Gravity is not an answer I am looking for, I want more of an answer than just the naming of something, We could of just called gravity falling, that is the use and description on earth.
I have done a fundamental breakdown of matter, which leads me to atoms, so if the earth is atoms and clouds are atoms, rain is denser atoms and attracted to the earth what makes the atoms attracted to atoms?
I do not know, you should know, and when you tell me the answer, I then know why an object falls to the ground.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/05/2015 09:30:35
A fog cloud hugs the ground, clouds float, air rises and air sinks , a convection process.
The question to my question torn apart to the basics, is why does an atom attract to an atom to form density?
Chemistry. In the case of clouds, and water generally, read up about hydrogen bonds.
Quote
Clouds form to make density, so what attracts the water vapour/gas to other water vapour/gas to form density?
Any system will tend to the lowest energy state. In the case of water, the free surface energy of a droplet decreases as the droplet size increases.
Quote
The water vapour/gas becomes dense then falls back to the ground, the same force of attract that holds the density together in the first place of the cloud.
No. Gravity has nothing to do with the hydrogen bond.
Quote
Gravity is not an answer I am looking for, I want more of an answer than just the naming of something, We could of just called gravity falling, that is the use and description on earth.Alas, that is the name of the force that isn't electrostatic, magnetic, nuclear or anything else. You might as well ask why like charges repel, whilst insisting thet "electrostatic force" isn't an acceptable answer.
Quote
I have done a fundamental breakdown of matter, which leads me to atoms, so if the earth is atoms and clouds are atoms, rain is denser atoms and attracted to the earth what makes the atoms attracted to atoms?
See above. But if you don't believe in electron orbitals or the fact that gravity is not electrostatic, you won't accept any answers anyway.
Quote
I do not know, you should know, and when you tell me the answer, I then know why an object falls to the ground.
Science isn't about "why" but "how".
Post by: Colin2B on 09/05/2015 11:39:53
You started a topic on gravity and why things fall to the ground. The question of why atoms bond to form molecules, and then molecules grouping to form elements and compounds, has nothing to do with gravity.
Because you refuse to read up on basic physics and chemistry and insist on thinking it up for yourself, our answers to your questions will never make sense to you, and you will always feel frustrated.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/05/2015 12:11:00
I agree with Alan (then we would wouldn't we - conspiracy)
You started a topic on gravity and why things fall to the ground. The question of why atoms bond to form molecules, and then molecules grouping to form elements and compounds, has nothing to do with gravity.
Because you refuse to read up on basic physics and chemistry and insist on thinking it up for yourself, our answers to your questions will never make sense to you, and you will always feel frustrated.
I disagree, your answers are contradictory and this is why science keeps confusing me.
Science says that all matter is made of atoms ? yes or no
The Cavendish experiment shows using ''balls'' that all mass is attracted to mass? yes or no
All matter has mass? yes or no
A single atom has mass? yes or no
single atoms mass are attracted to other single atoms mass? yes or no
I think all your answers are yes agreeing with me.
What makes a cluster of atoms(an object) fall to the ground?
Atoms have to be attracted to atoms ,
You say an electron is a negative polarity attached to a positive polarity Proton,
So the atom emits a positive and a negative polarity at the same time? yes or no
a (+) and (-) electrostatic nuclear bond, would = +- in attract? yes or no A+B=C
It is not a theory and all relevant to my original question. Science keeps leaving me without answers, I am quoting your own facts back to you, not making random assumptions, it is your information.
Post by: PmbPhy on 09/05/2015 13:30:47
Quote from: Thebox
I disagree, your answers are contradictory and this is why science keeps confusing me.On the contrary. His answers are spot on. You keep getting confused because you refuse to learn physics and you'll continue to be confused until you pick up a book and learn it. E.g. read the book The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe by Roger Penrose, (2004). It's 1045 pages long. Once you've read that book cover to cover you'll have taken a good step to understanding physics.
Quote from: Thebox
Science says that all matter is made of atoms ? yes or noNo. An electron is said to be matter. However an electron is not made of atoms. If one defines the term matter in the same way that Einstein did, i.e. as it's existence being dependent on the non-vanishing of the stress-energy-momentum (SEM) tensor, then no, all matter is not made of atoms. For example: electric and magnetic fields don't have a vanishing SEM tensor so an EM field is made of matter. So it can be said that light is made of matter and I'm assuming you know that light is not made of matter.
Quote from: Thebox
The Cavendish experiment shows using ''balls'' that all mass is attracted to mass? yes or noFor the most part, yes. However general relativity (GR) allows for the existence of matter which gravitationally repels normal matter. Look up the phrase vacuum domain wall. You'll find articles such as this
Gravitationally repulsive domain wall by J. Ipser and P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. D 30, 712, Aug. 15, 1984
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.30.712
Quote
Abstract - The Gauss-Codazzi formalism is used to obtain exact solutions to Einstein's equations in the presence of domain walls. Domain walls are shown to have repulsive gravitational fields. The most general solution to Einstein's equations for a planar domain wall is obtained. Also, the motion of a spherical domain wall in an asymptotically flat space-time is derived.Note the part that says Domain walls are shown to have repulsive gravitational fields.
Quote from: Thebox
All matter has mass? yes or noYes.
Quote from: Thebox
A single atom has mass? yes or noYes.
Quote from: Thebox
single atoms mass are attracted to other single atoms mass? yes or noGravitationally? Yes.
Quote from: Thebox
What makes a cluster of atoms(an object) fall to the ground?You already know the answer. Gravity.
Quote from: Thebox
Atoms have to be attracted to atoms ,That's correct. Atoms have a gravitational field.
Quote from: Thebox
You say an electron is a negative polarity attached to a positive polarity Proton,Incorrect. You're misusing the term "polarity." That term is defined as follows
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polarity
Quote
physics : the condition of having positive and negative charges and especially magnetic or electrical polesThe correct way to phrase what you wanted is as follows
Quote
You say an electron is a negative charge attached to a positively charged Proton,That's true. However this is happening at the subatomic level so you have to use quantum mechanics to describe it. Otherwise you're going to run into problems.
Quote from: Thebox
So the atom emits a positive and a negative polarity at the same time? yes or noNo. Atoms don't "emit" positive or negative charge (or polarity) whatsoever.
Quote from: Thebox
a (+) and (-) electrostatic nuclear bond, would = +- in attract? yes or no A+B=CHere's where your refusal to learn physics is causing problems. That statement is so poorly phrased as to be meaningless. I.e. it's quite unclear what exactly you mean when you write "a (+) and (-) electrostatic nuclear bond". In any case the bond between nuclei is a result of the strong force and not the electrostatic force.
Quote from: Thebox
You think that you know what you're talking about but you really don't.Bzzzzz! Wrong! He knows precisely what he's talking about. In fact he knows physics and what he's talking about a great deal more than you do, that's for certain. The fact that everyone here agrees with that opinion doesn't seem to be getting through to you. Why is that? You won't even attempt to demonstrate that everyone is wrong.
Quote from: Thebox
Science keeps leaving me without answers, I am quoting your own facts back to you, not making random assumptions, it is your information.Wow! You're well-known for being the king of random assumptions and you're accusing others of it? Lol!
