The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: EM and gravity  (Read 8723 times)

Offline Rincewind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
EM and gravity
« on: 13/01/2006 00:25:57 »
We all know light can be affected by gravity.  Does this mean that a ray of light has a gravitational attraction on massive bodies?  

And does this in turn mean that heat (internal kinetic energy) increases a body's gravitational field, as well as relative velocity?

 
I was just wondering if the effect of various forms of energy (EM, heat, kinetic) on gravity has been tested much, and if anyone could point me in the direction of any resources, or even take a shot at explaining it in your own words.


 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #1 on: 13/01/2006 00:36:20 »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
quote:
 We all know light can be affected by gravity. Does this mean that a ray of light has a gravitational attraction on massive bodies?


Andrew light isn't affectrd by gravity its the space that light travels through that gravity affects



Michael                 HAPPY NEW YEAR                    
 

Offline Rincewind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #2 on: 13/01/2006 01:47:54 »
okay, so does light affect space then? 8l

And apply all the rest of the questions to that (how does energy affect space?)
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #3 on: 13/01/2006 01:53:39 »
Hi andrew i remember you now, hpoe life's treating you well. and in answer to your question. No

Michael                 HAPPY NEW YEAR                    
 

Offline Rincewind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #4 on: 13/01/2006 01:56:56 »
How sure are you?  

Life's treating me very well, thanks:)  I hope the same for you.
 

Offline Rincewind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #5 on: 13/01/2006 01:59:30 »
I mean, for example, a body's kinetic energy does affect it's gravitational effect, that's why mass->infinity as velocity->Speed of Light

And the internal heat of a body is the kinetic energy of its particles, so heat would also affect a body's mass, ay.
« Last Edit: 13/01/2006 02:02:11 by Rincewind »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #6 on: 13/01/2006 11:01:07 »
I am particularly interested in the answer to this question myself and have not yet managed to totally satisfy myself whether the mass increase assocated with kinetic energy increases the gravitational effect of a particle.

I have been searching the web for years to find something on relativistic orbit theory ie what to the orbits of objects look like when their velocities become relatavistic but I have found nothing to indicate that they are significantly different.  (perihelion rotation apart)

This lack of any information leads me to believe that relativistic mass increase does produce increased gravitational attraction and this I think would result in orbits looking very much the same in a non relativistic or relatavistic binary.

To return to your original question this implies that as bodies get very hot their gravitational effect inctreases compared with their rest mass if the body was cold. but I'm not sure what the effective temeperature would have to be for a 1% increase.  My guess is many millions of degrees.

Another piece of evidence is that the people who describe extreme energy processes describe gravity becoming on a par with the other forces under extreme conditions and the only way I can see this hapening is that the kinetic energy increases gravitational effect as well as effective mass.

Remember also the individual masses of the quarks that make up a proton have been measured to be significantly less than the proton itself and a considerable part of the mass of the proton is the kinetic energy of the quarks rattling around inside of it.  the gravitational effect of the proton is therefoore determined by its "rest mass" which includes the kinetic energy of thw quarks.

I think that i have now managed to convince myself  :)

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
« Last Edit: 13/01/2006 11:12:51 by Soul Surfer »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #7 on: 13/01/2006 13:24:38 »
quote:
Originally posted by Soul Surfer

I am particularly interested in the answer to this question myself and have not yet managed to totally satisfy myself whether the mass increase assocated with kinetic energy increases the gravitational effect of a particle.

I have been searching the web for years to find something on relativistic orbit theory ie what to the orbits of objects look like when their velocities become relatavistic but I have found nothing to indicate that they are significantly different.  (perihelion rotation apart)




I may be going off beam here, but the above example questions the effect of special relativity upon gravity.  If gravitational effect is effected by relativistic effects, then would not gravity be effected by gravity itself (i.e. the relativistic effect of an object under the influence of a gravitational field might alter the gravitational pull of the object itself).  Would this not mean that two objects under the mutual effect of each others gravitational field would have a combined gravitational pull that was subtly different than the sum of the individual gravitational field of the separate objects?
« Last Edit: 13/01/2006 13:26:18 by another_someone »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #8 on: 13/01/2006 23:40:42 »
Yes that is exactly what I was talking about but the effects do not change the orbit much because the incereased gravitational effect cancels out the relatavistic mass increase if this didn't happen things would accelerate less as the got faster when they are falling into an area with an intense gravitational field because of the relatavistic mass increase

