The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Would equilibrium negate gravity.  (Read 12565 times)

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #25 on: 23/02/2015 23:37:44 »

So what? I explained to you that in a homogeneous spacetime, i.e. one without spacetime curvature, there can still be a gravitational field. A uniform gravitational field, i.e. a gravitational field with zero spacetime curvature, the space is homogeneous. However there's a gravitational field present. This is a well known fact. Perhaps that's why you don't know it, i.e. because it's so well known. Lol!
Agreed Pete.................It is astounding that anyone could deny such an obvious fact. Like the old saying; "Where there is smoke, there is fire." Same with mass and gravity. "Where there is mass, there is a gravitational field." Even though that mass may be represented as an homogeneous space/time field of mass and energy, gravity will always be present.
In the case I was thinking of the spacetime was flat everywhere and thus no mass present anywhere. That's how the space is homogeneous. However if one changes their frame of reference to one that is uniformly accelerating then in that frame there's a uniform gravitational field which was "produced" merely by changing frames of reference.
« Last Edit: 25/02/2015 21:10:04 by evan_au »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #26 on: 24/02/2015 00:18:06 »

So what? I explained to you that in a homogeneous spacetime, i.e. one without spacetime curvature, there can still be a gravitational field. A uniform gravitational field, i.e. a gravitational field with zero spacetime curvature, the space is homogeneous. However there's a gravitational field present. This is a well known fact. Perhaps that's why you don't know it, i.e. because it's so well known. Lol!
Agreed Pete.................It is astounding that anyone could deny such an obvious fact. Like the old saying; "Where there is smoke, there is fire." Same with mass and gravity. "Where there is mass, there is a gravitational field." Even though that mass may be represented as an homogeneous space/time field of mass and energy, gravity will always be present.
In the case I was thinking of the spacetime was flat everywhere and thus no mass present anywhere. That's how the space is homogeneous. However if one changes their frame of reference to one that is uniformly accelerating then in that frame there's a uniform gravitational field which was "produced" merely by changing frames of reference.
OK..........It appears that I was unaware of how the word "homogeneous" was being used here. My understanding is lacking many times because I'm not always acquainted with current terminology. At any rate, your example about changes in frames is certainly a good one. Any uniform acceleration will translate into a gravitational field.
« Last Edit: 25/02/2015 21:10:59 by evan_au »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #27 on: 24/02/2015 18:08:17 »
"I was thinking that there couldn't in reality ever be a perfectly uniform density without absolute zero motion. Absolute zero motion is not possible in practice."

Let me guess Jeffrey :)

That's about HUP, isn't it? (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) ?

Whether gravity is measurable or not, it would still exist as a property, backtracking this universe we live in into another configuration. Unless we jump into a configuration where gravity is non existent. Keep on thinking.
==

Eh, Jeffrey, that last should not be taken as a reprimand. I mean it.
« Last Edit: 24/02/2015 18:09:58 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #28 on: 24/02/2015 18:22:50 »
Let me now argue against it, and for it.
If HUP defines a universe, Planck scale too should exist as a limit.

If HUP and Planck scale are wrong, no motion exist.
=

And yes, that is now, and here.
Doing so we change the stipulations of the game into one where you have to prove a universe consisting of motion, from one where it doesn't exist.
==

the main point is that life is a mystery, so is a universe :)
Let's get as far as we can explaining it.
==


Look at it this way, assume a static universe. Does it need HUP to represent what we observe?
Why?

And what about Planck scales?
Why do scaling exist?
« Last Edit: 24/02/2015 18:42:01 by yor_on »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #29 on: 24/02/2015 20:43:49 »
Quote from: yor_on
If HUP defines a universe, ...
That is incorrect. Where did you get that idea from?

If HUP and Planck scale are wrong, no motion exist.
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #30 on: 25/02/2015 12:15:31 »
...As I said, you made the false statement If space is homogeneous, there is no gravity. which makes you wrong.
I'm not wrong.

