Finally we can rearrange as M = g-1. So now we only need modify g and r to find the mass contained within a radius that will produce a particular g force. We can attempt to apply this to a particle or to a black hole. There is a direct relationship to density inherent in the equation. This neglects time dilation and length contraction but it is straightforward to modify to take these into account. However the complexities rises with four independent variables.
« Last post by dlorde on Today at 00:44:18 »
...One thing I would to know more about is how memories and other types of information are encoded in the brain. David Cooper points out that computers can do memory, they can process information; that is not consciousness and does not require it. Nevertheless, I think it is a primary reason some people have trouble believing that consciousness could be just a physical process carried out in the brain. They cannot imagine how something so abstract, and amorphous as a thought could be encoded and stored by cells or molecules, connections, or maps in the brain. Because images, ideas, thoughts, memories don’t seem “like" those things. For some reason people have no problem with information or images stored in zeros and ones in computers. Yet, there seems to be this unshakeable sense that our own memories or thoughts have to exist in some miniature, ephemeral, yet holistic format that resembles the way we experience them, not simply “code.” The Cartesian theatre will not die.
Perhaps they would be interested in some research that recorded brain activity in rats during learning a task, then chemically wiped that memory, and subsequently restored it by replaying the activity recording into the same brain pathways - demonstrating electronic storage of memory.
« Last post by dlorde on Today at 00:38:14 »
how does your theory account for brain damage causing personality changes? Is personality not part of consciousness?
Vague, but I'll take that as a partial answer that suggesting that the brain handles those aspects.
OK, so we know that personality, identity, sense of self, memory, language, recognition, comprehension, and all other recognisable attributes and adjuncts of what we usually recognise as consciousness can be significantly altered, disrupted, or destroyed by brain damage, in ways not consistent with the brain simply being a 'filter' (it must be doing more than filtering to be able to change your personality and behaviour) - and the suggestion is that they are things the brain does on behalf of this non-material consciousness.
So what is left for the non-material consciousness? it would seem to be nothing but an anonymous 'elan-vital', sans self, sans personality, sans identity; to paraphrase Shakespeare, "Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything".
The implication should be obvious - if it existed at all, it would be a waste of space. It would have no apparent functional contribution whatsoever; a redundant conceptual anachronism
So we end up with M = -1. Looking at it this way the g force is inherent in the mass with gravity as the catalyst.
I am now in the position that I need to derive the mass equation. This is to test an hypothesis that gravitation is merely a catalyst and not a force in its own right.
« Last post by jeffreyH on 30/10/2014 23:13:25 »
I think I need to go and derive a mass equation.
« Last post by jeffreyH on 30/10/2014 23:00:36 »
I am now very uncertain about length contraction. There certainly is an effect but is much less pronounced that time dilation. It is proving to be a difficulty and it won't go away. Which annoys me. It would be much easier without it.
Well you make several interesting points. One of which is the deformation of heated metal. It might seem a trivial point but particles are released through heating and solidify when cooling. It is the input of energy that separates them. When energy is lost due to loss of energy through cooling things solidify. Things are thus brought together through energy loss. If the em forces bring things of lower energy together then it is reasonable to propose that gravitation may operate in a similar way. By taking energy from an amount of distributed energetic mass it naturally brings them together. This could be the force of gravity removing enough energy for the em forces to be able to bring masses together. So in fact gravity's action may not be the attractive force at all. It is merely a catalyst.
« Last post by demografx on 30/10/2014 22:49:14 »
« Last post by demografx on 30/10/2014 22:34:19 »
Yes, Donnah....but no dues required!
« Last post by jeffreyH on 30/10/2014 22:23:40 »
Interestingly, if kinetic energy is taken from mass by gravitation then the more dense a mass gets then the slower the flux of energy. However at some point it will have lost significant gravitational energy because of the strength of the field. If enough is lost the effects of time dilation and any possible length contraction will start to subside. There will be a point of no return where the reversal of dilation is unstoppable and results in an energetic explosion when all the dilated energy flux speeds up all at once. Hence the big bang and the ripples of early gravitation in the CMB.
© 2000–2013 The Naked Scientists®
The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.