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #9 on: 14/01/2006 00:18:48 »
quote:
Originally posted by Soul Surfer

Yes that is exactly what I was talking about but the effects do not change the orbit much because the incereased gravitational effect cancels out the relatavistic mass increase if this didn't happen things would accelerate less as the got faster when they are falling into an area with an intense gravitational field because of the relatavistic mass increase

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!



But in any case, when something a body orbits another, or is free falling, in both cases there is no nett gravitational effect, and thus I would expect no relativistic effects should ensue.

It is what something is held in position against a gravitational force (e.g. sitting atop a planet, held up by non-gravitational forces, but experiencing the downward force of gravity) that one would have relativistic effects.

I assume this to be true because of the supposed equivalence between acceleration and gravity, and thus if one does not feel the gravity/acceleration, then it can be having no effect.  An object in stable orbit does not actually have the sense of having any force applied to it.
 

Offline Solvay_1927

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
    • View Profile
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #10 on: 14/01/2006 03:01:02 »
But surely an object must be experiencing a force if it's in orbit - otherwise it would not move in an orbit, it would be moving in a straight line.  (Or have I misunderstood what you're saying, George?)
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #11 on: 14/01/2006 03:16:55 »
quote:
Originally posted by Solvay_1927

But surely an object must be experiencing a force if it's in orbit - otherwise it would not move in an orbit, it would be moving in a straight line.  (Or have I misunderstood what you're saying, George?)



Is not an object moving in orbit is following the curvature of the space, and thus following the shortest path (not necessarily a straight line, because a straight line is only the shortest path in a euclidean space).

For someone sitting inside a spacecraft in orbit around a planet, without being able to look outside, does not know whether the spacecraft is in orbit, or in freefall, or as if the gravity of the planet had been switched off.  The forces he perceives in all three scenarios are the same.  Thus, as I understand General Relativity, the three scenarios must be absolutely equivelent.
 

Offline Solvay_1927

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
    • View Profile
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #12 on: 14/01/2006 03:33:03 »
That's not my understanding. The astronauts can do experiments that will tell them whether they're orbiting or not, can't they? (Whereas no experiment will differentiate between being stationary and moving in uniform linear motion.)

Or have I misunderstood my physics?
 

Offline gsmollin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 749
    • View Profile
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #13 on: 14/01/2006 04:04:03 »
quote:
Originally posted by Rincewind


Q1: We all know light can be affected by gravity.  Does this mean that a ray of light has a gravitational attraction on massive bodies?  

A1: Couching the answer in your original terms, the answer is "yes", but it is not measurable. Photons have mass, given by m=E/c*c, so they experience the same gravitational forces as massive objects, and also generate a gravitational field of their own, just like massive particles. However, the gravitational force is so weak, no one has ever been able to verify this attraction experimentally.

Q2: And does this in turn mean that heat (internal kinetic energy) increases a body's gravitational field, as well as relative velocity?

A2: Also, yes, but we can't measure it for the same reason as above. It would take more heat than we can produce at this time to give elementary particles enough energy to change their masses. We can measure the mass increases than come from high relative velocities in particle accelerators, however. These effects are well documented.
 
Q3: I was just wondering if the effect of various forms of energy (EM, heat, kinetic) on gravity has been tested much, and if anyone could point me in the direction of any resources, or even take a shot at explaining it in your own words.

A3: I don't have a reference available. Certainly any good atomic physics book will discuss relativistic mass change. However, as I said, the gravitational forces are too weak to measure.


"F = ma, E = mc^2, and you can't push a string."
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #14 on: 14/01/2006 20:16:02 »
gsmollin.  Sorry but you've got it wrong there in answer 1.  Photons travel at the speed of light (by definition and by precise observation) and cannot have a rest mass because (except for some very wierd conditions) you can't stop them.  They do however have momentum (because when they hit something and bounce off it reacts just as if massive particle had hit it) and that may be what you are thinking about when you describe them as having mass.  