Post by: PmbPhy on 09/05/2015 13:39:26
F = ma = kQq/r2
Solving for a gives
a = kQq/mr2 = (q/m)kQ/r2
This shows that the acceleration of a charged particle in the presence of a charged Earth is a function of the test particle's charge to mass ratio. Therefore different particles will fall at different rates. Particles with no charge, such as neutrons, won't fall at all. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_particle for a list of such particles.
Since we can easily observe that all particles and all objects fall at exactly the same rate independent of the object's charge. So, once again, TB is wrong.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/05/2015 14:07:40
Quote from: Theboxsingle atoms mass are attracted to other single atoms mass? yes or noGravitationally? Yes.
Thank you for your thoughtful post and answers. Firstly I would like to question your answer to the above where you agree and say yes.
So if we have 2 atoms , A and B , for example purposes 10 inch apart in a perfect vacuum, both atoms will be attracted to each other by mass and gravitational force.
A>>>>><<<<<B
<> = 1 inch
The same applies if A^10 and B^10 being more atoms yes?
So if one atom has mass why do we need to look any further than an atom into gravity?
My reasoning tells me that a single atoms has gravity so the answer of gravity is in or of an atom. Nothing bigger matters.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/05/2015 23:49:38
My reasoning tells me that a single atoms has gravity so the answer of gravity is in or of an atom. Nothing bigger matters.
Then abandon "reasoning", which so far seems to have led you to all sorts of fanciful nonsense, and consider only facts. All matter has a gravitational field. This applies not only to atoms and things made of atoms, but to subatomic particles too. Gravitation is associated with mass and F=Gm1m2/r2 for any value or embodiment of m, whether or not it carries an electric charge or a magnetic moment.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/05/2015 10:48:50
My reasoning tells me that a single atoms has gravity so the answer of gravity is in or of an atom. Nothing bigger matters.
Then abandon "reasoning", which so far seems to have led you to all sorts of fanciful nonsense, and consider only facts. All matter has a gravitational field. This applies not only to atoms and things made of atoms, but to subatomic particles too. Gravitation is associated with mass and F=Gm1m2/r2 for any value or embodiment of m, whether or not it carries an electric charge or a magnetic moment.
I do understand gravity, that is not my question I want to know why? abandoning reasoning is to accept the colour red without knowing why it is red. Your version of gravity is red.
Why can no one in science just answer simple questions?
Science leaves people confused without full answers all the time.
if one atom has mass why do we need to look any further than an atom into gravity?
Post by: Colin2B on 10/05/2015 14:51:25
Science leaves people confused without full answers all the time.Some people are confused all the time
if one atom has mass why do we need to look any further than an atom into gravity?This has been answered in your post "Protons are attracted to Protons .." and in other post you have made along with the current position on gravity.
I'm not sure you bother to read them! You certainly don't understand them, why do you assume simple questions have simple answers? You claim to be a great thinker, but none of your great thought hang together.
Go forth and learn some physics.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/05/2015 15:00:36
Science leaves people confused without full answers all the time.Some people are confused all the timeif one atom has mass why do we need to look any further than an atom into gravity?This has been answered in your post "Protons are attracted to Protons .." and in other post you have made along with the current position on gravity.
I'm not sure you bother to read them! You certainly don't understand them, why do you assume simple questions have simple answers? You claim to be a great thinker, but none of your great thought hang together.
Go forth and learn some physics.
So the answer to my question of why does an object fall to the ground?, is because Protons are attracted to protons and is the gravity mechanism.
I will answer it myself to myself because that is what science leaves me to conclude. You say go off and learn some physics yet I am producing Physics without even knowing all of the Physics. I am making it up as I go along by thinking of the basics. Your gravity mechanism is protons, you have just told me this .
Post by: alancalverd on 10/05/2015 15:01:32
I do understand gravity, that is not my question
Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question.
Quote
I want to know why?
Wrong forum. There is no "why" in physics because we can't assume a universal ulterior motive for anything. We can explain "how" in terms of a few fundamental particles and forces, and for the present, gravitation is one of those forces.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/05/2015 15:17:09
I do understand gravity, that is not my question
Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question.QuoteI want to know why?
Wrong forum. There is no "why" in physics because we can't assume a universal ulterior motive for anything. We can explain "how" in terms of a few fundamental particles and forces, and for the present, gravitation is one of those forces.
I disagree, why is the answer to everything, why does an object fall, answer gravity, I do not assume anything, all my physics is based on your facts.,
protons are attracted to protons as admitted, I throw an object into the air, the objects protons are attracted to the protons of the earth, shown in the Cavendish experiment as such.
radiation that fills all of space is an ''electrical coupling'', that is why you can not detect a gravitational wave, the radiation is the conduit for the protons attractive force.
See this is my problem, most science forums agree with the physics then deny the physics at the same time, the same as you do on here.
You can not say a proton is attracted to a proton then deny that has anything to do with gravity, it is contradictory , we have established the atom is all we need to look at gravity by question answers you give of yes to my questions.
All atoms have mass, all atoms have protons, all protons are attracted to protons, it is simplicity that is true physics to your facts, not even my physics, your already existing facts.
Post by: chiralSPO on 10/05/2015 17:03:05
They have nothing to do with each other (well, electromagnetic and weak do...) but all must be considered when talking about interactions between particles.
Protons attract each other at any distance due to gravity (which is the weakest of the forces).
Protons repel each other at any distance due to electromagnetic interaction.
Protons attract each other when they are very (very, very) close due to the strong nuclear force.
If no other particles are considered, the overall interaction between protons is REPULSIVE at any distance (electromagnetic repulsion overpowers gravitation at every distance, and even in the range where the strong force is active, it is not quite enough to overpower this repulsion).
Once we allow for neutrons, which are electrically neutral and therefore neither attract nor repel protons electromagnetically, but follow the same gravitational (slightly more massive than protons) and strong interactions, then the strong force can out-do the electromagnetic force. One neutron is enough to bind two protons together into a nucleus, and one can produce stable nuclei containing up to 100 or so protons, so long as there are enough neutrons included.
However, each nucleus is still positively charged, and gravitation will never bring them together until there is some negative charge too (enter the electron). Neutral atoms and molecules (where the number of electrons is equal to the number of protons) can now have a net attraction to each other (though this is still mostly through electromagnetic interations like dipole-dipole or van der Waals interactions) and can be gravitationally pulled into objects like planets and stars.
Post by: Colin2B on 10/05/2015 21:47:37
Very basic factsThe Box is not interested in facts, just his own theories.
I don't believe he even reads our posts.
One thing is certain, he is trolling. Posts like this are intended to draw folks into a discussion just so he can say 'you are wrong' and introduce his own New Theory.
Hence he should be posting only in new theories.
Post by: Bill S on 11/05/2015 13:44:46
Quote from: Colin
The Box is not interested in facts,
BTAIM, posts like Chiral's are good for those of us who want to learn. [:)]
Post by: chiralSPO on 11/05/2015 16:32:21
Of course, we must always remember that those who post questions are not the only ones who could benefit from the answers.