In the case I was thinking of the spacetime was flat everywhere and thus no mass present anywhere. That's how the space is homogeneous.
Whereupon there is no gravity. So I'm right.

However if one changes their frame of reference to one that is uniformly accelerating then in that frame there's a uniform gravitational field which was "produced" merely by changing frames of reference.
The word "produced" has to be in quotes because one is merely emulating gravity. Objects appear to fall down within your spaceship, but objects outside don't fall towards your spaceship. You haven't really produced a gravitational field. You're just accelerating through homogeneous space, and it isn't the same as standing on a planet in inhomogeneous space. Einstein referred to the latter as a gravitational field of quite special form, but we would nowadays call it a true gravitational field, or just a gravitational field. Nobody would say a rocket creates a gravitational field. See this quote by Synge:

"I have never been able to understand this principle…Does it mean that the effects of a gravitational field are indistinguishable from the effects of an observer’s acceleration? If so, it is false. In Einstein’s theory, either there is a gravitational field or there is none, according as the Riemann tensor does not or does vanish. This is an absolute property; it has nothing to do with any observers world line … The Principle of Equivalence performed the essential office of midwife at the birth of general relativity, but, as Einstein remarked, the infant would never have gone beyond its long clothes had it not been for Minkowski’s concept [of space-time geometry]. I suggest that the midwife be buried with appropriate honours and the facts of absolute space-time faced."

You refer to it in http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044.

Quote from: Ethos_
Agreed Pete.................It is astounding that anyone could deny such an obvious fact. Like the old saying; "Where there is smoke, there is fire." Same with mass and gravity. "Where there is mass, there is a gravitational field." Even though that mass may be represented as an homogeneous space/time field of mass and energy, gravity will always be present.
I'm afraid it isn't true. Gravity is not present if energy is homogeneous. For example, see the plot of gravitational potential on Wikipedia. At the bottom of the "upturned hat" there's a small region where there is no spacetime tilt and so no gravity. If you were in a void at the centre of a spherical body, you don't fall down. In similar vein if you're midway between two co-orbiting stars, you don't fall towards either of them.
« Last Edit: 25/02/2015 12:17:28 by JohnDuffield »
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #31 on: 25/02/2015 12:49:32 »
Another situation where there was no gravity was in the early universe. It was very small and very dense, but it didn't collapse into a black hole. Instead it expanded. That's because the spatial energy density was homogeneous, and therefore there was no gravitational field. Again, see Einstein's Leyden Address where he said "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn). A gravitational field is a place where space is inhomogeneous. Where space is homogeneous, there is no gravitational field.
« Last Edit: 25/02/2015 21:15:25 by evan_au »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #32 on: 25/02/2015 13:41:54 »
Another situation where there was no gravity was in the early universe. It was very small and very dense, but it didn't collapse into a black hole. Instead it expanded. That's because the spatial energy density was homogeneous, and therefore there was no gravitational field. Again, see Einstein's Leyden Address where he said "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn). A gravitational field is a place where space is inhomogeneous. Where space is homogeneous, there is no gravitational field.

In the cavity at the centre of a mass the space will be homogeneous at an infinitesimally small point in spacetime. How does that help John? Everywhere away from this point GRAVITY DOES NOT CANCEL.
« Last Edit: 25/02/2015 21:16:36 by evan_au »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #33 on: 25/02/2015 14:17:19 »
Another situation where there was no gravity was in the early universe. It was very small and very dense, but it didn't collapse into a black hole. Instead it expanded. That's because the spatial energy density was homogeneous, and therefore there was no gravitational field.
I disagree.

Much of cosmological physics of the early universe is about the incredibly strong gravitational forces of the early universe because of the immense energy density. Homogeneity has nothing to do with this, it merely shapes the form of the gravitational field. The universe did not collapse because it had, as an initial condition as far as we can tell, a rate of expansion that far outpaced the force of gravity. Gravity slowed this rate of expansion immensely.