The simple non relatavistic formula for the momentum of an object is mass x velocity the momentum of a photon is h.nu/c or E/c  which is just as if it had a mass of E as you said but it is not related to a gravitiational mass and photons ignore each other completely gravitationally only being attracted by the gravitational field of massive objects.

I've just done some fag packet calculations on how hot things have to get before the relativistic mass increase becomes significant.

The velocity of typical gas molecules in air at room temperature (300 deg K)  is around 0.5 km/sec  (hydrogen is a bit quicker so lets call it 1km/sec.
The velocity of light is 300,000 km/sec and temperature is proportional to the square of the velocity of the molecules.  molecule velocities have to get over half the speed of light before there is a significant increase in mass say around 10%.so lets say the molecule velocities need to be at least 100,000 times quicker before there is any increase that means that the temperature must be 300-400 times room temperature or around 100,000 degres kelvin.  

The only place you will find temeperatures like this is well down into the middle of stars where the trmperatures reach millions of degrees kelvin

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
« Last Edit: 14/01/2006 20:53:28 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline Mad Mark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #15 on: 17/01/2006 01:08:01 »
If research on the relativistic mass increase associated with kinectic energy has not been researched enough then are models of galaxies incorrect?
It could imply that those stars in the outlying sectors of the galaxies exert more gravity than those with less kinetic mass increase further in.
Would this negate the need for dark matter to hold the structure together.

Tomorrow lies outside our universe without it there would be no tomorrow.
 

Offline Rincewind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #16 on: 17/01/2006 22:38:47 »
That's the exact reason I asked the original question Mark - you beat me to it!  Dark energy as well - it's cold and quiet out there in between galaxies.

The thing is, in relativity energy is basically mass, but I wonder if maybe energy has a different gravitational effect than the equivalent amount of matter.  I mean it's not like we can tell how much of the sun's gravity comes from its mass and how much from its heat, we can just measure the net force.

Has anyone got the answer or thought about it?

Thanx for the calculations btw soulsurfer, it would have taken me ages to work that out (I don't have enough equations or facts accesible, ie in my brain).
 

Offline Rincewind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #17 on: 19/01/2006 01:28:45 »
OK, that sounds a bit weird because everyone knows the most fundamental particle of matter is a photon.  But maybe there're layers, or something?  Light is affected a bit, sub atomic particles a bit less. Atoms a bit less than that (per unit energy, that is).  The 'knot' in energy that makes it into matter (allows it to have mass at rest) decreses the gravitational effect.
 

Offline philo

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #18 on: 21/01/2006 14:06:08 »
The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of space-time so according to theory it can attract objects gravitationally.

newbielink:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html [nonactive]
 

Offline philo

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #19 on: 21/01/2006 15:16:07 »
Gravity is produced by energy, and since massive objects have such a large amount of energy (remember Einstein), the largest gravitational effects come from massive objects. But energy (ALONE, i.e. massless photons - my comment), such as the photons from light, also produce gravity.

newbielink:http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/virtual/aas_transcript-01-29-04.html [nonactive]
 

Offline johntsang

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #20 on: 22/01/2006 15:19:00 »
To get insight into Gravity, we have to get back to the basic, ie: what is the nature of space.

To start with, allow me, allow me to question ...

Have anybody ever try to formulate the world in term of TIME,
That is what if the physical world is represented by a FOUR dimensional T space?
In such, every observer moves at the speed of "light" in the space, thus yield one of the dimension INVISIBLE  !
And make his Momentum in his REST Mass !

To start with:
    Assume some closely living, two dimensional creatures (Hs) , each are assembled of some basic units (M),  and they measure  their distance in term of time (T), normalized to C (his speed in light) .
    Clocks are placed at various locations for the measurement purpose.
    Each creature use a personalized clocks system, that calibrated to his origin to zero time, any clock at radial distance S should shows time "S" .
    Whereas S = sqrt(t2^2 + t3^2) , such ( t2, t3) is the time plane .