Post by: Colin2B on 11/05/2015 18:52:53
Why thank you! [;D]Yes, thanks all round Chiral. The only reason I bothered to post in this thread was because I was concerned innocent minds might be perverted.
Of course, we must always remember that those who post questions are not the only ones who could benefit from the answers.
Having said that, THe Box is not interested in facts, he is a troll. Heed my words you innocents and read Chiral's post to learn the truth.
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/05/2015 19:24:40
Post by: guest39538 on 11/05/2015 19:28:19
Why can't we just look at the atom to understand gravity? Well that is an interesting question. As the density of matter increases so does the gravity at the surface of an object since the radius of the said object must be decreasing. With the atom I can see no way of decreasing the electron orbitals and proton radius other than in an extreme environment. Even then you would have to observe this effect remotely as it wouldn't even be noticeable in the local frame. This brings to mind tidal forces and the opposite effect. Would this then expand the electron orbitals and proton radius? What the local observer would see in a frame of increasing tidal force. Can this still be considered an inertial frame?
exactly jeffrey
Post by: jeffreyH on 11/05/2015 19:31:46
Why can't we just look at the atom to understand gravity? Well that is an interesting question. As the density of matter increases so does the gravity at the surface of an object since the radius of the said object must be decreasing. With the atom I can see no way of decreasing the electron orbitals and proton radius other than in an extreme environment. Even then you would have to observe this effect remotely as it wouldn't even be noticeable in the local frame. This brings to mind tidal forces and the opposite effect. Would this then expand the electron orbitals and proton radius? What the local observer would see in a frame of increasing tidal force. Can this still be considered an inertial frame?
exactly jeffrey
Don't cherry pick it wasn't an argument in your favour.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/05/2015 19:37:34
Why can't we just look at the atom to understand gravity? Well that is an interesting question. As the density of matter increases so does the gravity at the surface of an object since the radius of the said object must be decreasing. With the atom I can see no way of decreasing the electron orbitals and proton radius other than in an extreme environment. Even then you would have to observe this effect remotely as it wouldn't even be noticeable in the local frame. This brings to mind tidal forces and the opposite effect. Would this then expand the electron orbitals and proton radius? What the local observer would see in a frame of increasing tidal force. Can this still be considered an inertial frame?
exactly jeffrey
Don't cherry pick it wasn't an argument in your favour.
Yes it was, you said it is a good question, because it is a good question, small is the same as big, it doe snot matter, already agreed atoms have mass.
atom 1 - m1
atom 2 - m2
m1 is equally attracted to m2
added - is a Proton, mass?
or should we be discussing the mass of a quark?
Post by: chiralSPO on 11/05/2015 22:57:05
small is the same as big
Unfortunately, small is not the same as big. This applies to very simple systems (like glowing spheres, whose ratio of surface area to volume changes based on their size, so small ones cool faster than large ones) to very complex systems where there are many different variables that all scale differently with size.
And for systems that are small enough, we must consider the rules imposed on the quantum world, importantly including:
-some things cannot be subdivided into smaller parts that have the same properties (you cannot shrink or split a hydrogen atom into smaller versions of itself)
-waves become the better analogy for describing most things at this scale
-determinism, causality and simultaneity don't necessarily apply
Post by: Colin2B on 11/05/2015 23:38:13
Why can't we just look at the atom to understand gravity? Well that is an interesting question. As the density of matter increases so does the gravity at the surface of an object since the radius of the said object must be decreasing. With the atom I can see no way of decreasing the electron orbitals and proton radius other than in an extreme environment. Even then you would have to observe this effect remotely as it wouldn't even be noticeable in the local frame. This brings to mind tidal forces and the opposite effect. Would this then expand the electron orbitals and proton radius? What the local observer would see in a frame of increasing tidal force. Can this still be considered an inertial frame?Sounds like a separate thread. This one has got too confused with sidetracked questions and it wasn't the subject of the original question.
Post by: PmbPhy on 12/05/2015 03:02:55
Quote from: jeffreyH
As the density of matter increases so does the gravity at the surface of an object since the radius of the said object must be decreasing.I don't understand what you mean by As the density of matter increases so does the gravity at the surface of an object ..
It's the mass that causes an increase in the gravitational field of an object, not the density. Consider a spherical body with a spherically symmetric mass distribution with constant mass density. Let the initial radius be R. When you increase the density of the object by crushing it so as to force all the matter into a smaller space then the gravitational field at distances greater than R remains constant because the mass hasn't changed.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/05/2015 17:46:16
Quote from: jeffreyHAs the density of matter increases so does the gravity at the surface of an object since the radius of the said object must be decreasing.I don't understand what you mean by As the density of matter increases so does the gravity at the surface of an object ..
It's the mass that causes an increase in the gravitational field of an object, not the density. Consider a spherical body with a spherically symmetric mass distribution with constant mass density. Let the initial radius be R. When you increase the density of the object by crushing it so as to force all the matter into a smaller space then the gravitational field at distances greater than R remains constant because the mass hasn't changed.
I agree
Post by: guest39538 on 12/05/2015 17:49:25
Why can't we just look at the atom to understand gravity? Well that is an interesting question. As the density of matter increases so does the gravity at the surface of an object since the radius of the said object must be decreasing. With the atom I can see no way of decreasing the electron orbitals and proton radius other than in an extreme environment. Even then you would have to observe this effect remotely as it wouldn't even be noticeable in the local frame. This brings to mind tidal forces and the opposite effect. Would this then expand the electron orbitals and proton radius? What the local observer would see in a frame of increasing tidal force. Can this still be considered an inertial frame?Sounds like a separate thread. This one has got too confused with sidetracked questions and it wasn't the subject of the original question.
It is the original question but in more detail.
Post by: jeffreyH on 12/05/2015 19:47:12
Quote from: jeffreyHAs the density of matter increases so does the gravity at the surface of an object since the radius of the said object must be decreasing.I don't understand what you mean by As the density of matter increases so does the gravity at the surface of an object ..
It's the mass that causes an increase in the gravitational field of an object, not the density. Consider a spherical body with a spherically symmetric mass distribution with constant mass density. Let the initial radius be R. When you increase the density of the object by crushing it so as to force all the matter into a smaller space then the gravitational field at distances greater than R remains constant because the mass hasn't changed.
That's why I said "at the surface", this being a shrinking surface area.
Post by: PmbPhy on 13/05/2015 04:37:07
Quote from: jeffreyH
That's why I said "at the surface", this being a shrinking surface area.I see. I apparently was confused about which surface you were talking about. I made the mistake of thinking that it was the original one.
If one is familiar with Gauss's theorem then that is a trivial deduction. Do you know Gauss's theorem?
Post by: Colin2B on 13/05/2015 06:36:04
I see. I apparently was confused about which surface you were talking about. I made the mistake of thinking that it was the original one.This is why I consider this a separate question. The original question is what makes an object fall to the ground, not why isn't gravity a function of atomic interactions (which it might well turn out to be!).
Post by: jeffreyH on 13/05/2015 13:20:06
Quote from: jeffreyHThat's why I said "at the surface", this being a shrinking surface area.I see. I apparently was confused about which surface you were talking about. I made the mistake of thinking that it was the original one.
If one is familiar with Gauss's theorem then that is a trivial deduction. Do you know Gauss's theorem?