Quote
Again, see Einstein's Leyden Address where he said "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn). A gravitational field is a place where space is inhomogeneous. Where space is homogeneous, there is no gravitational field.
I see this repeated again and again, crying that people are ignoring Einstein, when he has been shown on many occasions that Einstein himself used a homogeneous cosmological model, one with gravity. (The last time he asked for citations, was given many citations and then he complained that he got such a reference.)

These are JohnDuffield's personal views (as expressed in the book he sells).
« Last Edit: 25/02/2015 21:20:37 by evan_au »
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #34 on: 25/02/2015 14:47:32 »
I disagree.
The FLRW metric " starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space". Einstein said a gravitational field is a place where space is neither homogeneous nor isotropic. So there's no overall gravitational field in the early universe. It's really simple.

Much of cosmological physics of the early universe is about the incredibly strong gravitational forces of the early universe because of the immense energy density.
Well I'm sorry, but that's wrong. You must surely know that gravitational force is the first derivative of gravitational potential? If the gravitational potential is all the same because space is homogeneous, there is no gravitational force. This is basic stuff PhysBang.

Homogeneity has nothing to do with this, it merely shapes the form of the gravitational field.
Not so. Go and read what Einstein said. A gravitational field is a place where space is inhomogeneous.

The universe did not collapse because it had, as an initial condition as far as we can tell, a rate of expansion that far outpaced the force of gravity. Gravity slowed this rate of expansion immensely.
No it didn't. Gravity alters the motion of space and matter through space. It doesn't suck space in. We do not live in some Chicken-Little world wherein the Earth's gravity is making the sky fall in.

The last time he asked for citations, was given many citations and then he complained that he got such a reference.
You haven't given any citations.
« Last Edit: 25/02/2015 21:25:38 by evan_au »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #35 on: 25/02/2015 15:31:15 »
The LFRW metric " starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy of space". Einstein said a gravitational field is a place where space is neither homogeneous nor isotropic. So there's no overall gravitational field in the early universe. It's really simple.
Yes, so simple that every physicist missed that there is no gravity in the very models they use to approximate the gravity of the universe.

There are hundreds of observational papers that relate observations to the LFRW metric.

Of course, this is not likely be the case when you make these claims about Einstein, since we know that you have had the opportunity to review Einstein's own homogeneous space models.

Heck, here's another citation where Einstein uses a homogeneous space for you to deny: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1932PNAS...18..213E
Quote
Much of cosmological physics of the early universe is about the incredibly strong gravitational forces of the early universe because of the immense energy density.
Well I'm sorry, but that's wrong. You must surely know that gravitational force is the first derivative of gravitational potential? If the gravitational potential is all the same because space is homogeneous, there is no gravitational force. This is basic stuff PhysBang.
Really? Then, please, show us the equations that establish this. I am sure that your Nobel prize will come soon after you show that the 2011 Nobel prize was given in error, since the recipients of that prize all use the LFRW model. You can find it all over their work.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/press.html

Quote
Homogeneity has nothing to do with this, it merely shapes the form of the gravitational field.
Not so. Go and read what Einstein said. A gravitational field is homogeneous space.
Yes, in one, and only one source, Einstein says something like that. But in all the science he did, he did nothing like that.

Can you show us how to do a gravity problem using inhomogeneous space? I know that the existing science can land objects on distant bodies.
Quote
You haven't given any citations.
See: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=54281.msg450815#msg450815
« Last Edit: 25/02/2015 21:31:39 by evan_au »
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #36 on: 25/02/2015 16:21:28 »
Yes, so simple that every physicist missed that there is no gravity in the very models they use to approximate the gravity of the universe.
The fact remains that Einstein described a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space, and the FLRW metric starts with the assumption that space is homogeneous. 

By the way it's the FLRW metric, I made a typo, and have now corrected it.

...that physicists know that the LFRW metric doesn't work and they are merely keeping up appearances...
No I don't. But I will say that there are dark-matter particle physicists who are deliberately trying to present their work as "the only game in town", even if that means censoring Einstein.   