        What If in fact that, this is a three Dimensional space, with the axis t1 orthrogonal to the planes.
        Some super 3-D creature MrChung (MC)  move this plane along this t1 axis, say, at a parametic displacement d(t3)/dg,
        then all of those clocks in the time plane would registrated a S + dt(t3)/dg mysteriously.

    While those clocks measure faithfully the real displace in 3 Dimension, the plane would experience a "flow of time".
     As a matter of fact , a clock that "relocate" ds on the plane while the plane have a t1 dispalcement of d(t1) would show a time change of sqrt( ds^2 + d(t1)^2 ).
    The "speed" of that clock on his plane would show V= ds/ d(t1).

    In otherword, An misterious,  time flow (t), location change (ds)  and volocity (ds/dt) relationship exists.
    The funny thing about it is the upward Volocity, regardless of how MC move it, is ALWAYs = C = 1.
        It's also interesting to point out, for this creature,  physic, that related to time,  is controlled by the MC, "move" of his plane to create the personal time "flow".
         Otherwise, his world will be a frozen world.

    In this world, a H see all other Hs that are built by the same units, and in close vicinity.
    What if MC tell H(M)s that their world is just some plane with a Third dimemsion t1 ?
    What if MC tell H(M)s that MC has his own 3 Dimensions that is called C = [j0, j1, j2]  ?
    What if MC tell H(M)s that M moving at a rate, proportional a personal P  , a  vector of  size |P| ?

    In other word, MC said,  "each H is a moving time plane, T in C .", MC also said:
             1) The P is a gereralized momentum, happened to be the momentum of M, because C is normalized, is also a normalized M, frequency etc.
             2) Each H carries his own T plane, T planes are differently scales, ratioed by the |P|.

    This world bears All the effect of relativity !!!


If these seems OK , email me for more.
 

Offline johntsang

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #21 on: 31/01/2006 08:28:21 »
MC then ask H : " How is your world view base on ?"

H: " base on what I see and tested with my instrumentation, the world can be understood to have a depth, a rigid quantity that I called length, then there's a basic, non stopping element called time, which is the base of everything, humm, and something call Energy"

MC: " Well, that's quite a valid description. I shall throw in charges, strings later when the time is right"

MC : " let me get to the bottom of your perception, in essence, you H are creatures is living in a capsule, with a flat/sperical screen LCD panel all around you, this panel is giving you a history of outside, all collapse on the LCD screen, no more , no less."

MC : " Don't believe it ? each of you, look around again, all you get is a flat picture, a instant replay of 5 femoseconds, 20 nenoseconds, 5 light years, informations, to your brain, your pal close by, and your equipements."

MC: what reaches you or you equipemnts or friends are nothing but a SUM( Physics effective (from time to your 'local origin') ), your physics is base on other's history, and you are influencing others future ... what the ..

MC: and you know pretty well, the myterious time, in which is moving thru your world, is real, is interchangeable with the coordination system you invented in an awe fashion. and in fact, the T, and 3D ALL shink or grow with each's internal power,

MC: now you realize you are living in a collpsed bubble of time, at least, you should feel time CAN be used as a coorination system, and for sure, physics in term of time can be formulated in such.

================================================== ============================== ===========
After 2 hours break of that human's time.

H: Hell, 4T world, with it's physics, can it be the real objective world ? does it account for GR, and incooperate with our observations ?

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

MC: I said, subtlely, that's is your local time , your local view of universe, let me rephrase it in bold, I mean't it's your subjective view of universe.

MC: Eaches' local time frame, 4 T is only good for the subject who owns it.... call it Local Time bubble (LTB).

MC: Human exchange their views in T, and find others have a distorted universe... ha ha ha.

MC: you should notice those who have higher internal Energy have Larger influence, live longer, heavier ..HA HA
MC: Notice who receive 'energy' ... dP, would undergo an addition time flow, addition in Mass, addition in gravity, additon in volocity... HA .. and vs versa.

================================================== ============================== ===========
H: How about the curvature in space time?

MC: Bad luck for E-stein, in his 'time', nobody ever think 'distance is time', if he got Mobile phone or GPS ...

MC: without that advance in knowledge, couple with the fact that measurement of speed of light is 'constant to each observer', he made the best out by SR, once into SR, that rigid 3D force the space time curved !