I have come across Gauss's theorem but not really concentrated on it.
Post by: jeffreyH on 13/05/2015 13:21:17
I see. I apparently was confused about which surface you were talking about. I made the mistake of thinking that it was the original one.This is why I consider this a separate question. The original question is what makes an object fall to the ground, not why isn't gravity a function of atomic interactions (which it might well turn out to be!).
I have thought quite a bit about how atomic interactions could be the cause of gravity and was never satisfied with any of my conclusions.
Post by: Colin2B on 13/05/2015 14:46:56
I have thought quite a bit about how atomic interactions could be the cause of gravity and was never satisfied with any of my conclusions.I respect your opinion because I know how much work you put into understanding difficult subjects, and I have seen the quality of your analysis on these subjects.
Post by: jeffreyH on 13/05/2015 17:54:04
Post by: guest39538 on 13/05/2015 21:23:57
I see. I apparently was confused about which surface you were talking about. I made the mistake of thinking that it was the original one.This is why I consider this a separate question. The original question is what makes an object fall to the ground, not why isn't gravity a function of atomic interactions (which it might well turn out to be!).
This is why it is a part of the question.
We start with a falling object falling to the ground.
example - I fall from a plane with no parachute, (which the thought would make some of you smile).
there is something pulling all that my body is made of to the ground.
hence gravity
so what is gravity the force that makes all that my body is made of fall to the ground?
The ground is made from the same stuff as your body , the stuff are called atoms.
so my atoms are attracted to other atoms because other atoms and my atoms have mass?
yes indeed.
so what part of the atoms of my body attract to other atoms?
well there is protons which are quarks, and quarks attract quarks, so maybe......this is why you fall to the floor.
Post by: jeffreyH on 13/05/2015 21:54:35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics)
[According to the rules of quantum field theory, and the associated Feynman diagrams, the above theory gives rise to three basic interactions: a quark may emit (or absorb) a gluon, a gluon may emit (or absorb) a gluon, and two gluons may directly interact. This contrasts with QED, in which only the first kind of interaction occurs, since photons have no charge. Diagrams involving Faddeev–Popov ghosts must be considered too (except in the unitarity gauge).]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faddeev–Popov_ghost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faddeev–Popov_ghost)
Look in particular at the ghost field Lagrangian. Note the difference between QED and QCD.
[The first term is a kinetic term like for regular complex scalar fields, and the second term describes the interaction with the gauge fields. Note that in abelian gauge theories (such as quantum electrodynamics) the ghosts do not have any effect since
and, consequently, the ghost particles do not interact with the gauge fields.]What do you think Mr Box?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/05/2015 22:05:21
From quantum Chromodynamics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics)
[According to the rules of quantum field theory, and the associated Feynman diagrams, the above theory gives rise to three basic interactions: a quark may emit (or absorb) a gluon, a gluon may emit (or absorb) a gluon, and two gluons may directly interact. This contrasts with QED, in which only the first kind of interaction occurs, since photons have no charge. Diagrams involving Faddeev–Popov ghosts must be considered too (except in the unitarity gauge).]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faddeev–Popov_ghost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faddeev–Popov_ghost)
Look in particular at the ghost field Lagrangian. Note the difference between QED and QCD.
[The first term is a kinetic term like for regular complex scalar fields, and the second term describes the interaction with the gauge fields. Note that in abelian gauge theories (such as quantum electrodynamics) the ghosts do not have any effect since
What do you think Mr Box?
Thank you for the interesting links, I will read these tomorrow night and think them through, I have work in the morning so need go to bed.
Post by: Colin2B on 13/05/2015 22:27:28
well there is protons which are quarks, and quarks attract quarks, so maybe......this is why you fall to the floor.We've explained before that what attract nucleons together is not gravity.
I don't see the point in responding to your posts if your don't read what we say.
Post by: jeffreyH on 13/05/2015 22:37:26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics)
[QCD is a type of quantum field theory called a non-abelian gauge theory with symmetry group SU(3).]
Since SU(3) is non-abelian then does "Note that in abelian gauge theories (such as quantum electrodynamics) the ghosts do not have any effect since
and, consequently, the ghost particles do not interact with the gauge fields." mean that Faddeev–Popov ghost fields apply differently in QCD?Post by: PmbPhy on 14/05/2015 01:19:26
Quote from: Thebox
so what is gravity the force that makes all that my body is made of fall to the ground?I wish you'd phrase things such that they're more readable and clearer. The phrase "so what is gravity the force..." doesn't make sense. If it's what I think you meant then you need to use punctuation to make it readable. I.e. did you mean to ask
Quote
So what is gravity? Is it the force that makes all that my body is made of fall to the ground?or perhaps
Quote
So what is gravity? It is the force that makes all that my body is made of fall to the ground?etc.
You you should know by now that this is a question about the mechanism of gravity and not something that can be answered at this stage of physics. GR only tells us how to describe gravitational interactions. It can't tell you why they occur. If there is ever a quantum theory of gravity then we might learn that the gravitational interaction between objects is mediated by gravitons in the same way that the electromagnetic interaction between charged particles are mediated by photons (virtual photons to be exact). I've lost count of how many times I've told you this. Why do you ignore what we keep telling you? What's the point of anybody answering your questions if you're going to forget them right off the bat and pose the same questions all over a few days later?
Quote from: Thebox
The ground is made from the same stuff as your body , the stuff are called atoms.Bad grammar. That should be expressed as "the stuff is called atoms.[/u]
Quote from: Thebox
so what part of the atoms of my body attract to other atoms?You can't be serious? The gravitational force between any two particles is given by F12 = G m1m2/r2 regardless of what particle it is. Are you going to tell me that you didn't know this well-known fact?
Quote from: Thebox
well there is protons which are quarks, ...No. Protons are not quarks. They are composed of quarks.
Post by: PmbPhy on 14/05/2015 06:56:52
Quote from: jeffreyH
I will say this. There is a gap in our concept of mass...Woa there. Who are the "our" that you're referring to? Not I, that's for sure.
Quote from: jeffreyH
.. that does not explain the mass difference and charge magnitude equivalence between the electron and the proton. Until that is sorted out things are not going to advance in any fundamental way.Why would you think that there is a gap in our concept of mass and not in our understanding of subatomic particles?
Post by: jeffreyH on 15/05/2015 00:02:01
Quote from: jeffreyHI will say this. There is a gap in our concept of mass...Woa there. Who are the "our" that you're referring to? Not I, that's for sure.Quote from: jeffreyH.. that does not explain the mass difference and charge magnitude equivalence between the electron and the proton. Until that is sorted out things are not going to advance in any fundamental way.Why would you think that there is a gap in our concept of mass and not in our understanding of subatomic particles?
The way I see it it is both.
Post by: PmbPhy on 15/05/2015 08:18:41
Quote from: jeffreyH
The way I see it it is both.This is what you were arguing when you made that comment, i.e.