Heck, here's another citation where Einstein uses a homogeneous space for you to deny: http://www.pnas.org/content/18/3/213.full.pdf+html
There's no mention of homogeneous.

please, show us the equations that establish this. I am sure that your Nobel prize will come soon after you show that the 2011 Nobel prize was given in error, since the recipients of that prize all use the LFRW model. You can find it all over their work.
I can't show you any equations that "establish this". But I can show you what Einstein said. What's the problem?

Yes, in one, and only one source, Einstein says something like that. But in all the science he did, he did nothing like that.
Yes he did. I recommend you search the Einstein digital archive on homogeneity. Do not be tempted to dismiss what Einstein actually said in favour of vague references do not support your argument.

Can you show us how to do a gravity problem using inhomogeneous space? I know that the existing science can land objects on distant bodies; you have a lot of talk and obvious falsehoods, but nothing that anyone can use to do physics.
You do it the way you do it now. See http://iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/25/5/014. Inhomogeneous space is the physical reality that underlies curved spacetime. If you plot the inhomogeneity, it's curved. What you think of as curved spacetime is describing the state of inhomogeneous space. That's what Einstein said. Stop doubting it.   

Quote
You haven't given any citations. .
And no, you haven't given any citations. I have. I've given you references and I've quoted what Einstein said. Your "citations" are vague.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=54281.msg450815#msg450815
That's a link to a thread about ether. It demonstrates nothing. It's just another vague citation. 
« Last Edit: 25/02/2015 21:37:53 by evan_au »
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #37 on: 25/02/2015 17:05:00 »
The fact remains that Einstein described a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space, and the FLRW metric starts with the assumption that space is homogeneous. 
The facts are 1) Einstein said something like, "space is inhomogeneous" in one public talk, 2) Einstein referred to spacetime when making his claim more specific, 3) Einstein used homogeneous space in his models outlining the behavior of gravity on a cosmological scale, 3) you refuse to acknowledge anything that Einstein ever wrote about cosmology, 4) you appear to have no physics to support your claim, just one quotation from Einstein taken out of context.

Quote
there are dark-matter particle physicists who are deliberately trying to present their work as "the only game in town",
If you have an alternative model, then let us see it and your predictions.

 
Quote
even if that means censoring Einstein.   
The only person censoring Einstein here is you: you do not want to allow the scientific content of Einstein's work to enter this discussion, only the cherry-picked sentences that you have chosen.
Quote
Heck, here's another citation where Einstein uses a homogeneous space for you to deny: http://www.pnas.org/content/18/3/213.full.pdf+html
There's no mention of homogeneous.
No, that word does not appear there. However, even those who do not recognize the FLRW metric at the bottom of the first page can read the first sentence of the paper, "In a recent note in the Gottinger Nachrichten, Dr. O. Heckmann has pointed out that the non-static solutions of the field equations of the general theory of relativity with constant density do not necessarily imply a positive curvature of three-dimensional space, but that this curvature may also be negative or zero." (Emphasis added.) They can then go on to read the rest of the paper.
Quote
please, show us the equations that establish this. I am sure that your Nobel prize will come soon after you show that the 2011 Nobel prize was given in error, since the recipients of that prize all use the LFRW model. You can find it all over their work.
I can't show you any equations that "establish this". But I can show you what Einstein said. What's the problem?
The problem is that you are directly contradicting scientific claims that have been established with a great deal of empirical evidence, and that your only support is one sentence from one public lecture from a man who explicitly engaged in the scientific activity that you deny is possible.
Quote
Yes, in one, and only one source, Einstein says something like that. But in all the science he did, he did nothing like that.
Yes he did. I recommend you search the Einstein digital archive on homogeneity. Do not be tempted to dismiss what Einstein actually said in favour of vague references do not support your argument.
You produced a vague search. The results that appear to be on topic do not support your position. Indeed, if we were going to abandon looking at Einstein's physics (e.g., the document I provided above where Einstein literally uses the FLRW metric), and do your kind of textual analysis, we would be forced to accept that your citation is an error and that someone wrote down, "inhomogeneous space," when Einstein actually said, "homogeneous space."