H: How about other forms of Power, how about black hole, light, String theory ?

MC: You are not there yet, 'will' cover them only after we are on a firm fundation, what I said above was just peanuts before feast.

H: I still love 3D 1T
================================================== ============================== ===========
MC:

Remember , you are just a bunch of creatures trying to understand the world from the sum@t=0 informations, while you are moving in my world, it's not the world that changes, it's the world you are in that move, rotate, wobble .....

And most unfortunately, because your T worlds are created by your Ps (say power, say generalized momentum ) .......a world of drunken.... and worse, you can't see your direction.

Here comes the red wine.

You Human's subjective universe is NOT in any way of how the OBjective universe's operation. which is operate in a Common Global Frame 4 J, under a New-ton-Chung formulation.

Your personal 4 T frame, if you still insist in using it, of couse you do, because that's would map the Objective world back to you sensation, can be found under a JT conversion. a simple 4 by 4 matrix function A(P) .... "Observer Generated Relativity".

3D is what give the universe a split personality ! I can't go on if you stay there.

================================================== ============================== ============
H: I think about it ....

MC: Just look around .... ha ha .... watch you watch !

================================================== ============================== ============
if the topic is still interesting to anybody, and this direction is fun enough, please let me know.

by the way (Chung is the Chinese word, meaning, Broker between humen)
John.Tsang@grdil.com

        
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11
Default Equations ?
Posted on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 02:18 pm:
A Mr. JerryLu have just sent me an interesting article on
===========================================
Check out this amazing coincidence concerning the gravitational relevancy of the sun , all of the planets and earth's moon , when the Earth's gravitational signature , 9.8065 m/s is equal to unity. The Cheops constructs 2/Pi is the transferring equation.
....equation as follows

1 / (( 10 ^ ( 4 / Pi )) - 10 ) / Mercury / Venus / Earth / Moon / Mars / Jupiter / Saturn / Uranus / Neptune / Pluto = 27.89958545 = Sun(27.9) .... !!
FERMAT ( e ^ (( Pi + 8.000006797 / 2 )) / as = 10 ^ ( 4 / Pi ) CHEOPS)"....
quark forms 10 ^ ( -1 / u / d / c / s / b / t / ( u + d + c + s + b + t )) = emev ^ 2

...the gravitational constant is the double log form of the electron energy squared:
Gn = 10 ^ (( 10 ^ ( emev ^ 2 )) - 12 ) = 6.67420559 * ( 10 ^ - 11 )
....using the quark " field " form:
10 ^ (( 10 ^ ( 10 ^ ( -1 / u / d / c / s / b / t / ( u + d + c + s + b + t )))) - 12 ) = Gn
==========================================
This is Chinese New Year, a busiy trime .... happy new year to all.
===========================================
In my next topic, I am going to post it on forums, into the implication of 4T , especially about matters/ antomatter, I shall also give an 'simple' equation for the above Mr J's puzzle.

I have to stress time base system is for human .... and is most important for human.....

if you can't follow that line nor see the change of concept ..... the Objective Universal J frame will not follow.
Kindly read my articles again, give yourself enough itme to digest.

I shall post again in 3 days.

John tsang
 

Offline johntsang

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #22 on: 02/02/2006 03:26:17 »

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

   H:  Mr Cocky, stop playing with words
============================================================
   How the hell you know I am clocky, yes, I AM the Master Clock (Mc).
   But don't confuse me with yours, your time is artifical.
   Ok, let be tell your a few thing
=============================================================
   your T frame is an crude image of my world, Chung's Universe is orthogonal 4 J frame
   your TIME is powered by ... your P factor, call it "Energy or whatever"
   Hell my advice, use "generalized momentum" , you will have a present surprise if you do.

   When you, or your friends, or a particle, gets more P, IT'S T frame would .... expand, meaning , for every unit T, there's more Js it cover.... meaning, if a particle have more energy, it's life span lengthen relative to those with less, it's gravitation reach further ... linearly.... even E-stein knew it.
=============================================================
   H:  What are you talking about ? that can be the same as Your Master Clock you are hiding in you pocket.