Quote
There is a gap in our concept of mass that does not explain the mass difference and charge magnitude equivalence between the electron and the proton.You never did state what you meant by these relationships and why their value should be of any significance to anything else in physics. Do you think that you can explain that for me? Thanks.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/05/2015 19:00:22
Quote from: Theboxso what is gravity the force that makes all that my body is made of fall to the ground?I wish you'd phrase things such that they're more readable and clearer. The phrase "so what is gravity the force..." doesn't make sense. If it's what I think you meant then you need to use punctuation to make it readable. I.e. did you mean to askQuoteSo what is gravity? Is it the force that makes all that my body is made of fall to the ground?or perhapsQuoteSo what is gravity? It is the force that makes all that my body is made of fall to the ground?etc.
You you should know by now that this is a question about the mechanism of gravity and not something that can be answered at this stage of physics. GR only tells us how to describe gravitational interactions. It can't tell you why they occur. If there is ever a quantum theory of gravity then we might learn that the gravitational interaction between objects is mediated by gravitons in the same way that the electromagnetic interaction between charged particles are mediated by photons (virtual photons to be exact). I've lost count of how many times I've told you this. Why do you ignore what we keep telling you? What's the point of anybody answering your questions if you're going to forget them right off the bat and pose the same questions all over a few days later?Quote from: TheboxThe ground is made from the same stuff as your body , the stuff are called atoms.Bad grammar. That should be expressed as "the stuff is called atoms.[/u]Quote from: Theboxso what part of the atoms of my body attract to other atoms?You can't be serious? The gravitational force between any two particles is given by F12 = G m1m2/r2 regardless of what particle it is. Are you going to tell me that you didn't know this well-known fact?Quote from: Theboxwell there is protons which are quarks, ...No. Protons are not quarks. They are composed of quarks.
You just openly admitted that you do not know the real reason of why an object falls to the ground, because you do not know the mechanism of gravity.
Is this not a forum for discussion?
why can we not discuss and look for an answer to my question right here?
You want to know, I want to know, lets answer it in this thread by discussing it, all I have ever wanted from any forum , is to discuss the information I am reading and to look for answers we do not know.
I have a mind and I can think very well about absolutely anything.
I know you say that what holds an atom together as nothing to do with gravity, I have not said it does.
Can we agree that we know atoms have mass, and to discuss atoms concerning gravity is valid ?
I will start a discussion, if anyone wants to discuss things.
Science says that atoms have proton(s). These Protons are made up of 3 quarks,
my first thought on this is, can we observe this or is this just theory?
Post by: PmbPhy on 15/05/2015 19:18:22
Quote from: Thebox
You just openly admitted that you do not know the real reason of why an object falls to the ground, because you do not know the mechanism of gravity.And, as I've said countless times before, this is an example of what happens when someone doesn't read physics texts or philosophy of physics texts, i.e. you fail to understand the nature of physics. This is a perfect example of it. You have, yet once again, demonstrated that you don't understand the nature of physics and its that failure that has led you to believe that not knowing that general relativity cannot explain gravity to be some sort of failure on its part or on the part of physics. It's not.
In the article Gravitation and the Principle of Relativity by A.S. Eddington, Nature, March 14, 1918, wrote on page 36
Quote
The purpose of Einstein’s new theory has often been misunderstood, and it has been criticized as an attempt to explain gravitation. The theory does not offer any explanation of gravitation; that lies outside its scope, and it does not even hint at a possible mechanism. It is true that we have introduced a definite hypothesis as to the relation between gravitation and a distortion of space; but if that explains anything, it explains not gravitation, but space, i.e. the scaffolding constructed for our measures.So while the rest of the physics community understands these facts you most certainly do not.
Quote from: Thebox
Is this not a forum for discussion?Of course it is.
Quote from: Thebox
why can we not discuss and look for an answer to my question right here?Nobody ever suggested that you can't.
Quote from: Thebox
so what is gravityYou actually think it's as easy as that, huh? Well take my word for it. It's not. The greatest minds in physics have been seeking the answers to those questions for the last hundred years. Why do you, someone who refuses to even learn physics, actually think that you have what it takes to solve the problem?
You want to know, I want to know, lets answer it in this thread by discussing it, all I have ever wanted from any forum , is to discuss the information I am reading and to look for answers we do not know.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/05/2015 19:34:59
You actually think it's as easy as that, huh? Well take my word for it. It's not. The greatest minds in physics have been seeking the answers to those questions for the last hundred years. Why do you, someone who refuses to even learn physics, actually think that you have what it takes to solve the problem?
I see the Universe as small, there is not much to it. Greatest minds in Physics...hmmmmm a different subject knowing information ,does not mean a great mind for thinking.
''actually think that you have what it takes to solve the problem?''
I am pretty sure I already have the answer but that would be theory and not discussion. I wish to discuss your information , establish true facts from fiction and discuss it.
My first question was , can we observe an atom?
if not ,then what makes everyone think they are made up of components?
please discuss
Post by: alancalverd on 15/05/2015 19:41:33
My first question was , can we observe a Proton?
Yes, but only if you think you can observe a cow. Otherwise you will end up discussing the meaning of "observe". The joy of living in the countryside and working in physics is that I can do both on the same day.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/05/2015 19:49:16
My first question was , can we observe a Proton?
Yes, but only if you think you can observe a cow. Otherwise you will end up discussing the meaning of "observe". The joy of living in the countryside and working in physics is that I can do both on the same day.
So you are talking about imagination, can I imagine a Proton while I type? yes , decomposing any structure leaves an elementary particle.
The logic is that things are made up of a single particle.
I do not imagine a single particle made up of components.
So where does this leave your imagination , where do the add ons come from? proton, electron, nuetron,pions.gluons,quarks etc
Post by: Colin2B on 16/05/2015 08:28:51
So you are talking about imagination, can I imagine a Proton while I type? yes , decomposing any structure leaves an elementary particle.No, Alancalvard was not talking about imagination, but observation.
This degree of misunderstanding is why you are unlikely to get anyone engaging in this conversation with you. The disconnect is too great, too basic.
To engage in a meaningful discussion you need a level of understanding beyond basic and you have not demonstrated that you have even a basic understanding of the fundamental principles.
It is like discussing the detailed, subtleties of French grammar with someone who refuses to learn even school level French.
Post by: evan_au on 16/05/2015 10:44:18
Quote from: TheBox
I do not imagine a single particle made up of components.I'm afraid that Democritus and Leucippus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus#Atomic_hypothesis)beat you to that conclusion by almost 2500 years.
They reasoned that if you broke matter into smaller & smaller pieces, you must eventually reach a size that could not be broken down further. They called these indivisible components "atoms".
Chemists broke matter into its constituent atoms by using chemical reactions, and later, electrolysis. Mendeleev catalogued these atoms through the development of the periodic table.
Of course, if you use a bigger hammer, you can break things into even smaller pieces.
- Marie & Pierre Curie did groundbreaking work on radioactive decay, which is much more energetic than chemical reactions.
- Atom smashers like today's LHC use an even bigger hammer, and produce even more pieces
- It is thought the Big Bang was the ultimate hammer, and would have produced particles which we can, for now, only now imagine.
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/05/2015 14:02:23
Quote from: jeffreyHThe way I see it it is both.This is what you were arguing when you made that comment, i.e.QuoteThere is a gap in our concept of mass that does not explain the mass difference and charge magnitude equivalence between the electron and the proton.You never did state what you meant by these relationships and why their value should be of any significance to anything else in physics. Do you think that you can explain that for me? Thanks.
I need to double check some facts before answering. I may start a new thread when I get to that stage.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/05/2015 18:04:05
So you are talking about imagination, can I imagine a Proton while I type? yes , decomposing any structure leaves an elementary particle.No, Alancalvard was not talking about imagination, but observation.
This degree of misunderstanding is why you are unlikely to get anyone engaging in this conversation with you. The disconnect is too great, too basic.
To engage in a meaningful discussion you need a level of understanding beyond basic and you have not demonstrated that you have even a basic understanding of the fundamental principles.
It is like discussing the detailed, subtleties of French grammar with someone who refuses to learn even school level French.
I am not misunderstanding, I know , you know, and we all know that you can not see an atom directly let alone a Proton, quark, pion, neutron etc.
I would say with a certainty you do not observe this.
You have a few experiments that show a reaction etc, this still does not show a Proton etc
to exist.
So yes logical imagination it is, a theory without conclusive evidence.
I certainly agree in a single particle by evidence. You can call it an atom, I will for all purposes of true values call it particle X.
For discussion purposes I would like to ask you to consider a single particle, particle X , there is nothing attached to it , it is an individual particle with no hidden agendas.
My question is to you, if particle X comes into contact with EMR (electro-magnetic radiation), I assume particle X by having an entropy = to ''M'', M defining mass , will by thermodynamics gain energy and also lose energy.
So would you agree that if we fired electrons at particle X , that particle X would ''charge'' and emit energy ?
I use energy in a generalised sense.
Post by: Colin2B on 18/05/2015 08:32:28
My first question was , can we observe a Proton?Yes, but only if you think you can observe a cow. Otherwise you will end up discussing the meaning of "observe".
I would say with a certainty you do not observe this.
Note this jccc, alancalvard is a person who can predict the future.
Post by: chiralSPO on 18/05/2015 13:25:26
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/09/17/another_one_of_those_startling_molecular_images.php
http://spie.org/x48127.xml
http://www.dmphotonics.com/Scanning_Probe_Microscopy/Atomic%20resolution%20on%20HOPG%20obtained%20with%20the%20100%20micron%20scanner.htm
Do you believe in the planet Neptune? There is no way you can see it from Earth unaided by any sort of technology, but we can see it with telescopes, have sent probes past it, and we could infer its existence by perturbations in Saturn's orbit.
There are many ways we can observe small objects, like atoms and subatomic particles, and most do not include using our eyes other than to see the data readouts...
Post by: guest39538 on 18/05/2015 13:34:56
Even though we cannot see an atom directly with our eyes, we have microscopes that allow us to "see" them--see here:
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/09/17/another_one_of_those_startling_molecular_images.php
http://spie.org/x48127.xml
http://www.dmphotonics.com/Scanning_Probe_Microscopy/Atomic%20resolution%20on%20HOPG%20obtained%20with%20the%20100%20micron%20scanner.htm
Do you believe in the planet Neptune? There is no way you can see it from Earth unaided by any sort of technology, but we can see it with telescopes, have sent probes past it, and we could infer its existence by perturbations in Saturn's orbit.
There are many ways we can observe small objects, like atoms and subatomic particles, and most do not include using our eyes other than to see the data readouts...
You see an atom yes,as your links show evidence of, a particle X, but you not observe or see any components. This is conjecture is it not?
or can you provide a link to a Proton observation?
Post by: Colin2B on 18/05/2015 14:34:45
To catch the fish the fisherman needs to observe the fish biting the bait and hooking on to the line. This cannot be observed underwater, away from the shore.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/05/2015 17:12:54
Catching fish with a rod and line is impossible.
To catch the fish the fisherman needs to observe the fish biting the bait and hooking on to the line. This cannot be observed underwater, away from the shore.
We use information that when the line pulls we have a bite, I miss the part where this is related to seeing a Proton etc.
I understand I pose some difficult questions, but I am confident science can answer in full why something falls to the ground.
It should not be that difficult knowing atoms or particle X has mass . It all happens at particle X. So tell me what happens, why do atoms come close together to form density?
Would something in an atom(s) be an attractive force to each other?
Post by: Colin2B on 18/05/2015 22:32:42
We use information that when the line pulls we have a bite, I miss the part where this is related to seeing a Proton etc.The point is that you are not seeing directly, you are using of an instrument to tell you what is happening.
, but you not observe or see any components. This is conjecture is it not?
or can you provide a link to a Proton observation?
The point is that you are using a common usage of observe, whereas in science an observation covers indirect observation by measurement eg voltage, charge, movement of charge, voltage on a detector, interaction with another particle, etc, etc.
All these measurements (observations) build up a description of a particle or process based on its properties. When these properties are measured ie observed, consistently, that set of properties is given a name eg proton, mass, etc.**
Measurements are important in science as they allow a better description than purely qualitative descriptions. They allow us to make predictions using maths that wordy descriptions do not.
Consistent mathematical predictions allow design of technology that pseudoscience does not.
Until you understand this you will never understand what science is saying and so reject it, then most conversations will be pointless.
This is what alancalverd was saying.
**[This is similar to observing a cow (except you experience it directly through eyes, touch, smell) there is a set of properties which we call a cow.]
Post by: alancalverd on 18/05/2015 23:10:46
The fact that philosophers don't starve to death clearly demonstrates that they don't take themselves seriously. Which is a pity because the world would be a better place if they did.
Post by: chiralSPO on 19/05/2015 01:52:16
Here is a link to a pdf that describes the background and has a how-to guide
http://xraise.classe.cornell.edu/document/cloudchamber.pdf
Proving the identity of the particles that this instrument detects requires a much more specialized instrument, but I guarantee that it is capable of detecting protons, electrons, alpha particles and more!
You can probably get dry ice at a local ice cream store. If not you can try the experiment with a slush of normal ice and isopropanol (the same liquid used to generate the vapors--rubbing alcohol)...
Post by: Colin2B on 19/05/2015 05:04:33
You can use a cloud chamber to "see" subatomic particles, including protons. The nifty thing about this is that you (YOU) can build one at home!Wow, that's cool! Thanks for this, project for when granddaughter is a little older (I'll put it on ice for the moment).
Just located a dry ice source a few miles away, I wonder if freezer gel packs do,perhaps combined with the slush you describe? Not sure how cold it needs to be, maybe putting it in the freezer for a while would help?
Post by: PmbPhy on 19/05/2015 05:27:04
Quote from: alancalverd
If I were a philosopher (which thank the Lord I'm not, sir) I would say that you never observe a cow but only respond to the photons reflected from it. From which we can deduce that philosophers can't eat meat or drink milk because these are the products of something whose existence we can't actually observe.Where did you ever get such an impression from, Alan? That's totally new to me. In fact I strongly disagree with this assertion. If a philosopher ever made such an assertion then I'd say that philosopher was a very poor philosopher.
Let's talk about what observation really means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation
Quote
Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source.Therefore observation of a cow means to collect information regarding the cow's presence. If one observes a cow only by sight then that completely entails the collection of light coming off the cow. So the cow is actually being observed when one "sees" the light coming off the cow.