I find it hard to believe that you actually read the citations that you provide.
Quote
Can you show us how to do a gravity problem using inhomogeneous space? I know that the existing science can land objects on distant bodies; you have a lot of talk and obvious falsehoods, but nothing that anyone can use to do physics.
You do it the way you do it now.
We do not do it that way now.

You have accused all physicists of ignoring Einstein. This means that they are not actually using "inhomogeneous space" now to do physics and you know this.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either the way people do physics now is how Einstein would do it or not.

Quote
See http://iopscience.iop.org/0256-307X/25/5/014. Inhomogeneous space is the physical reality that underlies curved spacetime. If you plot the inhomogeneity, it's curved. What you think of as curved spacetime is describing the state of inhomogeneous space. That's what Einstein said. Stop doubting it. 
Ah, you have a paper by some Chinese scientists, that is not cited by others, that reproduces one, and only one, physical phenomena associated with gravity with "inhomogeneous space".  Can you use their mathematics to calculate the trajectory of any physical object? If you are unable to do this, why should we believe your textual analysis in the place of physics? As you demonstrated above with your own "homogeneity" search, the evidence is that Einstein believed that space is homogenous. Your kind of textual analysis should say that this obscure paper is incorrect.
Quote
you haven't given any citations. I have. I've given you references and I've quoted what Einstein said.
You provided two quotations. Just two. And then you claimed that people were ignoring Einstein when they used the same science that Einstein did in his scientific work.
Quote
Your "citations" are vague.
Really? A citation to one of Einstein's papers where he does nothing but discuss a homogeneous solution in GR is vague but a link to a word search is not vague?

Quote
See:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=54281.msg450815#msg450815

That's a link to a thread about ether. It demonstrates nothing. It's just another vague citation.
It's another link to you being provided with citations that you then comment on but essentially ignore. This should be good evidence to you that you may be on the wrong track with your reasoning.
« Last Edit: 25/02/2015 21:49:04 by evan_au »
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #38 on: 25/02/2015 18:59:48 »
One of the problems with picking isolated quotes from Einstein is that, as Hans Ohanian, "Einstein's Mistakes", clearly shows, Einstein made a lot of errors, notwithstanding the fact that he often reached correct conclusions in spite of them. Einstein's work has to be viewed in broader perspective.
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #39 on: 25/02/2015 19:40:18 »
One of the problems with picking isolated quotes from Einstein is that, as Hans Ohanian, "Einstein's Mistakes", clearly shows, Einstein made a lot of errors, notwithstanding the fact that he often reached correct conclusions in spite of them. Einstein's work has to be viewed in broader perspective.
Nobody's perfect Bill, and IMHO Einstein did make some mistakes. Cosmology seemed to be a bit of an issue, that's where he made his "greatest blunder". But I think he got things right when it comes to gravity. And that if you find something Einstein said in say 1916 or 1920, then if it doesn't square with what something somebody else says, it's something you should look into. The reason why light curves is a great example. You typically read that "light curves because spacetime is curved", but actually, Einstein never said that. Pete's essay http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044 addresses this. It's well worth reading:

"There exists some confusion, as evidenced in the literature, regarding the nature of the gravitational field in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. It is argued here the this confusion is a result of a change in interpretation of the gravitational field. Einstein identified the existence of gravity with the inertial motion of accelerating bodies (i.e. bodies in free-fall) whereas contemporary physicists identify the existence of gravity with space-time curvature (i.e. tidal forces). The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with".     
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #40 on: 26/02/2015 17:19:04 »
Heh, if you look at HUP it defines a place where the probability of motion always exist, as 'fluctuations'. If you use a zero temperature then it is argued that due to HUP no such thing is reach able. Now the next question might be what a temperature is thought to exist by. Well, as far as I know those fluctuations imply a motion of sorts, maybe another argument for something setting a limit to me, not allowing me to 'scale away' the idea of a 'motion'? What I meant by the last statement was this Pete .That if we assume HUP to be wrong, and as it includes other, for me connected entities, as me using Plank scale for defining some 'discrete limit' to for example a 'motion', then 'no motion' could be a possibility, but first if those two are proven incorrect.