   Hey, not so, see, if I touch your P, your P would change, depends on the direction of 'force' I provided, your TIME , relatively to other, even to your 'previous' self, would increase, decrease, or ....... don't you know, lost .... didn't you notice I am hinting on the H's Uncertainty Princple ? wink wink.

   H:  What? I don't understand, what is lost? I missed somthing ?

   GR people would love this, If a force is applied, well, orthgonal to the P axis ..... call it acceleration of your 3T bubble, your |P| would not change but there's a dp/P .... meaning .... a rate change of timeing .... meaning ..... atomic clock would slow down .... meaning aging slow down .........
   If the Force applies is to reduce whoever's P, then their "moving mass" would Shrink, their TIME bubble would Shrink, and the UNiverse would move away from 'it'.... scary ...and vs versa.
   The force may split into two components, one oncrease your life, the other shrink your world.
   Gravitation is the same dp/P, I shall make some LAWs for Chung's world at the end of this dicussion.... to make it grand and formal....hmmm.

   OK, and if your P is complete gone, imagine, light getting away from a blackhole, you are .... oh well ...don't worry about it now, your P may be completely absorbed by somebody else, or distributed in J space .... I shall get back to this later if there's believers.

   By the way, your neighbor could steal your P while you take it away from him ... or vs versa ...
the coupling is defined .... as G constant .... I shall definately make some "equations" , human worship it.
===============================================================================
   H:  Sounds like Newtonian to me, what are you trying to say? are you saying we get an orthogonal OBj Uinverse .. OU ?

   Ha Ha Ha, Newton was before time, no no, You don't, let me clearify, the Observer Generated Relativistic OGR is a polar time system that define how the world appears to you and your equipments, you cannot escape your time fundation , which is your momentum..... BUT I DO have 4 J orthogonal system, I have my different money !

   H:  You are talking rubbish, Momentum is TIME ?

   Did I say that, uh that's suppose to be a secret .... well, since its' out, alright , Object's displacement in the OU is the time created for the object, Generalized Momentum is the displacement in my space per MY CLOCK !

Let me quote some GR talks ... I found It on UUNET:
================================================================================
It is already well known how to generalize these terms from NM -> GR:
        mass            -> mass
        3-velocity      -> 4-velocity
        3-acceleration  -> 4-acceleration
        3-force         -> 4-force
        angular momentum-> M_ij (a 2-form)
        E and B fields  -> F_ij (a 2-form)
This is in keeping with the importance of INVARIANCE in modern physics
-- each and every item on the right is an invariant
  • . There are other

non-invariants:
        particle energy -> time component of 4-momentum
        potential energy-> (none; in general not valid)

=============================================================================
   H: you did a lot of talking, there's many Theories on Wikipedia, what proof do you have ?
=============================================================================
   Holy xyz, I heard something like " We must fall back upon the old axiom that when all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." , I thought even Doctor Watson accept Timebase if he follows the story.
   Alright what proof is good for today ? hmm .... how about this.
   After I start posting , an unknown Human sent a completely irrelivant article on this Cxx whatever thing of forces .... well .... everything in this universe of mine have to do with J, P and T, if there's thing not explained by  .... Physics ....  let me see...
=============================================================================
      OK, first of all, I am MC, not Mathe, and I don't know you , so let me explain it at my level.
      CHUNG's straight to the point style: These are equation of how a closed P system are created, under normal Gravitational constant G using the P .... you do the unit and scaling.
=============================================================================
1 / (( 10 ^ ( 4 / Pi )) - 10 ) / Mercury / Venus / Earth / Moon / Mars / Jupiter / Saturn / Uranus / Neptune / Pluto = 27.89958545 = Sun(27.9) .... !!
      The equation of the planetary system is the creation Energy of bring in all planets ... sun included, to the close proximity.

quark forms 10 ^ ( -1 / u / d / c / s / b / t / ( u + d + c + s + b + t )) = emev ^ 2
      Two pair of electron mass is coming together to create the 6 quarks over a 6 quarks core configuration.... or vs versa, but I shall advice you not to ... shall get into what makes what later

Gn = 10 ^ (( 10 ^ ( emev ^ 2 )) - 12 ) = 6.67420559 * ( 10 ^ - 11 )
      ( under gavitation only, pair of (pairs of unit P coupled by Gravitation constant )) is needed to create a pair of electrons,   It's clear to me ....ln((ln(Gn) +12) = (Mev)**2

=============================================================================      
   H: YOU CHEAT !
=============================================================================

   MC: As of some equations. Let me quote JT ... oh yes, there's a d(Mc) according to MY CLOCK, he's on ICQ, he always forgot Mc, he should polish his math ... human err :
==============================================================================
(22:02:50) JTsang: tell you what , the letter about the quark, earth sun question is a matter of conservation of P
(22:03:36) JTsang: that is d( p) /P =0 for a system without external force
(22:04:38) JTsang: or d(p1)/p1 + d(p2)/p2 +....  d(pn) /pn =0
(22:05:21) Cadia: U mean the Solarsys as a whole.
(22:05:25) Cadia: ic
(22:06:25) JTsang: or (p2* p3* .. * pn) dp1 /(p1*p2*p3.... *pn)  +  (p1* p3* ... pn)dp2/(p1*p2*p3..*pn) ..... =0
(22:07:44) JTsang: or (partial derivative)(p1*p2*p3*p4*...*pn) /(p1*p2*p3*p4*...*pn) =0
(22:08:43) JTsang: meaning log(p1*p2*p3*p4*..... pn) = K
(22:09:41) JTsang: which is why all those MASS /Gravity , when multilped become a constant
(22:10:30) JTsang: that constant .... look like the total creation energy
(22:12:02) JTsang: but he may not understand how come all these have the same effect, include electron
(22:12:07) JTsang: and quarks
(22:12:53) JTsang: Math is the simple part of it ... sigh
==============================================================================
   H: funny way to write equations .. what are these strange xxxx, is these chinese ? I have to think.
==============================================================================

   Ar, did I said "Force", using my Master Clock (Mc), let me define some terms (draft#2) as
      P = Generalized Momentum ... this is what your personal inertia /gravity /time flow comes from. I normally normalize them all to 1 for each personal LTB.
      F = Generalized force d(W)/d(Mc)
      S = J's seperation = sqrt(dj^2)
      W = WAI state, log(P), (yes, you need this definely, some people may like to call this Internal Power. information people see this related to information, some may even see the entropy in this .. so WAI ... a Chinese word meaning the influence,  is good enough for it.)  
      G = couple factor => dW1/ d(Mc) =dW2 / d(Mc) = G * (P1/S)*(P2/S)  .... simple stuff.

   I am ready, let me make some LAWs for the Universe. ( Latin is not my mother tougue , she's Chinese, my typing is bad , and I am not human ... tell me how to make these equations right ;-)

   New-ton-Chung's first law (NT1): Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel WAI uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.

   New-ton-Chung's second law(NT2): Lex II: Mutationem WAI proportionalem esse vi motrici impressae et fieri secundum lineam rectam qua vis illa imprimitur.
          * The rate of change of WAI of a body is equal to the resultant force acting on the body and is in the same direction.

   New-ton-Chung's fourth law(NT4):Lex IV: Actioni contrariam semper et aequalem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones is se mutuo semper esse aequales et in partes contrarias dirigi.
      * All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

============================================================================
   H : eeeeeeeee, those are Newton's LAW !!!!! in disguise !!!!!

   MC: Modififed, Well I have enough fun tonight .... let me briefly sweeten this posting before I end it, that is , if the 4T start getting interesting.... otherwise it's bitterness.

   MC: These is the advices for T owers ... those who still love the SIR (Self Induced Relativistic)
============================================================================
   When whatever get to an observer from orth-angle to your Local Invisible direction (Lid), they are 'light' , the Local Time Bubble (LTB) is the 3 T world orthro to Lid .... isn't that weird ? every 30 minute, tell you self "think in term of T not D !"  

   When your WAI is low, you really have a bad time, the universe would look bigger, your gravitation influence deminished, you will be left behind.

   When P is being sucked in/out from you, orthrogoanl to your lid, you get a funny feeling of de/accleration, and indeed , that's the same E-stein famous 'aging of twin' , and freq change of clock under gravity or acceleration comes from. an example: earth rotation around the sun, you get that same orthogonal 'force' on your Lid, so human is living on top in Chung's Universe... you know what I mean....

   I said Gravitation, didn't I, look at the coupling factor, call it Generalized G if you like it that way.

   Twist a 'particle' P in 4T, 2 axis at a time, you see the CPT .... can't you ? or twist youself instead.
, that also mean, due to the ( NT3 ... conservation of WAI under no external forces ...draft#2) anti-matter is nothing but matter on the other side of eaches' light mirror ... that light mirror, is the LTB that follow you.... imagine everyone is a small 3T capsule floating in the 4J chung's world.

   Don't be mistaken, your may not going anywhere in J frame if you are moving in circle.

   Super high Energy "Gama ray" ... why not .... does object moving in the any direction with a much higher P forbidden ? I didn't!

   Universe is macro(ly) uniform in all direction we look .... heat equilibium is a good way to see it, it's not colapsed .... not yet.

   Matter/ Energy that you can't see .... now you know, they are not dark.

   Why ain't we see elementary particle of all weight, well, in short, you bunch of human in the closely lineup 3T worlds, only elementary Ps or P segregations, that move in-sync along can coexist and form stable matters, and visible to you guys, other's must 'decay' , flash in or out.

   Can black hole evaporate, sure.

   Now you can understand how these object called tychron moving from place to place in the Object Universe (OU), someone may like to called them , ha ha, faster than light, or how come there's interaction of objects far far apart in universe.

   Is my universe curved, have more dimension ?..... NO I AM THE CENTER OF UNIVERSE !!! J Frame is final.
   Can your world be 4 D and reformulated to it? ........... it's an interesting thought...no more question , no, no more .......

=============================================================================
   H: WHERE's potential Energy, WHAT about repulsion force, HOW about charges, I am not done yet !!!
=============================================================================
   OK ok, Potential, well, String people, take note, I have a few new idea for you.... I am waiting, I need help.
   Repulsion can be constructed naturally by exchange of P, antigravity is not a dream, we go thru that everyday, it's a "matter" of P flow , get it ?

   Charges ... maybe some other time, look at the puzzle above, and it equations (hahah), but first of all, get use to the T world ..... I have met some green human ..... that is, they turn green after they get to the T concept ..... creation of charges, fine atomic structure, quarks .... funny things, future, future.

==============================================================================
   For those that hold on to 3D 1T ... have "a" good time, it's a very good theory, my sincere word, E-stein was a great man, I am glad that he provide his shoulder for all.
==============================================================================
John Tsang ... my split personality, want to saya few words , he wants to say...
==============================================================================
JohnTsang:
   My Special thanks to Newton, who's shoulder I am using .... unfortunately he's not standing.
   My audiences, could be my only audiences, Jerry, Alex .... and Ed, send me a copy of your spooky thoery.
   My friend, a physic major, Cadia Chan, who offer questions postively, listen with great interest but end up... "I have to think, it's too much for me".
   My younger brother Math Prof Don, who laughed at me so hard ...will anybody believe time is basic ? you change your story of time from time to time .... amused me to no end.
   My elder brother Doc Tsang, who said .... Of course, TIME, how come nobody said it before you do ? ......... it's more than that, there's a light barrier !
   My present girl friend, Chem Teacher Silvan ... I don't know what you are talking about, but you must be right .... ha ha ha, just the kind of girl I like.

   My EX, and my previous Employers ... and myself, who gave me TIME to think..... HA HA

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

Offline johntsang

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #23 on: 06/02/2006 03:08:20 »

Thanks for your tolerancy so far, there's lot of typo and mistakes even to myself .... my apology.

For one, G * (Multiply of ((P/s)) equation can and should be rewrite to better reflect the nature of Gravitation , the equal sign should not be there.

But getting to far seems not necessary and confusing to the basic concept ... which, could be another cold fusion !

If these make sense, and actually arouse enough interest, I am surely avialable.

Sincerely
John Tsang
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: EM and gravity
« Reply #23 on: 06/02/2006 03:08:20 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length