You can read more about this here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/#DatPhe
Quote
One answer to this question assumes that observation is a perceptual process so that to observe is to look at, listen to, touch, taste, or smell something, attending to details of the resulting perceptual experience.
Post by: guest39538 on 19/05/2015 18:45:54
You can use a cloud chamber to "see" subatomic particles, including protons. The nifty thing about this is that you (YOU) can build one at home!
Here is a link to a pdf that describes the background and has a how-to guide
http://xraise.classe.cornell.edu/document/cloudchamber.pdf
Proving the identity of the particles that this instrument detects requires a much more specialized instrument, but I guarantee that it is capable of detecting protons, electrons, alpha particles and more!
You can probably get dry ice at a local ice cream store. If not you can try the experiment with a slush of normal ice and isopropanol (the same liquid used to generate the vapors--rubbing alcohol)...
Blimey.........
I am not in a position of enough knowledge of this to question this, so at this time I have to agree that you can observe Protons etc.
Maybe you are more advanced than I first thought.
I do not wish to get in a discussion of what observation means, it certainty is not just reflective light that would suggest a holographic Universe. Also I can snap a branch of a tree and take it home, so I know the tree is real.
In your provided observation of atoms, where does it show you an electron or electron shell?
The glowing line spacing of the black dots?
if so, how do you know the black dot is not emitting the line spacing?
PePePePe
gravity P><P
expansion of metals +E=P>><<P=PeeeeP
where P is proton and e is electron field and E is energy and <> is direction
is this what happens in metal or gases?
Is P><P also related to the Proton-Proton chain? (the sun version)
Also is matter a proton>><<proton hexagonal chain, like a bike chain.?
Post by: David Cooper on 19/05/2015 23:13:13
If not you can try the experiment with a slush of normal ice and isopropanol (the same liquid used to generate the vapors--rubbing alcohol)...
How well does that work compared to dry ice?
Post by: Colin2B on 20/05/2015 09:23:52
In your provided observation of atoms, where does it show you an electron or electron shell?This reminds me of a conversation between our children when the youngest was 7. The older ones were learning about DNA and discussing a diagram, she had been following intently and suddenly asked "how do they get the little letters on the genes?". There was silence for a moment, then she discovered that siblings, like forum members, can be very direct at times.
The glowing line spacing of the black dots?
if so, how do you know the black dot is not emitting the line spacing
............ Etc
Post by: evan_au on 20/05/2015 11:15:09
Quote from: TheBox
In your provided observation of atoms, where does it show you an electron or electron shell?When you observe hot atoms through a spectroscope, you see a pattern of bright lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum#Origins). These bright lines are light of different frequencies, which have different energies. These gave early indications that electrons in the atom had different energy levels.
This technique was developed by Fraunhofer in the early 1800s.
Quote from: TheBox
You see an atom yes, ...but you do not observe or see any components.Two components of an atom can be distinguished fairly easily (with technology from the early 1900s):
- The electrons interact with light (see above), and they shield the internal positive nucleus
- The positive nucleus is very small compared to the whole atom, and carries an intense positive charge
- This was demonstrated by Geiger, Marsden & Rutherford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment), in 1913.
- The outer electrons interact with light of various wavelengths, in the visible, ultraviolet or infra-red range.
- In contrast, the much higher energies found in the nucleus result in emission of electromagnetic energy in the gamma-ray region of the spectrum
- Modern MRI machines work by manipulating the spin of the nucleus of the atoms in your body. Different atoms can be observed using different frequencies and different magnetic fields.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/05/2015 12:31:26
Therefore observation of a cow means to collect information regarding the cow's presence. If one observes a cow only by sight then that completely entails the collection of light coming off the cow. So the cow is actually being observed when one "sees" the light coming off the cow.
Being a physicist and not a philosopher, I offer you a bunch of photons reflected from a cow, and another group of photons from a really good hologram of a cow. Did you observe the cow? How do you know? Then a really clever neurologist triggers the memory of a cow in your brain, and the question becomes even more complicated.
Post by: PmbPhy on 20/05/2015 13:01:40
Quote from: alancalverd
Being a physicist and not a philosopher, I offer you a bunch of photons reflected from a cow, and another group of photons from a really good hologram of a cow. Did you observe the cow? How do you know? Then a really clever neurologist triggers the memory of a cow in your brain, and the question becomes even more complicated.There's a difference between the necessary and the sufficient conditions of seeing a cow. The necessary condition is seeing the photons. That's hardly sufficient reason to assert that the cow is there.
So if a cow emits photons and I see them then I'm seeing a cow. The converse is not true. That I see photons that look like a cow it doesn't mean that there's a cow there.
Recall what I said - The cow is actually being observed when one "sees" the light coming off the cow.
This can't be taken to imply that the converse is true, i.e. that if one sees light coming from what appears to be a cow that one is actually seeing a cow.
Understand my point now?
Post by: alancalverd on 20/05/2015 14:32:55
Post by: PmbPhy on 20/05/2015 14:52:03
Quote from: alancalverd
Peter: Next time I'm in New England, we'll count the angels on a pinhead, using a beer glass as a bubble chamber. Better yet, we'll take the average of several beer glasses. It's not often I get to acknowledge a superior nitpicker!Sometimes I can't tell whether you're trying to make a joke or whether you're trying to insult me. This is a good example.
This is an important point to make about what constitutes observation in physics and the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions for determining whether something is true or not. So its far from nitpicking.
Post by: alancalverd on 20/05/2015 15:48:38
Post by: jccc on 20/05/2015 17:01:52
I never joke about beer. And being British, I only insult my best friends.
ALL SCIENTISTS DO THAT
Post by: chiralSPO on 20/05/2015 19:02:15
If not you can try the experiment with a slush of normal ice and isopropanol (the same liquid used to generate the vapors--rubbing alcohol)...
How well does that work compared to dry ice?
I don't know how well the slush works compared to the dry ice, but it should suffice. The temperature gradient across the apparatus is the important thing here. Dry ice will get you down to about –75° C whereas the isopropanol slush will only get down to about –20° C or so. Not nearly as cold, so the position at which the cloud forms within the apparatus will be lower in the slush version than with the dry ice, but a little finagling should allow it to work...
Post by: guest39538 on 20/05/2015 19:07:47
Quote from: TheBoxIn your provided observation of atoms, where does it show you an electron or electron shell?When you observe hot atoms through a spectroscope, you see a pattern of bright lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum#Origins). These bright lines are light of different frequencies, which have different energies. These gave early indications that electrons in the atom had different energy levels.
This technique was developed by Fraunhofer in the early 1800s.Quote from: TheBoxYou see an atom yes, ...but you do not observe or see any components.Two components of an atom can be distinguished fairly easily (with technology from the early 1900s):
- The electrons interact with light (see above), and they shield the internal positive nucleus
- The positive nucleus is very small compared to the whole atom, and carries an intense positive charge
- This was demonstrated by Geiger, Marsden & Rutherford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment), in 1913.
- The outer electrons interact with light of various wavelengths, in the visible, ultraviolet or infra-red range.
- In contrast, the much higher energies found in the nucleus result in emission of electromagnetic energy in the gamma-ray region of the spectrum
- Modern MRI machines work by manipulating the spin of the nucleus of the atoms in your body. Different atoms can be observed using different frequencies and different magnetic fields.
Thank you for taking time to post this information.
''these bright lines are light of different frequencies, which have different energies. These gave early indications that electrons in the atom had different energy levels.''
Hot atoms! so by thermodynamics they increase their energy entropy and release heat, light, radiation to maintain an energy equilibrium. The more gain of energy the more release of energy.
Would that be a true statement?
How would this differ from your spectroscope observation, bright variable frequency light lines?
One seems like the other to me, and seemingly the black dot emits the radiated energy , electromagnetic wave?
Why is it presumed the other way and an electron is attached to a Proton, or are you saying that the black dot is the electron shell?
In a weird sense, could Protons attract to a proton, and compress and capture Photons/EM radiation between them?
P>emr<P
Post by: evan_au on 21/05/2015 12:59:27
Quote from: TheBox
spectroscope observation (of) bright variable frequency light lines?The effect of spectral lines which move over time is seen when two stars orbit each other. With these "spectroscopic binaries (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/spectroscopic.html)", the star moves towards and away from us as it orbits its companion. This causes the spectral lines to become more red and then more blue, periodically.
With large telescopes and very precise specroscopes, it is even possible to detect the small motion of a star due to the orbit of planets around that star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_exoplanets#Radial_velocity).
Post by: David Cooper on 21/05/2015 17:04:29
I don't know how well the slush works compared to the dry ice, but it should suffice. The temperature gradient across the apparatus is the important thing here. Dry ice will get you down to about –75° C whereas the isopropanol slush will only get down to about –20° C or so. Not nearly as cold, so the position at which the cloud forms within the apparatus will be lower in the slush version than with the dry ice, but a little finagling should allow it to work...
Thanks for the info - I think I understand how it works now, and what's needed to improve the functionality of it. Perhaps an old fire extinguisher (that probably still works but needs to be replaced) could be used to cool ordinary ice down further. I had always thought the presence of lots of vapour off the dry ice was key to it working, but it appears that that isn't the case - it now looks as if it's all about providing a low temperature and having warmer air containing water as a gas that's supercooled and just waiting to turn liquid as soon as something triggers it to do so. The less vapour there is, the better it should show up when a vapour trail appears.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/05/2015 18:36:53
Quote from: TheBoxspectroscope observation (of) bright variable frequency light lines?The effect of spectral lines which move over time is seen when two stars orbit each other. With these "spectroscopic binaries (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/spectroscopic.html)", the star moves towards and away from us as it orbits its companion. This causes the spectral lines to become more red and then more blue, periodically.
With large telescopes and very precise specroscopes, it is even possible to detect the small motion of a star due to the orbit of planets around that star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_exoplanets#Radial_velocity).
I do not know how or why we went from atoms to stars but I am familiar with light red shift and blue shift between the stars, Doppler shift.
An object moving away from light, will red shift, an object travelling towards the light will blue shift.
As you already may be aware, I consider this an equal and opposite reaction,
I consider red shift is the force surface pressure of EMR decreasing and blue shift to be a force surface pressure of EMR increase of the object.
Showing a blue spectral frequency of a more compressed wavelength of light, and a red longer wavelength, velocity of the object defining the force compression on the surface of object by the EMR.
This is the reason I believe the sky is blue and also a red sky at night,
I see a red sky at night , the sun is going down , away from me, as the sun moves away from me, I am also moving away from the Sun.
Would this work when comparing earth and sun orbit?
Post by: jccc on 22/05/2015 19:12:59
Post by: David Cooper on 23/05/2015 18:01:26
This is the reason I believe the sky is blue and also a red sky at night,
I see a red sky at night , the sun is going down , away from me, as the sun moves away from me, I am also moving away from the Sun.
Are you moving away from the sun at sunset? Yes. Are you moving towards it at sunrise? Yes. So, the sky should start blue (no red skies in the morning), then it should be greeen by the middle of the day, then it should be red every evening. Is that what you see? How fast would the Earth have to rotate in order to create such visible shifts in frequency? Think it through.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/05/2015 18:48:23
And the effect should be observable in an aeroplane! The earth turns at about 1000 mph at the equator, say 500 mph at temperate latitudes. So flying east or west at pretty well any speed should visibly alter the spectrum of the sun. Does it? Oh dear me, no.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/05/2015 09:52:59
Not the sky, but the sun itself.
And the effect should be observable in an aeroplane! The earth turns at about 1000 mph at the equator, say 500 mph at temperate latitudes. So flying east or west at pretty well any speed should visibly alter the spectrum of the sun. Does it? Oh dear me, no.
Good logic, however the aeroplane is within the earths atmosphere radius. If there was a red sky at night in the west, looking out of a planes window flying east, the sky would still be red.
If you consider a Prism, the spectral wavelengths could be made by distance increase of the angle , changing the radiation pressure on the surface, a mechanism for process,
/
..
angle being more distance to travel for the light.
consider points as a line,
..........
ten points above
..........
.
..
...
....
.....
......
.......
........
.........
..........
now imagine that angle is a race finish line, and 10 cars race from right to left all at the same speed, in a row top to bottom, car 10 at the bottom always wins.
Now if we change the cars to a continued particle stream, a solidity with physical presence but no physical body, and the stream is emitted horizontal to the left, line 10 exerts more force on the stream than line 1.
line 10 blue
line 1 red
look at a prism.
Or simply compare by overlaying a couple of springs.
Either way a bit off topic and boarder line theory.
I observe from science that any particle from ''birth'' is instantly ''charged'' by EMR. Would that be true?
I observe that gravity steals the ''energy'' out of water to freeze it, and observe that ice is not water expansion but gain from environment?
Post by: alancalverd on 24/05/2015 14:01:19
Not the sky, but the sun itself.
And the effect should be observable in an aeroplane! The earth turns at about 1000 mph at the equator, say 500 mph at temperate latitudes. So flying east or west at pretty well any speed should visibly alter the spectrum of the sun. Does it? Oh dear me, no.
Good logic, however the aeroplane is within the earths atmosphere radius. If there was a red sky at night in the west, looking out of a planes window flying east, the sky would still be red.
And so it is, so the color of the sky has nothing to do with the velocity of the observer relative to the sun or the atmosphere. And just to make it more interesting, the sun has the same color however you observe it from earth orbit or en route to the moon, unless the earth's atmosphere is in the way.
If you really want to know about the color of the sky, look up "Rayleigh Scattering". http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html) is very good.
Post by: Bill S on 24/05/2015 15:46:24
Quote from: Thebox
I observe that gravity steals the ''energy'' out of water to freeze it, and observe that ice is not water expansion but gain from environment?
Is it me, or does this really not make any sense?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/05/2015 22:51:30
Quote from: TheboxI observe that gravity steals the ''energy'' out of water to freeze it, and observe that ice is not water expansion but gain from environment?
Is it me, or does this really not make any sense?
Sorry Bill, I suppose in my head it seems easy to understand. I may just be ill, delusions of grandeur, I am not a scientist, but something compels me to keep coming back .