It depends on how you define that 'limit of Planck scale' though, as if one Planck length in one Plank time is something static, or if it too can be described as a motion. I think it is about motion then too, but I haven't always thought that way. It's more or less a thought game, but interesting to me. In a way it becomes a 'grain of time', as it is the definition of lights propagation in one Planck time, and I get two choices here, either this 'grain' exist in a 'locally measured flat space' (very theoretically now, impossible to test) or it also exist in some 'global representation' of a universe, making it a very flat common universe, scaling it down. the last one is a 'discrete universe' in the way we normally think about it I guess. The first is a strictly local definition of what you would 'measure'. It can't be anything else than thought games, as there is no way to measure at that scale that I know of. Although, any which way I define it, there should be something complementary to it, as I think not using the arrow we define.

One more thing, it seems also as having the ability to reduce geometry to 'properties', as in the example of infinitely splitting a circle into smaller and smaller chunks of length, each one of those becoming 'straighter and straighter', reducing the circle we saw into a property belonging to each of those 'straight bits'. And it also has to do with the question of if there is a discreteness, or not? If there is, can I still define it (the original circle) as becoming a property of this 'straight line' I 'measure' it to be? It's interesting.

I can see one possible way around it, but it's weird. That would be if everything was fractal in some mathematical manner, then it should keep its geometry unchanged. But I can't make that one work for me :) And one last crazy thought. This 'jitteryness' we define to down under, could that also be described as a limit for a local arrow? Because that's what I would like it to be :) What happens as you reach a scale where the arrow loses its consistency? Thinking of it, defining a size to the universe is to my eyes a meaningless occupation, defining it through scales though, that's what I call meaningful. That should make me a novelty, astronomically speaking :)

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae380.cfm
« Last Edit: 26/02/2015 18:56:21 by yor_on »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #41 on: 26/02/2015 17:23:12 »
Quote from: Bill S
... as Hans Ohanian, "Einstein's Mistakes", clearly shows, Einstein made a lot of errors, ...
That's quite a misleading statement, Bill. Everyone makes mistakes. If any one persons mistakes were listed out then there'd be a long list of them. Einstein didn't make more or less mistake than anybody else. That book angered a lot of Einstein historians for that reason.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #42 on: 26/02/2015 18:19:31 »
Einstein was in terms of probability, rather improbable, I would say :) some of the stuff he gets credit for was also 'shared' in the motto of others too thinking in similar terms. But he made outstanding work, both in his own mind-concepts, relativity, explaining Brownian motion, lights duality, etc, as in being one of the founders of modern quantum mechanics, although one main reason for the last was as much due to him thinking up new obstacles to disprove it (as entanglements).
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2773
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #43 on: 26/02/2015 18:51:37 »
Quote from: yor_on
... although one main reason for the last was as much due to him thinking up new obstacles to disprove it (as entanglements).
I disagree. He's the one who explained the photoelectric effect by quantizing light by postulating that it consisted of quanta.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #44 on: 26/02/2015 19:07:47 »
Yes, I stand corrected Pete. Quanta is indeed what QM is about. The thing is, the more we admit the pure awesomeness of his ideas, the worse it will sound to those not enjoying this company. And somehow that population has grown, as a guess a result from his dissatisfaction with the premises of 'spooky action at a distance', as well as the idea of probabilities meaning something in its own, as a set of rules defining a universe. But he was the sole best thinker I've read, and seen discussed, all the same.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Would equilibrium negate gravity.
« Reply #44 on: 26/02/2015 19:07:47 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums