Total energy released by an atom bomb mainly depends on:
01 Internal energy
02 Gravity in a particular place.
Suppose if we detonate the same atom bomb on Moon:
01 Internal energy is same.
02 Gravity is just 1/6th only
Since gravity is weak, curvature of space time by the closed volume is also weak. “eddies” into space time slows down and it spreads up to limited area only.
Suppose if the same atomic bomb is detonated in space, outside Earth’s climate: Here there is sufficient energy but it is not present with any force i.e., free state and thus even though there is inward as well outward thrust explosion is limited.
Newton viewed space as absolute.
Gravity is the force which is making Earth to spin on its axis.
Any explosion mainly depends on the pressure or force exerted by space time.
Elementary particle released from the atom must meet its counterpart, which is possible in a gravity field only.
In a empty space time, there are no particles in the open area and thus no explosion at all.
Friends, it is not criticizing Newton or Einstein.
Total energy released by an atom bomb mainly depends on:
01 Internal energy
02 Gravity in a particular place.
Suppose if we detonate the same atom bomb on Moon:
01 Internal energy is same.
02 Gravity is just 1/6th only
Since gravity is weak, curvature of space time by the closed volume is also weak. “eddies” into space time slows down and it spreads up to limited area only.
Suppose if the same atomic bomb is detonated in space, outside Earth’s climate: Here there is sufficient energy but it is not present with any force i.e., free state and thus even though there is inward as well outward thrust explosion is limited.
We've been over this in a previous thread. Gravity has nothing to do with how powerful a nuclear reaction is.
@pasala You type a lot. Copious paragraphs of garbled nonsense. Doesn't it get tiring?It appears "Text books" are your vein, blood everything.
Being a science enthusiast is not about finding the one thing that all the scientists overlooked and being a hero. It is about listening, learning and knowing when you are wrong.
If you actually applied your energies to learning, then you might actually understand some of the unsolved mysteries of science, instead of just making them up.
“Gravitation is not an attractive force between masses, but a pressure force exerted by spacetime on closed volumes that tends to bring them closer to each other”.
“It is true that all elementary particles pushes their surroundings and produces convex curvature. If we replace two or more closed volumes, pressure against them increases and the same was experimentally proved”.
When an atom is detonated, do this pressure force exerted by space time is absent. It is true that nuclear force is strong and there is no doubt about that.
We are studying ‘Gravity’ and ‘nuclear force’ as two different subjects.
It is true that each and every closed volume curves the spacetime.
Basic thing is can we ignore this pressure force exerted by spacetime in nuclear explosion.
Here science is 'hero' and we are all players.
Yours
Psreddy
Of course not , gravity is the weaker nuclear force emitted , the proton and electrons bond forming a convergence of opposites by the strong nuclear force , as a result creating a third weaker convergence force , gravity .
If we replace two or more closed volumes, pressure against them increases and the same was experimentally proved
Of course not , gravity is the weaker nuclear force emitted , the proton and electrons bond forming a convergence of opposites by the strong nuclear force , as a result creating a third weaker convergence force , gravity .
That's not how it works
Of course not , gravity is the weaker nuclear force emitted , the proton and electrons bond forming a convergence of opposites by the strong nuclear force , as a result creating a third weaker convergence force , gravity .
That's not how that works.If we replace two or more closed volumes, pressure against them increases and the same was experimentally proved
By what experiment?
You are incorrect , that is exactly how it works .
Please try to acquire the knowledge of recent developments.
You are incorrect , that is exactly how it works .
Electrons don't even interact via the strong nuclear force. The bond between a proton and electron in an atom is mediated by the electromagnetic force. Also, mass is not correlated to either of the nuclear forces, so you can't say that gravity is somehow caused by the nuclear forces.
According to who ?
You mean it doesn't mention this in any of the text books?
The universe is not an electrical universe , it is an atomic energy universe with atomic matter /particles and atomic fields .
Electricity is a product , it is not something that exists fundamentally .According to who ?
According to existing scientific evidence. Electrons are leptons, and as Britannica says, leptons "are not affected by the strong force" : https://www.britannica.com/science/lepton . Unlike protons and neutrons, they do not bind together because they do not have the strong nuclear force.You mean it doesn't mention this in any of the text books?
Doesn't mention what? The stuff you made up? No, it doesn't.The universe is not an electrical universe , it is an atomic energy universe with atomic matter /particles and atomic fields .
It has all of those things. You're not denying the existing of electricity, are you?
Electricity is a product , it is not something that exists fundamentally .
The strong nuclear force between protons and electrons is the opposites of polarity .
An electron is not attracted to another electron and a proton is not attracted to another proton , the are relative massless and have no strong nuclear force in consideration of the relativity of likewise polarity .
The strong nuclear force only applies when two opposite polarity particles are involved .
However , when two opposite polarity particles combine to form a stable particle , the convergence of the two individual , opposite polarity particles , forms a new combined force of the two individual forces ,a third force namely gravity .
Although the combining of an electron and a proton cancel out charge signs , that does not automatically mean that the attractive force is cancelled , it simply means the summation of attractive force is weakened .
Electricity is a product , it is not something that exists fundamentally .
The strong nuclear force between protons and electrons is the opposites of polarity .
An electron is not attracted to another electron and a proton is not attracted to another proton , the are relative massless and have no strong nuclear force in consideration of the relativity of likewise polarity .
The strong nuclear force only applies when two opposite polarity particles are involved .
However , when two opposite polarity particles combine to form a stable particle , the convergence of the two individual , opposite polarity particles , forms a new combined force of the two individual forces ,a third force namely gravity .
Although the combining of an electron and a proton cancel out charge signs , that does not automatically mean that the attractive force is cancelled , it simply means the summation of attractive force is weakened .
I'm starting to suspect that you are Thebox...
No , I don't think the Universe is an enclosed system , what gave that impression ?Nothing gave the impression that you think the universe is a closed system (BTW, it is) .
Hmmm , who are you exactly ?No , I don't think the Universe is an enclosed system , what gave that impression ?Nothing gave the impression that you think the universe is a closed system (BTW, it is) .
But the stuff you post gives the impression you are either TheBox or a similar troll
if you have no science to discuss , I'm not interested .You have made it clear that you are either unwilling or unable to discuss science.
You've made two posts towards me in which neither have been science .if you have no science to discuss , I'm not interested .You have made it clear that you are either unwilling or unable to discuss science.
Electricity is a product , it is not something that exists fundamentally .Is unscientific nonsense.
The strong nuclear force between protons and electrons is the opposites of polarity .
However, despite the fact that the calculus is quite simple, Modern Physics does not propose a rational explanation of this strange phenomenon.
If the sphere disappears suddenly by a thought experiment, the depression will make eddies which have energy (E = hν). Converting a mass to energy follows the same principle. A closed volume disappears, and is transformed into an open volume. This produces "eddies" in spacetime, which are gamma rays.
1) It is completely empty.
2) Particles move from one place to other with maximum speed.
3) Particles never stay at any place.
* Conversion of total mass to energy is wrong.
* Thought experiment is incorrect.
These are all effects of Gravity only.
“It is true that all elementary particles pushes their surroundings and produces convex curvature. If we replace two or more closed volumes, pressure against them increases and the same was experimentally proved”.
E = mc2 is a part of Special Relativity. However, despite the fact that the calculus is quite simple, Modern Physics does not propose a rational explanation of this strange phenomenon.The Spacetime Model demonstrates that the principle of converting mass to energy is very simple. This principle is shown by the following example.
• Part A
An empty sphere is immerged in a container filled with water. The surface of water is quiet.
• Part B
If the sphere disappears suddenly by a thought experiment, the depression will make eddies which have energy (E = hν). Converting a mass to energy follows the same principle. A closed volume disappears, and is transformed into an open volume. This produces "eddies" in spacetime, which are gamma rays.
Ok, let us discuss Gravity:
What is moving at the speed of light.
Why speed of light C2 is used and how it works.
How potential energy is converted into so much of kinetic energy.
What exactly is gaining Kinetic energy. Whether it is the atoms or the energy released therefrom.
E = mc2 is a part of Special Relativity. However, despite the fact that the calculus is quite simple, Modern Physics does not propose a rational explanation of this strange phenomenon.The Spacetime Model demonstrates that the principle of converting mass to energy is very simple. This principle is shown by the following example.
• Part A
An empty sphere is immerged in a container filled with water. The surface of water is quiet.
• Part B
If the sphere disappears suddenly by a thought experiment, the depression will make eddies which have energy (E = hν). Converting a mass to energy follows the same principle. A closed volume disappears, and is transformed into an open volume. This produces "eddies" in spacetime, which are gamma rays.
Ok, let us discuss Gravity:
No.
You can't just post gibberish and then say "OK, let's move to something else".
You need to explain the evidence behind your ideas.
Question: is the question mark key on your keyboard broken?Thank you. But nothing new.What is moving at the speed of light.QuoteWhy speed of light C2 is used and how it works.
Nothing is necessarily moving at the speed of light. It is that the derivation of the equation depends upon the fact that the mass of an object changes as it nears the speed of light: http://www.emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Derive.htm#.XT3Pm2hKjrcQuoteHow potential energy is converted into so much of kinetic energy.
That depends upon the specific scenario. The conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy depends upon the action of one of the four fundamental forces. In the case of an unstable nucleus splitting into two smaller nuclei, the electrical repulsion between the nuclei is what converts the potential energy into kinetic energy.QuoteWhat exactly is gaining Kinetic energy. Whether it is the atoms or the energy released therefrom.
The kinetic energy is gained by whatever the reaction products are. If it is a uranium nucleus undergoing fission, then the kinetic energy is gained by the resulting nuclei and neutrons produced.
I don't think it is correct to use that word. It is collected from research papers submitted to a famous university on Space time.Cite the paper that says this
A closed volume disappears, and is transformed into an open volume. This produces "eddies" in spacetime, which are gamma rays.
Actually there is no difference in between these three forces.Yes there is.
2) Electromagnetic charge arises only when you charge a particular cable.
This, in a nutshell, then, is the General Theory of Relativity, and its central premise is that the curvature of space-time is directly determined by the distribution of matter and energy contained within it. What complicates things, however, is that the distribution of matter and energy is in turn governed by the curvature of space, leading to a feedback loop and a lot of very complex mathematics. Thus, the presence of mass/energy determines the geometry of space, and the geometry of space determines the motion of mass/energy
Suppose if it is empty no curvature at all.
It pushes the existing energy leading to eddies in the space time.
In the Outer planets region, energy is weak and thus no rocky planets can survive.
Oh, sorry it is an incorrect word used by me.In the Outer planets region, energy is weak and thus no rocky planets can survive.
What? Do they explode out there or something?
Oh, sorry it is an incorrect word used by me.
As we move away from Sun, energy weakens. Curvature of space time mainly depends on the distribution of mass/energy in the open area.Mr Kryptid
When an asteroid enters our solar system, it all depends on the matter contained therein. First of all we have to remember that there is no gravity here. Energy in the space moves towards the asteroid and curves and try to throw it into inertial position. Here in the outer planets region, energy present in the layers is weak and thus mass effect.
It is true that each and every closed volume curves the space time. If the asteroid is gaseous form, mass effect is limited. Though energy is weak, it is sufficient to cause and threw it into inertial position.
If the asteroid is rocky type, since mass effect is limited it crosses outer region and enters inner region.
However in the case of gaseous planets, each particle can curve the space time and thus they can exist.
And why do you say that the gas giant can do this whereas rocky planets cannot?
Gravitation is not an attractive force between masses, but a pressure force exerted by spacetime on closed volumes that tends to bring them closer to each other.Well, it is true that curvature is different to Gravity. I could not present the above idea in a better way. I will try later.
Ok, there is another thinking or possibility that these elementary particles are building blocks and are responsible for Curvature of space time which is not at all correct.
In case if it is a gas giant, it is spread in a wide area and more particles are exposed to energy, resulting in curvature. Though energy is weak particles gets into its grip.
that itself is the answerIn case if it is a gas giant, it is spread in a wide area and more particles are exposed to energy, resulting in curvature. Though energy is weak particles gets into its grip.
So what you're saying is that it depends on the density of the planet, is that right?
that itself is the answer
Ok suppose that it is Earth’s matter then Moon is also having same matter only. Why only Earth’s matter is warping and why not Moon.
Both Earth and Moon are spinning against their axis with almost similar speed.
In case, let us assume that if cylindrical carnival “that accelerated motion” warps the space time.
If matter warps the space time, whatever size it may, it must warp similarly.
Quote from: pasala on Today at 14:46:44I thought that you are following me.
that itself is the answer
Then what do you propose is the relationship between density and distance from the Sun? Eris is much further from the Sun than Neptune is (67.74 AU vs. 30.11 AU), yet it has a much higher density (2.52 g/cc vs.1.638 g/cc).
Ok suppose that it is Earth’s matter then Moon is also having same matter only. Why only Earth’s matter is warping and why not Moon.I had used words probable or almost but not exact
The Moon is warping space-time.
Quote from: pasala on Today at 15:35:08
Both Earth and Moon are spinning against their axis with almost similar speed.
No they aren't. The Earth spins much faster than the Moon does.
Quote from: pasala on Today at 15:35:08
In case, let us assume that if cylindrical carnival “that accelerated motion” warps the space time.
The spin of an object can warp space-time (this is called frame dragging), but a non-spinning object will warp space-time as well.
Quote from: pasala on Today at 15:35:08
If matter warps the space time, whatever size it may, it must warp similarly.
What does that mean, exactly?
Quote from: pasala on 02/10/2019 15:35:08"In space, it is possible to create "artificial gravity" by spinning your spacecraft or space station. When the station spins, centrifugal force acts to pull the inhabitants to the outside. This process could be used to simulate gravity. It wouldn't be exactly the same, though, because large Coriolis forces would also be present, and things would fall in curves instead of straight lines".
In case, let us assume that if cylindrical carnival “that accelerated motion” warps the space time.
The spin of an object can warp space-time (this is called frame dragging), but a non-spinning object will warp space-time as well.
In a closed room, you are not being exposed to space time directly.
"According to Einstein, your weight on earth is due to the fact that your body is traveling through warped spacetime”Einstein did not say that. Nothing travels through spacetime (which is more something Minkowski said). An object has a worldline through spacetime, and weight is an artifact of a worldline that does not follow a geodesic, resulting in a locally curved (accelerated) line.
If gravity is a force, that what sort of energy is released when gravitational potential decreases?
The EM force, the weak and strong nuclear forces all give off photons when potential lowers.
so what is the type of photon given off by lowering gravitational potential energy?
If there are no photons, it is really a force?
"Matter tells space how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move"."According to Einstein, your weight on earth is due to the fact that your body is traveling through warped spacetime”Einstein did not say that. Nothing travels through spacetime (which is more something Minkowski said). An object has a worldline through spacetime, and weight is an artifact of a worldline that does not follow a geodesic, resulting in a locally curved (accelerated) line.
Friends,
It is true that science developed a lot. We know several things and we are able to carry out research in space and we are sending rockets to other planets.
I think there is every need to revise the present existing theories. I don't think it is so good, going by ants perception, trampoline analogy. Ok, they may be correct, let us discuss to have "What exactly is gravity".
Yours
Psreddy
However, the time variable in the Newtonian aspect speeds up instead of slows. This is evident in matter vibrations and transitional states and the frequency of energy output. In the sun, for example, the core pressure causes nuclear fusion and transitions, with the release of high frequency energy. This result is the time element in the Newtonian and Einstein each go in opposite directions.Are seriously proposing that a hot and dense object will experience time more rapidly than a cool less dense object?
Actually, i had attempted to reconcile both the theories, but failed.Friends,
It is true that science developed a lot. We know several things and we are able to carry out research in space and we are sending rockets to other planets.
I think there is every need to revise the present existing theories. I don't think it is so good, going by ants perception, trampoline analogy. Ok, they may be correct, let us discuss to have "What exactly is gravity".
Yours
Psreddy
Gravity appears to be governed by two sets of principles, at the same time; Einstein and Newtonian. In terms of Einstein and General Relativity, as mass accumulates, space-time curves and contracts. Time slows and distances contract in space-time. The black hole, for example, has distance contracted to a point and time has essentially stopped.
In terms of Newtonian, gravity induces weight and pressure. As the weight and pressures increase distances between materials get smaller, in parallel to GR. However, the time variable in the Newtonian aspect speeds up instead of slows. This is evident in matter vibrations and transitional states and the frequency of energy output. In the sun, for example, the core pressure causes nuclear fusion and transitions, with the release of high frequency energy. This result is the time element in the Newtonian and Einstein each go in opposite directions.
There are two distinct time aspects with respect to gravity. This makes sense since gravity is a force, while acceleration due to the gravitational force, has the units of d/t/t or one part distance and two parts time.
In terms of an application, a black hole will have space-time contracted to near a point-instant. This is the Einstein leg. The Newtonian leg is connected to the compressed matter and energy transitions close to zero time or extreme frequency In other words, the black hole should be internally generating exotic particle states similar to early universe. This is unexplored by science, since they do not seem to understand that gravity displays two opposite time vectors.
Gravity appears to be governed by two sets of principles, at the same time; Einstein and Newtonian. In terms of Einstein and General Relativity, as mass accumulates, space-time curves and contracts. Time slows and distances contract in space-time. The black hole, for example, has distance contracted to a point and time has essentially stopped.
In terms of Newtonian, gravity induces weight and pressure. As the weight and pressures increase distances between materials get smaller, in parallel to GR. However, the time variable in the Newtonian aspect speeds up instead of slows. This is evident in matter vibrations and transitional states and the frequency of energy output. In the sun, for example, the core pressure causes nuclear fusion and transitions, with the release of high frequency energy. This result is the time element in the Newtonian and Einstein each go in opposite directions.
GG: The atom bomb on the moon is interesting. It seems to me that the lower gravitational field and the lack of an atmosphere will produce less harm locally to the moon. More of the energy will radiate outward into space.
No, potential energy stored within atom bomb never changes, whether it is on Earth or Moon or in space in between. Total output mainly depends on energy density in the space time of the bomb. As the density increases curvature increases, small amount of energy freed, pushes and charges the outside energy, resulting raise of radiation.GG: The atom bomb on the moon is interesting. It seems to me that the lower gravitational field and the lack of an atmosphere will produce less harm locally to the moon. More of the energy will radiate outward into space.
That doesn't mean that the explosion contains less energy (which appears to be what Pasala is arguing).
No, potential energy stored within atom bomb never changes, whether it is on Earth or Moon or in space in between. Total output mainly depends on energy density in the space time of the bomb. As the density increases curvature increases, small amount of energy freed, pushes and charges the outside energy, resulting raise of radiation.
At present we are of the opinion that total energy is coming from the atom bomb only.
If it is true, where and how huge energy is stored in a fissile material. If the total energy is from the fissile material, how it is stable in normal condition.
Ok, before going deep, let me tell you one simple incident that happened in my high school studies. One day teacher performed a simple experiment. He lighted a candle, closed it by a glass and when the candle put off, he started explaining how things need oxygen to burn. Immediately, I questioned, why don’t you think that the glass is “obstructing” something. Nobody listened to me.
But, at present we are of the opinion that there is no potential energy or energy density on Earth.
If the same bomb is detonated on Moon. Here Gravity or curvature or energy density is weak. Though same amount of energy freed, energy density in the space time is weak. Weak charge is passed on to the surface. Since Gravity or curvature of space time is 1/6th, naturally yield also.
Pasala saidGG
But, why, the above rule is not applicable to Earth. It is true that Earth is rotating 460 meters per second, which is several times greater than Gravity. Still why curvature is intact.
GG: I do not understand what you are trying to prove by this statement. Gravity is 9.806 meters per second squared which is an acceleration and you are comparing it to a surface velocity. If you take the velocity squared and divide it b y the radius of the earth you would get a tiny number. Gravity is much stronger than the outward force that could tear the earth apart.
But, why, the above rule is not applicable to Earth.
It is true that Earth is rotating 460 meters per second, which is several times greater than Gravity.
Please try to understand.
When the sky driver, escapes due to acceleration, think of Earth, how Gravity hooked Earth at that velocity.
But, why, the above rule is not applicable to Earth."When Gravity or curvature itself is in question" how it holds Earth. Further it is not comparison to centrifugal force to gravity but "Gravity to acceleration".
It is. Gravity is what holds the Earth together.
Oh, Kryptid.When the sky driver, escapes due to acceleration, think of Earth, how Gravity hooked Earth at that velocity.
Was that a question? If so, there needs to be a question mark at the end. Even if it is a question, I don't understand what you're asking. I can't make sense of that sentence.
I had proposed 8 to 9 layersOn what basis?
Sure, I will try in the later session.I had proposed 8 to 9 layersOn what basis?
"When Gravity or curvature itself is in question" how it holds Earth.
Further it is not comparison to centrifugal force to gravity but "Gravity to acceleration".
When he dives, due to acceleration, curvature or Gravity disappears.
he will definitely transform away from Gravity.
As it accelerates, gravity weakens and acceleration eases.
When Earth is at inertial position gravity hooked it.
Ok, how Gravity is intact at that velocity.
When he dives, due to acceleration, curvature or Gravity disappears.Yes, of course space time is not empty. But curvature against the person, who dives is weakens. So, naturally, he will temporarily transform away from gravity. When the carnival is at inertial position, there is strong curvature or gravity against it. As it accelerates curvature or gravity against it weakens.
No it doesn't. The space that he's falling through is still curved. If the gravity disappeared, he would move with a constant velocity instead of accelerating.
Quote from: pasala on Today at 11:59:20
What is "transform away from gravity" supposed to mean?
Yes, of course space time is not empty. But curvature against the person, who dives is weakens. So, naturally, he will temporarily transform away from gravity. When the carnival is at inertial position, there is strong curvature or gravity against it. As it accelerates curvature or gravity against it weakens.
Ok, now Earth started spinning against its axis, how the curvature or gravity is still exists.
Mr KryptidWhen the sky driver, escapes due to acceleration, think of Earth, how Gravity hooked Earth at that velocity.
Was that a question? If so, there needs to be a question mark at the end. Even if it is a question, I don't understand what you're asking. I can't make sense of that sentence.
An English what?Mr KryptidWhen the sky driver, escapes due to acceleration, think of Earth, how Gravity hooked Earth at that velocity.
Was that a question? If so, there needs to be a question mark at the end. Even if it is a question, I don't understand what you're asking. I can't make sense of that sentence.
Are you an English .........?
Mr Kryptid
Are you an English .........?
“As we have seen, matter does not simply pull on other matter across empty space, as Newton had imagined. Rather matter distorts space-time and it is this distorted space-time that in turn affects other matter. Objects (including planets, like the Earth, for instance) fly freely under their own inertia through warped space-time, following curved paths because this is the shortest possible path (or geodesic) in warped space-time”.
This may describe one aspect of gravity; bending of space-time, but it ignores the other side of the coin, which is the pressure exerted by gravity via mass.Gravity is the bending of spacetime, period. Gravity certainly can give rise to pressure, but nobody ignores that.
Gravity, as an acceleration, has the units of d/t/t, or gravity is two parts time and one part distance, or space-time plus time, with the second time connected to the Newtonian pressure.That is gibberish. Acceleration is dv/dt.
In terms of space-time and gravity, distance and time both contract the most in the core. When it comes to pressure and matter, distance contracts, but time; frequency, get faster, based on the phases induced by the pressure.This is a startling misunderstanding of some basic concepts. If matter is heated then the atoms move faster the black body radiation frequency increases but time is unaffected! Frequency is not time, does that really need to be pointed out?
GR tells us something about gravity with respect to the curvature of space-time, but this is not the whole story. Gravity is not a one trick pony. There is also a Newtonian pressureNewtonian pressure or as the rest of us refer to it, pressure is a consequence of GR (gravity).
The black hole has space-time contracted to nearly a point and time essentially stops. The pressures in the black hole will be extremely high, since so much matter is compacted into such a small space. This will generate exotic phases of matter with extreme frequency, which is the opposite direction of time in space-time.Do you have any evidence for this flight of fancy?
Energy emissions would red shift, if they could leave the black hole. This slows the frequency; slows time, even though time, via space-time, expands or speed up outsider the black hole. It appears gravity help matter-energy and space-time normalize, via time.Just some word salad to wrap it all up...
If the elevator is accelerating at 9.8m/s/s then the force we would be exerting on the floor would be twice our normal weightYeah, you are 100% correct. If you are in a car, accelerating forward or applies brake, it is the problem. Ones the ride is smooth, no such effects.
03 If there were relative motion or velocity, the light beam would move in a straight line, but would be displaced from going directly across.
To be fair, it depends on whether or not the light source and elevator are in relative motion with respect to each other.03 If there were relative motion or velocity, the light beam would move in a straight line, but would be displaced from going directly across.
No it wouldn't. It would behave identically to 01 (being at rest).
To be fair, it depends on whether or not the light source and elevator are in relative motion with respect to each other.
When the elevator accelerates forward:To be fair, it depends on whether or not the light source and elevator are in relative motion with respect to each other.03 If there were relative motion or velocity, the light beam would move in a straight line, but would be displaced from going directly across.
No it wouldn't. It would behave identically to 01 (being at rest).
03 Elevator while moving forward, lifts the gravity.
04 Gravity start collecting at the bottom.
Ok, let us revisit what Galileo wrote about the relative motion of objects. He wrote this in 1632 even before Newton published his famous work.03 Elevator while moving forward, lifts the gravity.
04 Gravity start collecting at the bottom.
That doesn't make sense.
That didn't explain it. Elevators don't lift gravity nor does gravity "collect at the bottom".
That didn't explain it. Elevators don't lift gravity nor does gravity "collect at the bottom".Mr kryptid
This is not done by me, but Einstein himself.
When the elevator accelerates forward, it is the Gravity moving downwards. Gravity while moving downwards, bends the light.
But, why should, or what makes light beam to accelerate downward
If we started with the lowest energy photons, matter and anti-matter pairs will not appear until we reach the highest energy levels. Matter and mass only appear at the celling of energy.From the point of view of nuclear physics, what you are calling the ceiling is pretty nearly the floor.
Gravity is a way for matter to return to the ground state, with the ground state being the speed of light reference at the lowest energy.
It is a big question, why don’t light beam continue its journey and what makes it to be deflected from its original path?
You believe that apple is not coming down but Earth only raising upward.It is a big question, why don’t light beam continue its journey and what makes it to be deflected from its original path?
It isn't being deflected. Your acceleration just makes it look that way.
You believe that apple is not coming down but Earth only raising upward.
Mr X’s weight continues to be 75 kgs on the earth’s surface and also in the elevator.No. His mass remains at 75 kg all the time, but weight is the force he exerts on the floor, which varies as the lift accelerates and decelerates.
well, right or wrong, since we do not completely understand gravity, the only thing that is left to say:
The structure of his text was pretty easy to visualize...
Since we are all emotive beings despise the effort, if we accept that we don't know to state we are right about the "not knowing", even that could, and most certainly is wrong... Still, easy to mind picture that scenario that he described.
well, right or wrong, since we do not completely understand gravity, the only thing that is left to say:
The structure of his text was pretty easy to visualize...
Since we are all emotive beings despise the effort, if we accept that we don't know to state we are right about the "not knowing", even that could, and most certainly is wrong... Still, easy to mind picture that scenario that he described.
Mr Alex,
As rightly accepted by Newton, there is a medium, giving or causing weight on Earth, known as Gravity. It is true that Einstein carried out number of experiments to find out "What exactly this medium is". But, in my opinion, whenever I go by his theory or thought experiments, i feel that it is incomplete and an unfinished agenda.
I am just trying to find out the truth, exploring the different possibilities. I am moving with confidence, but i am not sure, whether i could present it in better way or convince others "what exactly is gravity".
Thank you
Psreddy
you're suggesting that the medium reads dense matter(earth) as a "hole" on it's fabric, and thus constantly trying to fill it... Electromagnetic forces/atomic forces, fight back, or more likely, use this medium attempt to their own benefit, not being able to collapse, they start to spin, not from themselves as their properties are, but their motion a physical representation of this medium?
Something like that?
The material heat and speeding up of vibrational time causes phase changes that increase complexity.Word salad.
Gravity acts on mass, to lower the space that is occupied by the mass. This is true for both non relativistic, as well as relativistic space. The apple falls to the earth to further compact the mass, reducing the total space requirement, While enough collection of mass compaction will case space to compact even further due to relativity.Effects of Gravity, OK.
This contraction of space, due to mass and gravity, heads local space in the direction of the speed of light reference. In the speed of light reference, space becomes a point. Gravity moves mass in the general direction of the speed of light reference.This is because the speed of light reference is the ground state of the universe; lowest potential.
Another observation with gravity is although non relativistic space; higher density, and relativistic space both compact; space-time contraction, the time aspect of space-time behaves differently when acted upon by gravity.
01 It is true that there is Gravity inside the elevator and Mr.'X's weight is 75 kgs.This "inside"/ "outside" restrictions is what do not match the picture here...
What I mean if there is an inside and or outside something, and that truth is unrelated with gravity.
Gravity could be derivative from geometrical shapes, as if matter tied together "offers" a "minimal" margin, volume for "medium", only that on this case, medium would be the effect caused due density...
"matter tells space time how to curve and curved space time tells matter how move"
This is a startling misunderstanding of some basic concepts. If matter is heated then the atoms move faster the black body radiation frequency increases but time is unaffected! Frequency is not time, does that really need to be pointed out?
Gravity acts on mass, to lower the space that is occupied by the mass. This is true for both non relativistic, as well as relativistic space. The apple falls to the earth to further compact the mass, reducing the total space requirement, While enough collection of mass compaction will case space to compact even further due to relativity.Effects of Gravity, OK.
This contraction of space, due to mass and gravity, heads local space in the direction of the speed of light reference. In the speed of light reference, space becomes a point. Gravity moves mass in the general direction of the speed of light reference.This is because the speed of light reference is the ground state of the universe; lowest potential.
Another observation with gravity is although non relativistic space; higher density, and relativistic space both compact; space-time contraction, the time aspect of space-time behaves differently when acted upon by gravity.
But, "what exactly is gravity".
At the speed of light, reference becomes a point-instant.and
Without anti-matter to help matter lower potential in a direct way; annihilation, matter has to lower potential, from the ceiling, in a piecemeal fashion.
Frequency tells us the state of matter independent of what any reference thinks it sees.Bollocks.
any chances that what we "see" as light speed, or speed of light to be no "speed" at all?It is true that we are taking speed of light as constant. We also know that Gravity slows down movement of light and bends light. So, speed of light is different from gravity to non-gravity field. But it is surprise to me:
What if by geometry, photon could be, avoiding time influence, and the traveling thing is the particle photon taking a ride on a geometrical wave of probability?
Could be that space is at C while light is just taking a ride along with it?
Or there's anything that undoubtedly, states: Light speed is a speed because...?
Undoubtedly, it is clear that Gravity is not due to masses
At times, surprisingly, you will be asking, something basic, yet it carries meaning.Undoubtedly, it is clear that Gravity is not due to masses
Not clear at all, actually.
It is a field present on the surfaces of the masses, definitely, not all the masses.
What is the basic difference in between, space time curved by Sun and other planets.
Is it mass alone, not the curved space time.What is the basic difference in between, space time curved by Sun and other planets.
The Sun has far, far more mass than the planets. That's why the planets orbit it and not the other way around.
Is it mass alone, not the curved space time.
01 It is true that you are in a gravity field.
No. It's just that you can't distinguish acceleration in an elevator from being stationary on a planet's surface. They are not literally 100% the same thing. In order to feel "gravity" in an elevator in free space, you have to be accelerating. You don't have to move at all to feel gravity on the surface of a planet.I think you are in out of mood. I am talking about free fall in a gravity field and the free fall in space. But you are talking about acceleration and gravity.
The curvature of space is directly proportional to the mass.Here, basic point is "what exactly this curvature is". It is true that mass and the space fabric is different. Mass curves or distorts the space fabric. What this space fabric consists of. Basic difference in between 2d space time to 3d space time. Without this information, talking, anything about mass curving or distorting space time is immaterial.
I think you are in out of mood.
I am talking about free fall in a gravity field and the free fall in space. But you are talking about acceleration and gravity.
Let us Imagine that you are in a closed elevator and it is accelerating downwards.
01 It is true that you are in a gravity field.
02 You are moving along with the elevator, in other words you are in a free fall.
03 Though you are in a strong gravity field, you are escaping gravity.
04 Here, all other objects moving along with you are also in free fall.
What this space fabric consists of.
What this space fabric consists of.
One doesn't have to consider space-time as being made of anything other than space and time in order for relativity to work.
What this space fabric consists of.
One doesn't have to consider space-time as being made of anything other than space and time in order for relativity to work.
When we talk of anything, it must be specific or otherwise the theory is incomplete or insufficient.
"Matter tells space time how to curve and curved space time tells how to move". Matter tells what to curve or how this curved space time interacts with matter and tells it to move.
In general relativity, gravity is described in terms of the curvature of space time. For example, imagine a sheet of rubber with grid lines like graph paper, suspended horizontally so that it forms a flat surface. With no weight on it, the grid has straight lines and right angles, corresponding to the "flat space" of Euclidean geometry.
.
If you place a ball on the surface, the rubber sheet stretches around it. The curvature of the grid increases as it gets closer to the ball. This corresponds to the curvature of space-time near a massive object.
If the bowling ball is placed at the centre of the rubber sheet, it will curve or distort the sheet. If we roll a marble piece in this curved path, it will go round the bowling ball.
This description is ok for non-Euclidean geometry.
Well, it is true that curved space time is nothing but Gravity. We know that Gravity is keeping the planets in orbit around the sun and also is keeping the moon in orbit around Earth. The gravitational pull of the moon pulls the seas towards it, causing the ocean tides. Einstein also proposed number of effects, time dilation, light bending i.e.,
Without complete description of what is working like space fabric, being curved by mass, theory will not go further, ends at the one stage or the other. This is what happening and we are taking Newton’s inverse square law as base.
This is the reason, still “what exactly is gravity” a mysterious one.
Yours
Psreddy
What this space fabric consists of.
One doesn't have to consider space-time as being made of anything other than space and time in order for relativity to work.
When we talk of anything, it must be specific or otherwise the theory is incomplete or insufficient.
"Matter tells space time how to curve and curved space time tells how to move". Matter tells what to curve or how this curved space time interacts with matter and tells it to move.
In general relativity, gravity is described in terms of the curvature of space time. For example, imagine a sheet of rubber with grid lines like graph paper, suspended horizontally so that it forms a flat surface. With no weight on it, the grid has straight lines and right angles, corresponding to the "flat space" of Euclidean geometry.
.
If you place a ball on the surface, the rubber sheet stretches around it. The curvature of the grid increases as it gets closer to the ball. This corresponds to the curvature of space-time near a massive object.
If the bowling ball is placed at the centre of the rubber sheet, it will curve or distort the sheet. If we roll a marble piece in this curved path, it will go round the bowling ball.
This description is ok for non-Euclidean geometry.
Well, it is true that curved space time is nothing but Gravity. We know that Gravity is keeping the planets in orbit around the sun and also is keeping the moon in orbit around Earth. The gravitational pull of the moon pulls the seas towards it, causing the ocean tides. Einstein also proposed number of effects, time dilation, light bending i.e.,
Without complete description of what is working like space fabric, being curved by mass, theory will not go further, ends at the one stage or the other. This is what happening and we are taking Newton’s inverse square law as base.
This is the reason, still “what exactly is gravity” a mysterious one.
Yours
Psreddy
Then why things fall?It is true that apple is falling to the ground. Yes, without saying or knowing the force that is pulling or pushing the apple to the ground, any idea or theory on Gravity is waste or incomplete.
It would also be answered by the same answer that explain, not what gravity is, also not what gravity isn't.
It would be answered by explanation that excludes it's very existence from the board.
It is here that i am struggling hard. As per my knowledge goes, if we place any mass, anywhere in the universe it will curve the space time around it. As long as the mass is not placed, it is a 2d space and when the mass is placed, it is converted to 3d space. How it is possible?.
I mean, if not clear:Einstein has taken us to a different world. It is true, it is a big topic, expansion or contraction of universe. In my view, first we must be in a position to say, what exactly is gravity on Earth. Further, we must have a perfect idea on functioning of our solar system. But, here, un-certainity prevails and for all practical purposes we are taking Newtons inverse square law, which, we know, is incorrect.
"WHAT would be the mathematical/geometrical "possibilities" if universal expansion was to reach the impossible edge of the universe, would it be forced to bend itself by splitting and multiplying volume, rules, wherever, so to "turn around"and reach infinity again?
What Newton thought, time passes at the same rate for all observers is 100% correct and valid.
Ok, Kryptid,What Newton thought, time passes at the same rate for all observers is 100% correct and valid.
That's not what the experimental results say.
can your wrist watch causes gravity to dilate.
Effect on gravitycan your wrist watch causes gravity to dilate.
I can't make sense of this. What does it even mean for gravity to "dilate"?
A watch has a very small mass, so technically it does have an effect on gravity. It's just extremely small.Oh! Kryptid
What Newton thought, time passes at the same rate for all observers is 100% correct and valid.
It is true that strong gravity dilates time.
Time dilation is only mechanical change not a gravitational change.
Mr KryptidWhat Newton thought, time passes at the same rate for all observers is 100% correct and valid.It is true that strong gravity dilates time.
The two above statements contradict each other.Time dilation is only mechanical change not a gravitational change.
No one ever claimed that it was a gravitational change.
It is the rotation and revolution of the planet that decides time
For Newton, day begins with sunrise. But for Einstein day begins with ticking of clock.For both Newton and Einstein the day begins with sunrise. They will both agree with the time of that sunrise as shown by a clock at a particular location. Newton understood clocks, Einstein understood clocks, they would not disagree on any local measurements of time.
It is the rotation and revolution of the planet that decides time, but not your mechanical clocks which have to be set as such.It is easy to confuse time with the means we use to measure its passing. The rotation of the planet is one way to measure the passage of time, clocks are another, oscillations of an atom another. None of these are time itself, just a way of measuring it.
If your watch dilates due to gravity or velocity it is your watch problem. We have to work on how to correct or overcome this problem.Not so.
If your watch dilates in strong gravity field what events you can count.You can count any events you want, but if 2 people are in different gravitational potential they will disagree on the time between those events as measured on their own local clocks.
Kryptid, who can say or view it.It is the rotation and revolution of the planet that decides time
I'm pretty sure that time would still pass just fine if Earth did not exist.
It is your mechanical clocks, invented by you dilates. If your clock is not working at certain places properly, go for correction or develop new one.
Then, please expedite or give reasons there of.It is your mechanical clocks, invented by you dilates. If your clock is not working at certain places properly, go for correction or develop new one.
It's not a mechanical problem.
Then, please expedite or give reasons there of.
In fact as per General relativity, all masses curves the space time around them. But, there is no exact definition or say about this curvature.Einstein gave a very precise definition of this curvature in General Relativity.
We knew that in our solar system, Sun is at the centre and all other planets are rotating and also going round the Sun. As assumed by Newton, there is a force keeping, giving you gravity or weight on Earth is also keeping the planets in their orbit. Curved space time is not giving any independence to planet.Curved space means that a planet takes a geodesic through spacetime, which shows itself as an elliptical path in 3-Dimensional space, as predicted by Newton. Each planet takes an independent elliptical path through space, and any inhabitants on those planets feel the gravitational pull of the planet.
Einstein theories are incomplete and there is every need to improve them.Einstein was well aware that his theory was incomplete - it breaks down near black holes. He spent may years trying to resolve this problem, without success.
In fact as per General relativity, all masses curves the space time around them. But, there is no exact definition or say about this curvature.
Einstein gave a very precise definition of this curvature in General Relativity.
Over the past century, General Relativity has been subjected to a battery of tests of increasing sensitivity and precision. And it it has come through all these tests with full marks. So, as far as we can measure today, Einstein's General Relativity is a very exact definition of the curvature of spacetime
Quote
We knew that in our solar system, Sun is at the centre and all other planets are rotating and also going round the Sun. As assumed by Newton, there is a force keeping, giving you gravity or weight on Earth is also keeping the planets in their orbit. Curved space time is not giving any independence to planet.
Curved space means that a planet takes a geodesic through spacetime, which shows itself as an elliptical path in 3-Dimensional space, as predicted by Newton. Each planet takes an independent elliptical path through space, and any inhabitants on those planets feel the gravitational pull of the planet.
Quote
Einstein theories are incomplete and there is every need to improve them.
Einstein was well aware that his theory was incomplete - it breaks down near black holes. He spent may years trying to resolve this problem, without success.
Basically time is not your watches, it is the rotation and revolution of planets and the movement of stars, at the best what we can count or say.No, time is not the rotation and revolution of planets. It used to be how we measured time, not time itself.
Ok, if it dilates, your age will dilate, isn't it?Basically time is not your watches, it is the rotation and revolution of planets and the movement of stars, at the best what we can count or say.No, time is not the rotation and revolution of planets. It used to be how we measured time, not time itself.
Nowadays our atomic clocks are far more accurate than the planetary movements - which vary.
Please try to to understand the difference between time and the ways we measure time.
Time dilation has nothing to do with the accuracy or functioning of the clocks or watches, it is a fundamental difference in the measurement of time at 2 different locations.
No, time is not the rotation and revolution of planets. It used to be how we measured time, not time itself.Please remember, time and tide will not wait for your ticking of clock.
Ok, if it dilates, your age will dilate, isn't it?
Please remember, time and tide will not wait for your ticking of clock.
QuoteOk, evan_au,
We knew that in our solar system, Sun is at the centre and all other planets are rotating and also going round the Sun. As assumed by Newton, there is a force keeping, giving you gravity or weight on Earth is also keeping the planets in their orbit. Curved space time is not giving any independence to planet.
Curved space means that a planet takes a geodesic through spacetime, which shows itself as an elliptical path in 3-Dimensional space, as predicted by Newton. Each planet takes an independent elliptical path through space, and any inhabitants on those planets feel the gravitational pull of the planet.
- Einstein's General Relativity works exceptionally well in our Solar System.
QuoteIt is surprise to see:
Einstein theories are incomplete and there is every need to improve them.
Einstein was well aware that his theory was incomplete - it breaks down near black holes. He spent may years trying to resolve this problem, without success.
- Later, Steven Hawking made some progress towards resolving this conflict Relativity and Quantum theory, but it still breaks down near black holes.
- Other Quantum Gravity theorists are continuing this work
light coming from other solar systems is not taking several curves or moving along with these paths.Light coming from distant galaxies is often bent by the presence of massive galaxies (or galaxy clusters) between the distant galaxy and us. This can produce rings, arcs ar multiple images.
Sun is controlling other planets.It is true that the Sun's gravitational field affects the motion of the Earth, drawing it into an ellipse (as observed by Kepler, and explained by Newton)
Einstein theories breaks not at the black holes but at the space time itselfThe Solar system exists in spacetime.
Quote from: pasalaI am talking about curved paths and you are talking about light bending at galaxies.
light coming from other solar systems is not taking several curves or moving along with these paths.
Light coming from distant galaxies is often bent by the presence of massive galaxies (or galaxy clusters) between the distant galaxy and us. This can produce rings, arcs ar multiple images
QuoteOk, if it is not, tell me, what this 3 dimensional space time consists of. For that "what exactly this space fabric is" and how masses curves the space time around them.
Einstein theories breaks not at the black holes but at the space time itself
The Solar system exists in spacetime.
- Einstein's theories have proven amazingly accurate within the Solar System.
- Therefore, Einstein's theories do not break down in spacetime
- But Newton's theory does break down at the level of the Solar System (because it does not take spacetime into account).
Quote from: pasalaMr evan_au
light coming from other solar systems is not taking several curves or moving along with these paths.
Light coming from distant galaxies is often bent by the presence of massive galaxies (or galaxy clusters) between the distant galaxy and us. This can produce rings, arcs ar multiple images.
Newton’s definition meshes with our commonsense impression of time — that it passes at the same rate for everyone.
Whatever assumed by Newton is 100% correct.
Here also, whatever assumed by Einstein is 100% correct and it is also tested and proved.
01 In a strong gravity field time dilates.
02 Time also dilates due to acceleration.
No doubt about those things and they are valid.
giving judgement without evidence, isn't it?Newton’s definition meshes with our commonsense impression of time — that it passes at the same rate for everyone.
Whatever assumed by Newton is 100% correct.Here also, whatever assumed by Einstein is 100% correct and it is also tested and proved.
01 In a strong gravity field time dilates.
02 Time also dilates due to acceleration.
No doubt about those things and they are valid.
You are contradicting yourself. Time can't pass at the same rate for everyone and also not pass at the same rate for everyone.
Time can't pass at the same rate for everyone and also not pass at the same rate for everyone.Isn't that the essence of relativistic time dilatation? All observers see their own clocks keeping perfect time, but each sees the moving clock or the clock in a different gravitational field as going faster or slower.
giving judgement without evidence, isn't it?
Isn't that the essence of relativistic time dilatation?
Newton’s definition meshes with our commonsense impression of time — that it passes at the same rate for everyone.To date, pretty much all humans have lived:
I am talking about curved paths and you are talking about light bending at galaxies.When light is bent around galaxies, it follows a curved path.
tell me... how masses curves the space time around them.I don't have to - because Einstein already did it.
Any thing everywhereQuoteOk, if it is not, tell me, what this 3 dimensional space time consists of. For that "what exactly this space fabric is" and how masses curves the space time around them.
Einstein theories breaks not at the black holes but at the space time itself
The Solar system exists in spacetime.
- Einstein's theories have proven amazingly accurate within the Solar System.
- Therefore, Einstein's theories do not break down in spacetime
- But Newton's theory does break down at the level of the Solar System (because it does not take spacetime into account).
QuoteOk, if it is not, tell me, what this 3 dimensional space time
Einstein theories breaks not at the black holes but at the space time itself
The Solar system exists in spacetime.
- Einstein's theories have proven amazingly accurate within the Solar System.
- Therefore, Einstein's theories do not break down in spacetime
- But Newton's theory does break down at the level of the Solar System (because it does not take spacetime into account).
Suppose if Sun stops rotating what happens to other planets.
Suppose if Sun stops rotating what happens to other planets.
There would be practically no effect. The planets would keep right on orbiting like usual.
Friends,
It is true that science developed a lot. We know several things and we are able to carry out research in space and we are sending rockets to other planets.
I think there is every need to revise the present existing theories. I don't think it is so good, going by ants perception, trampoline analogy. Ok, they may be correct, let us discuss to have "What exactly is gravity".
Yours
Psreddy
The speed of light referenceYou keep trying to hijack threads with this idea; but you refuse to explain what it means.
Suppose if Sun stops rotating what happens to other planets?
....how this curved space time or gravity tells or influences or drags mass.
Quote from: Pasala"Frame Dragging":
Suppose if Sun stops rotating what happens to other planets?
....how this curved space time or gravity tells or influences or drags mass.
It is true that there is an effect called "Frame Dragging", predicted by Einstein's relativity.
Spacetime is not curved by gravitons. There is a base space that is flat and continuous and made of the interval: [0,1). Then gravitons come and make images of points that are displaced relative to these intervals. This way we can also account for Electromagnetism curving spacetime, as well as the other forces.Gravitons is only an imagination, that may exists or not. It appears that you are having more computer knowledge. When it is space or nothing what makes or how or where from gravitons joins electromagnetism to curve space time.
We postulate that space emerges from a semi-continuous flat base-space. This base-space is constructed from [0,1) pieces as follows:
Using the Superimpose points operator: 𝐒 and the superimpose left out points operator: 𝐓 we construct images of the base space points and postulate that it is the relevant field that produces these images. For example, the graviton field produces images (usually called spacetime). We choose our origin at a left out point then:
gravity-spacetime =
T_(n=-∞)^(^∞)(2n+α^0_(2n),2n+β^(^0)_(2n))S_(n=-∞)^(^∞)(2n+1+α^(^1)_(2n+1),2n+1+β^(^1)_(2n+1))×
T_(n=-∞)^(^∞)(2n+α^2_(2n),2n+β^(^2)_(2n))S_(n=-∞)^(^∞)(2n+1+α^(^3)_(2n+1),2n+1+β^(^3)_(2n+1))×
T_(n=-∞)^(^∞)(2n+α^4_(2n),2n+β^(^4)_(2n))S_(n=-∞)^(^∞)(2n+1+α^(^5)_(2n+1),2n+1+β^(^5)_(2n+1))×
T_(n=-∞)^(^∞)(2n+α^6_(2n),2n+β^(^6)_(2n))S_(n=-∞)^(^∞)(2n+1+α^(^7)_(2n+1),2n+1+β^(^7)_(2n+1))
where α^(^j)_(^i) and β^(^j)_i are elements of (-∞,∞) and n can be the Planck length. Where 𝑺(n,n) contributes a point at x=n, y=n and T(m,m) contributes a left out point at x=m, y=m.
"In general relativity , a mass’s rotation influences the motion of objects in its neighbourhood. Put simply, the rotating mass “drags along” spacetime in the vicinity".Quote from: PasalaSuppose if Sun stops rotating what happens to other planets?
....how this curved space time or gravity tells or influences or drags mass.
It is true that there is an effect called "Frame Dragging", predicted by Einstein's relativity.
- It is an extremely subtle effect, and was only demonstrated in delicate satellite experiments in the past 10 years - and then only to a fairly rough approximation.
- If the Sun stopped spinning, the frame-dragging effect of the Sun would cease, and this would have a tiny effect on the orbit of Mercury, only observable over centuries.
- It would have almost no effect on the Earth
The Frame Dragging effect is thought to be a significant factor in the relativistic jets produced by supermassive black holes at the center of quasars.
- But the effect is negligible for an object like the Sun.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging
All other planets stops rotating and comes to stationary position.
It's an exceptional one, not normal.All other planets stops rotating and comes to stationary position.
No, not at all. As a matter of fact, we know of a star that has planets rotating in the opposite direction of the star's spin.
Do, any example, where planets rotate when star is at rest or stationary.
why planets are existing or found in solar systems only.
Unless a star such as Sun curves or distorts space time no planet can curve or distort, locally.
Mr Kryptidwhy planets are existing or found in solar systems only.
That's part of what defines a planet. It must be orbiting a star by the current IAU definition. If it's a "rogue planet" that is travelling freely through space, then it technically isn't a planet under the current IAU definition.Unless a star such as Sun curves or distorts space time no planet can curve or distort, locally.
No. The Earth would still have gravity even if the Sun wasn't there.
Quote from: pasala on 07/03/2021 16:34:15
Unless a star such as Sun curves or distorts space time no planet can curve or distort, locally.
No. The Earth would still have gravity even if the Sun wasn't there.
If there is no gravity, all the planets, like apple, will remain then and there.
Ok, Kryptid, you are 100% correct.If there is no gravity, all the planets, like apple, will remain then and there.
Without gravity, there wouldn't be any planets.
The space station is not in earth’s gravitational field.
BasicIsn't everything in everything else's gravity field? Ie to infinity?
@pasala
Hello Sir!
🙏
Why is it that You always Specify the Apple falling onto the Earth?
🤔
Why can it Not be the other way around...that the whole damm planet is rising up to catch the falling Apple?
P.S. - 🍏
@pasala
Hello Sir!
🙏
Why is it that You always Specify the Apple falling onto the Earth?
🤔
Why can it Not be the other way around...that the whole damm planet is rising up to catch the falling Apple?
P.S. - 🍏
Technically, both accelerate towards each other.
Under any theory, acceleration is absolute, as required by conservation of momentum.Why is it that You always Specify the Apple falling onto the Earth?Technically, both accelerate towards each other.
Why can it Not be the other way around...that the whole damm planet is rising up to catch the falling Apple?
So, could you say that whenever you walk through your front-door, into your house. the house and door are accelerating towards you?In this instance, the house accelerating would result in a change of momentum that is not balanced by any equal and opposite change. It violates momentum conservation. No force can account for such acceleration.
Pasala probably broke the keyboard...coz soo much typin could break up the even the best quality keyboard...unless the Gentleman uses a Cell/Mobil phone...possible side effects are sore & fatty fingers...could be referred to as Elephant Syndrome.Mr Zero
🐘
@pasala U aware of Speech to Text Software?
🤭
Yeaaa! Thank me laterz!
P.S. - @Halc reading your posts make Me feel dizzy & tipsy...juzt lyk Beer!
🍺
(U shud prapz add a " intoxicating substance " Warning at the end of ur posts)
🥴
Quote from: Kryptid on Yesterday at 19:39:56That is right. Let us imagine that you are in a elevator and it is accelerating forward. If you let a ball to fall, for the third person, it is not clear whether the bottom of the elevator is raising towards the ball or the ball towards bottom.
Quote from: Zer0 on Yesterday at 18:46:48
Why is it that You always Specify the Apple falling onto the Earth?
Why can it Not be the other way around...that the whole damm planet is rising up to catch the falling Apple?
Technically, both accelerate towards each other.
Under any theory, acceleration is absolute, as required by conservation of momentum.
Under Newtonian physics, both accelerate towards each other, but the apple accelerates much more than does Earth such that the momentum change of each of them is equal and opposite.
Under Einstein's physics, the ground exerts a force on the tree accelerating the tree away from the recently detached apple. The apple doesn't accelerate at all, instead following a geodesic. An accelerometer on the apple would read zero g. The ground immediately under the tree (not the whole Earth) traces a curved path through spacetime due to the compressive net EM force being exerted on it from below. An accelerometer on the ground would measure that one g of proper acceleration.
Gravity is present near to the masses only.
Space in between Earth and Moon is 2d only.What are you talking about?
Ok, let us study it with simple analogy, considering space-time as a rubber sheet that can be deformed: ....It's good that you realize that a rubber sheet is a simple analogy for gravity.
06 Space in between Earth and Moon is 2d only.
Quote from: PasalaOk, let us study it with simple analogy, considering space-time as a rubber sheet that can be deformed: ....- But don't use that simple analogy to make entirely wrong deductions about real gravity.
06 Space in between Earth and Moon is 2d only.
In our spacetime (3D space + time), gravity follows an inverse-square law, which implies that gravity has an infinite range.
- I imagine that in a hypothetical 2D space, the strength of gravity would have an inverse relation with distance (?). This also implies an infinite range (unless you imagine this 2D space to be a finite rubber sheet...).
In my opinion, gravity field on earth is like water in the pond with exact boundaries
In my opinion, gravity field on earth is like water in the pond with exact boundaries
Then your opinion goes against the existing evidence.
It's ok. Whatever i had said is an extension to Galileo's equivalence principle. "If you are in a closed room of a ship, sailing smoothly, one cannot distinguish whether he is in a closed room of a ship or on Earth".In my opinion, gravity field on earth is like water in the pond with exact boundaries
Then your opinion goes against the existing evidence.
In my opinion, gravity field on earth is like water in the pond with exact boundaries and is exerting pressure on all objects.Where are these boundries? Is the boundary a sharp line or does the gravity fade out over some distance? What do you mean gravity exerts pressure?
Similarly, there is a gravity field in the space, without boundaryThe gravity in space is different than gravity on a planet? Where does "space gravity" come from? Why is "space gravity" unbounded but "mass gravity" is bounded?
it is flowing in exact path like water in canal and it is causing "inertia".How does gravity flow? How can "space gravity" flow in an exact path and also be unbounded? Does the "earth gravity" cause inertia just like "space gravity". Inertia is a property of a mass to resist a change in velocity, how does gravity cause inertia?
Ok, origin, have you read my reply dated 14/04/2021. If not please go through it. When it is "inertia", it is not only resistance but also uniform motion.In my opinion, gravity field on earth is like water in the pond with exact boundaries and is exerting pressure on all objects.Where are these boundries? Is the boundary a sharp line or does the gravity fade out over some distance? What do you mean gravity exerts pressure?Similarly, there is a gravity field in the space, without boundaryThe gravity in space is different than gravity on a planet? Where does "space gravity" come from? Why is "space gravity" unbounded but "mass gravity" is bounded?it is flowing in exact path like water in canal and it is causing "inertia".How does gravity flow? How can "space gravity" flow in an exact path and also be unbounded? Does the "earth gravity" cause inertia just like "space gravity". Inertia is a property of a mass to resist a change in velocity, how does gravity cause inertia?
Ok, please tells me, how it differs with existing evidence.
Ok, origin, if you are in a car, accelerating forward, gravity pushes you backward. Here, we have to remember one important point that, your car engine is pulling your car frame only and this frame in turn, moves you and the gravity field within your car. As the frame pushes gravity field, it start concentrating at the end, pushing you backward. As the car attains velocity it once again neutralizes.Silly me, I thought it had something to do with F = ma. Does that mean for a rocket accelerating far from a gravity source an occupant in the rocket would not be pushed back in the seat? Does that also mean that on the moon you would get a different force pushing you back in the seat for the exact same acceleration on earth?
In my opinion, gravity field on earth is like water in the pond with exact boundaries and is exerting pressure on all objects.Where are these boundries? Is the boundary a sharp line or does the gravity fade out over some distance? What do you mean gravity exerts pressure?Similarly, there is a gravity field in the space, without boundaryThe gravity in space is different than gravity on a planet? Where does "space gravity" come from? Why is "space gravity" unbounded but "mass gravity" is bounded?it is flowing in exact path like water in canal and it is causing "inertia".How does gravity flow? How can "space gravity" flow in an exact path and also be unbounded? Does the "earth gravity" cause inertia just like "space gravity". Inertia is a property of a mass to resist a change in velocity, how does gravity cause inertia?
Here, Einstein has a different thinking, "you woke up in a space ship, far away, in deep space, you can not differentiate whether on land or in deep space".Ok, origin, if you are in a car, accelerating forward, gravity pushes you backward. Here, we have to remember one important point that, your car engine is pulling your car frame only and this frame in turn, moves you and the gravity field within your car. As the frame pushes gravity field, it start concentrating at the end, pushing you backward. As the car attains velocity it once again neutralizes.Silly me, I thought it had something to do with F = ma. Does that mean for a rocket accelerating far from a gravity source an occupant in the rocket would not be pushed back in the seat? Does that also mean that on the moon you would get a different force pushing you back in the seat for the exact same acceleration on earth?
It is true that Newtons inverse square law is incorrect
His idea is, the space ship is far away, in deep space, still there is gravity, how?.
Gravity at a particular place mainly depends on the density of the Gravity field and it is no way related to mass.
Chew on that Pasala.jeffreyH,
Oh!, kryptid;It is true that Newtons inverse square law is incorrect
Since when?His idea is, the space ship is far away, in deep space, still there is gravity, how?.
It isn't literally gravity. It's just that the effects of acceleration on a ship are the same as the effects of gravity.Gravity at a particular place mainly depends on the density of the Gravity field and it is no way related to mass.
That is very wrong. Look up the gravitational constant.
Chew on that Pasala.jeffreyH,
I am sure, no body, including me, has any capacity to comment or say on Einstein's effects of gravity.
Gravity inside the cabin of the space ship, which is in deep space, clearly tells us that gravity field can be packed and moved.You do have some interesting ideas. I have to ask this question. If you are in a car and the car accelerates you will be pushed back in your seat, but helium balloons in the car would float to the front of the car. Why do you think that happens?
Ok, for a simple mistake, you need not go lengths. Seeing at 3 different replies, not replies but questionnaire for entrance examination, I had suspected that you did not come for a discussion. Now, by this simple mistake your original came out.Chew on that Pasala.jeffreyH,
I am sure, no body, including me, has any capacity to comment or say on Einstein's effects of gravity.
There are no Einstein effects of gravity, only gravitational effects. You confuse the scientist with the theory. Schoolboy error. It is astonishing what lengths you will go to to embarrass yourself.
See, I am not a researcher, postgraduate, for that not even science graduate. There is no need for me to hide anything, I am a commerce graduate. I am proud to announce that I am a science enthusiast.You are not really a science enthusiast. Someone who is interested in science would learn science. You like to make up things based on a lack of knowledge. If you were really a science enthusiast you would ask questions here to increase your knowledge of science instead of making incorrect conjectures. I think you are a pseudoscience enthusiast.
I don't know whether it is by yourself or somebody else.See, I am not a researcher, postgraduate, for that not even science graduate. There is no need for me to hide anything, I am a commerce graduate. I am proud to announce that I am a science enthusiast.You are not really a science enthusiast. Someone who is interested in science would learn science. You like to make up things based on a lack of knowledge. If you were really a science enthusiast you would ask questions here to increase your knowledge of science instead of making incorrect conjectures. I think you are a pseudoscience enthusiast.
I don't know whether it is by yourself or somebody else.You quoted me, so it is me.
Ok, "Do good and avoid Evil".I will try.
If the owners of the "naked scientists forum" opines that mine ideas are improper then I am ready to quit.Your ideas are in conflict with the mainstream theories which yield results consistent with observation and experiments. So your ideas are incorrect. I don't know why you would quit though, why not ask questions and learn?
Gravity inside the cabin of the space ship, which is in deep space, clearly tells us that gravity field can be packed and moved.You do have some interesting ideas. I have to ask this question. If you are in a car and the car accelerates you will be pushed back in your seat, but helium balloons in the car would float to the front of the car. Why do you think that happens?
Does your question/thought problem refer to the theoretic difference between how Helium behaves generally/gravitationally versus locally/magnetically, after the car movement breaks the local pull of both the air inside the car and the helium?No. I don't even know what you are talking about.
(Of course, standard physics holds that the sole effect after the car starts moving is that the air inside the car pushes the passengers backwards.)Standard physics says no such thing. Standard physics says an accelerating car seat pushes against the passengers.
Does your question/thought problem refer to the theoretic difference between how Helium behaves generally/gravitationally versus locally/magnetically, after the car movement breaks the local pull of both the air inside the car and the helium?No. I don't even know what you are talking about.(Of course, standard physics holds that the sole effect after the car starts moving is that the air inside the car pushes the passengers backwards.)Standard physics says no such thing. Standard physics says an accelerating car seat pushes against the passengers.
What I was talking about was that you posted an observation of "something" interacting with an inertial system (car starting to move), associated with a differential effect on the behavior of two different gases (air and helium). -I was asking if you had a further point to make?The OP feels that gravity gets compressed or something when car accelerates so I wondered what he thought of the helium balloons in a car. We know the balloons move forward when you accelerate a car because the acceleration causes the air pressure to increase in the back of the car.
Ok, "Do good and avoid Evil".It depends what you mean by improper.
If the owners of the "naked scientists forum" opines that mine ideas are improper then I am ready to quit. For next 15 days I am not going to login, by that time any one of them including moderators can give their opinion.
Right, goodbye
Yours
Psreddy
P.S. - @pasalaAll he has to do is listen and learn
Please Do Not Leave.
🙏
Stay back with US... let's Grow up Together.[/color]
All he has to do is listen and learn
In my view, Newton’s inverse square law is not correct.
In my view, Newton’s inverse square law is not correct.An inverse square law is the only way you can get a stable orbit.
As of now, inverse square law is the only way out for us. Einstein's GR is incomplete, he could not say what is curved space time is, what it consists of, how it comes into existence, and how it is responsible for gravity. For that there is no perfect answer for "what exactly is gravity".In my view, Newton’s inverse square law is not correct.An inverse square law is the only way you can get a stable orbit.
So it's pretty clear that any deviations from it must be tiny.
As of now, inverse square law is the only way out for us. Einstein's GR is incomplete, he could not say what is curved space time is, what it consists of, how it comes into existence, and how it is responsible for gravity. For that there is no perfect answer for "what exactly is gravity".In my view, Newton’s inverse square law is not correct.An inverse square law is the only way you can get a stable orbit.
So it's pretty clear that any deviations from it must be tiny.
What I am saying is, as there is no choice we have to go for inverse square law.
If it incorrect then we have a choice, we can go for what is correct.In my view, Newton’s inverse square law is not correct.As of now, inverse square law is the only way out for us.
What I am saying is, as there is no choice we have to go for inverse square law.
Einstein's GR is incomplete, he could not say what is curved space time is, what it consists of, how it comes into existence, and how it is responsible for gravity.Just because you don’t understand what curved space time is and how it is responsible for gravity doesn’t mean others don’t understand it.
Really, I accept that I don't know:If it incorrect then we have a choice, we can go for what is correct.In my view, Newton’s inverse square law is not correct.As of now, inverse square law is the only way out for us.
What I am saying is, as there is no choice we have to go for inverse square law.Einstein's GR is incomplete, he could not say what is curved space time is, what it consists of, how it comes into existence, and how it is responsible for gravity.Just because you don’t understand what curved space time is and how it is responsible for gravity doesn’t mean others don’t understand it.
Rather than reject what you don’t understand you should make an effort to understand it.
It appears, you are doing very good job. Keep it up.As of now, inverse square law is the only way out for us. Einstein's GR is incomplete, he could not say what is curved space time is, what it consists of, how it comes into existence, and how it is responsible for gravity. For that there is no perfect answer for "what exactly is gravity".In my view, Newton’s inverse square law is not correct.An inverse square law is the only way you can get a stable orbit.
So it's pretty clear that any deviations from it must be tiny.
What I am saying is, as there is no choice we have to go for inverse square law.
General relativity has passed every test that has been devised for it. It incorporates the inverse square law. Are you clairvoyant? You seem to be in touch with the ghost of Einstein. Say hi from me and tell him he did a fantastic job.
I am trying very hard to get the information, since it is the base to say, how gravity is keeping the planets in particular place and to maintain perfect line and length.
Here there are several important things to be discussed. As long as the elevator is at rest on the ground, light ray moves out through the other hole. When the elevator accelerates, what makes the light to bend and to accelerate downwards. Here, we should not forget that we are doing all these things in a strong gravity field. As long as the elevator is at rest on the ground, even in strong gravity field, light ray is moving straight.
In fact, for this bending of light we are taking Gravity as reason. So, to bend the light ray, inside the elevator, there must be change in the gravity field. Ok in case if there is no change in gravity field what is bending light?.
Ok, in case of elevator, when it accelerates forward, what is bending light downwards.
I know, that it doesn't have too much with the gravity, but since we're talking about a scenario with the elevator, I wonder what would happen if we would modify it and place the sensor inside the moving elevator, while keeping the source of light in stationary frame. Let's say, that light is being emitted by the stationary source in the moment, when it is at the same level, as the sensor placed inside the elevator moving upwards - will the light reach that sensor or not? If it won't reach it, then the motion of elevator will become absolute/definitive, what will violate the relative nature of relative motion. If it will reach the sensor, then path of light will become curved upwards in the frame of stationary source. Which option is the valid one?Actually, I had taken Einstein's thought experiment and it is not mine. Ok, when the elevator accelerates forward, basic question is what makes the light ray to accelerate downwards. Einstein indirectly conveyed that gravity is bending light. In my view, since it is giving additional weight or pushing you back, it is gravity only. By this we can draw a conclusion that Gravity is a field present on Earth.
Ok, when the elevator accelerates forward, basic question is what makes the light ray to accelerate downwards.
Based on these thought experiments, Einstein deducted that Gravity bends light. Whether it is simple or big, as per Einstein there is bending of light.Ok, when the elevator accelerates forward, basic question is what makes the light ray to accelerate downwards.
The fact that you are accelerating upwards is what makes the light ray look like it is accelerating downwards. It really is just that simple.
When the elevator accelerates forward, frame of the elevator, literally, lifts the gravity field and gravity concentration at the bottom increases.No, the gravity field is not lifted nor does the gravity concentration increase, you can demonstrate that in a rocket where the field strength decreases with height.
So, Finally we can draw a conclusion that Gravity is a field present on Earth.
Let's modify slightly the scenario and place the source of light and a sesnor in a stationary frame (e.g. on the 1st floor), while removing the side walls in that elevator - so that the light will pass through the elevator, which accelerates upwards and reach the stationary sensor on the opposite side:The whole point of Galileo’s ship and Einstein’s elevator experiments is that they are closed systems without information from outside. It doesn’t matter whether the source or sensor are outside, you are using a different reference frame to the elevator.
When the elevator accelerates forward, frame of the elevator, literally, lifts the gravity field and gravity concentration at the bottom increases.
You are continuously saying that there is no gravity or simple inside the elevator. Please remember it is not mine idea, but Einstein thought experiment only. I think you are contradicting Einstein thought experiment.When the elevator accelerates forward, frame of the elevator, literally, lifts the gravity field and gravity concentration at the bottom increases.
There is no gravity in the elevator (at least not beyond the extraordinarily weak field produced by the elevator's mass). You are misunderstanding the equivalence principle.
You are continuously saying that there is no gravity or simple inside the elevator. Please remember it is not mine idea, but Einstein thought experiment only. I think you are contradicting Einstein thought experiment.
but how it bends light, only when the elevator accelerates.
Unfortunately, it is yourself confusing members.When the elevator accelerates forward, frame of the elevator, literally, lifts the gravity field and gravity concentration at the bottom increases.No, the gravity field is not lifted nor does the gravity concentration increase, you can demonstrate that in a rocket where the field strength decreases with height.
So, Finally we can draw a conclusion that Gravity is a field present on Earth.
What you are describing here does not show that a gravity field exists on earth.Let's modify slightly the scenario and place the source of light and a sesnor in a stationary frame (e.g. on the 1st floor), while removing the side walls in that elevator - so that the light will pass through the elevator, which accelerates upwards and reach the stationary sensor on the opposite side:The whole point of Galileo’s ship and Einstein’s elevator experiments is that they are closed systems without information from outside. It doesn’t matter whether the source or sensor are outside, you are using a different reference frame to the elevator.
The elevator needs to be either in a gravitational field and not moving or in no gravitational field and accelerating; in both cases the light beam will bend. Unfortunately, @pasala is mixing the 2 cases and causing himself confusion.
Ok, then how Einstein deducted that Gravity bends light.You are continuously saying that there is no gravity or simple inside the elevator. Please remember it is not mine idea, but Einstein thought experiment only. I think you are contradicting Einstein thought experiment.
No, Einstein did not say that there is gravity inside of an accelerating elevator. What he said is that you can't tell whether the force you feel inside of the elevator is due to it accelerating upwards or from gravity (assuming you have no way to make observations outside of the elevator). He did not say that these two things are identical. Again, you are misunderstanding the equivalence principle.but how it bends light, only when the elevator accelerates.
I already answered that.
Ok, then how Einstein deducted that Gravity bends light.
The whole point of Galileo’s ship and Einstein’s elevator experiments is that they are closed systems without information from outside. It doesn’t matter whether the source or sensor are outside, you are using a different reference frame to the elevator.
The elevator needs to be either in a gravitational field and not moving or in no gravitational field and accelerating; in both cases the light beam will bend. Unfortunately, @pasala is mixing the 2 cases and causing himself confusion.
Thanks! That's what I wanted to hear. I admit, that I might also cause some confusion with my sccenario, as it has more to do with SRT than GRT. What I had in mind is the idea that motion path of light will curve in the stationary frame of light source just due to placing the sensor inside a moving frame (elevator), while curving in the frame of moving elevator only due to placing the sensor in the same frame as the light source. It has more to do with my model of constant c in relative motion than with the subject discussed in this thread, so sorry for causing confusion...I’d prefer not to confuse op further by going through this, but when I’ve finished you will see what an outside observer will see in both situations.
You are proposing that in a gravitational field, if the elevator is at rest then only light beam will bend. If that is true, what is there need for Einstein thought experiments.
Einstein thought experiments propose that if the elevator attains acceleration, equal to acceleration light beam will bend,i think you missed out the words due to gravity so it should read
in case, if it attains velocity, equal to velocity light beam will bend in opposite direction.not so, don’t know where you got that from. Show your source. It has nothing to do with velocity, just acceleration.
Further you have also proposed that in no gravitational field, acceleration bends light. I don't think there is any such proposal by Einstein.Yes, that is the proposal from Einstein.
I think you are equating acceleration to gravity.YES, YES, YES. but not equating as in they are the same thing, but that the effects of both are equivalent.
Ok, if that is true, if a space ship accelerates from Moon or from a space station, do acceleration equates gravity.If you are in a spaceship travelling at constant velocity you will feel weightless. If your pilot then accelerates at 9.8m/s2 then you will feel a force pushing you against the back of your seat equivalent to the force of gravity. That force will be equivalent to your weight on earth. Yes, the acceleration is equivalent to gravity.
Acceleration and gravity are equivalent.There are some differences: acceleration of a frame doesn't curve the space time in that frame - however it curves the worldline of an accelerating object. But it's kinda complicated subject...
It’s not really complicated, but it is why the effects are equivalent rather than acceleration and gravity being equal.Acceleration and gravity are equivalent.There are some differences: acceleration of a frame doesn't curve the space time in that frame - however it curves the worldline of an accelerating object. But it's kinda complicated subject...
I know, that it doesn't have too much with the gravity, but since we're talking about a scenario with the elevator, I wonder what would happen if we would modify it and place the sensor inside the moving elevator, while keeping the source of light in stationary frame. Let's say, that light is being emitted by the stationary source in the moment, when it is at the same level, as the sensor placed inside the elevator moving upwards - will the light reach that sensor or not? If it won't reach it, then the motion of elevator will become absolute/definitive, what will violate the relative nature of relative motion. If it will reach the sensor, then path of light will become curved upwards in the frame of stationary source. Which option is the valid one?Let's, for the moment, exclude the acceleration of the Elevator, and just imagine the path of the light if the Elevator and external light source have a relative motion with respect to each other. Light entering the hole from the source will not hit the sensor opposite the hole. However, you cannot conclude from this that there is absolute motion on the part of the Elevator. This is due the the aberration of light, which is caused by the Relative motion between source and Elevator. It happens exactly the same whether you consider the Elevator moving and the source stationary or the Elevator stationary and the Source moving. Thus it can only tell you that they are moving relative to each other, and not which one is "really" moving.
I know, that it doesn't have too much with the gravity, but since we're talking about a scenario with the elevator, I wonder what would happen if we would modify it and place the sensor inside the moving elevator, while keeping the source of light in stationary frame. Let's say, that light is being emitted by the stationary source in the moment, when it is at the same level, as the sensor placed inside the elevator moving upwards - will the light reach that sensor or not? If it won't reach it, then the motion of elevator will become absolute/definitive, what will violate the relative nature of relative motion. If it will reach the sensor, then path of light will become curved upwards in the frame of stationary source. Which option is the valid one?Let's, for the moment, exclude the acceleration of the Elevator, and just imagine the path of the light if the Elevator and external light source have a relative motion with respect to each other. Light entering the hole from the source will not hit the sensor opposite the hole. However, you cannot conclude from this that there is absolute motion on the part of the Elevator. This is due the the aberration of light, which is caused by the Relative motion between source and Elevator. It happens exactly the same whether you consider the Elevator moving and the source stationary or the Elevator stationary and the Source moving. Thus it can only tell you that they are moving relative to each other, and not which one is "really" moving.
If you add the acceleration of the Elevator back in, it's effect will be compounded on top of the aberration. The light beam's path will still curve( as measured from the Elevator), but the angle at which it initially enters the hole will depend of the relative velocity difference between the Source ( at the moment of emission) and the Elevator( at the moment of entering the hole.)
All the above posts about "What is Gravity", make me wonder whether a similar question could be asked, such as:I think that the main purpose of science is to understand the mechanics of reality in which we exist. It's not that strong force doesn't need to be explained - it's just the science, which is unable to explain it at this time, so there's no other choice than to accept it's existance without understanding it's nature.
What is the "Strong Nuclear Force".
This "force", as far as I understand it, makes protons in the nucleus of an atom gather together. Despite the protons' mutual positive charges. Which ought electrically to repel them from each other, and make them fly apart.
This "Strong " force seems to be accepted as a "Fundamental Force of Nature". Without needing an explanation.
If this is so, can't the "Gravitational" force , which makes atoms gather together, also be accepted as a "Fundamental Force of Nature". Without needing an explanation?
Why can't we treat "Gravity" like the "Strong Force" - ie, as just the way things are in the Universe?
I'm going to add a couple of animations of my own to try and clarify what is going on here:
I have also an issue with the animation from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif)
According to it light behaves just like any other physical object (e.g a bullet) and the perpendicular motion of the light source is being added to the vector of light propagation - so motion of the light beam is a sum of 2 perpendicular vectors. However as I said earlier motion of the light source shouldn't affect the motion path of light in stationary frame.
I
I'm going to add a couple of animations of my own to try and clarify what is going on here:
I have also an issue with the animation from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif)
According to it light behaves just like any other physical object (e.g a bullet) and the perpendicular motion of the light source is being added to the vector of light propagation - so motion of the light beam is a sum of 2 perpendicular vectors. However as I said earlier motion of the light source shouldn't affect the motion path of light in stationary frame.
I
First from the source frame:
abrrtn1.gif (61.86 kB . 576x576 - viewed 10191 times)
The pulse is emitted downward and the observer moves to the right to intercept it. The red line shows the pulse's relationship to the source during its trip.
Now from the observer frame:
abrrtn2.gif (109.42 kB . 576x576 - viewed 10367 times)
Note that in order for things to be physically consistent with the source frame, the pulse must at all times stay on the red line which extends downward from the source just like it did in the Source frame. In other words, the pulse must always be directly below the source.
This, means, the relative to the observer, it follows the Green line. It isn't about the source "adding" any velocity to the pulse, it is about keeping the two frames physically consistent.*
*One caveat to this: in these animations I did not try to account for the fact that the light pulse must travel at c as measured from either frame. In reality, the pulse takes longer to make the trip as measured in the observer frame, which means the source travels a greater distance relative to the observer during the trip, and would have to be a bit further away from the observer when the Pulse leaves, than what the Source frame would measure. This, in turn has an effect on the exact angle of the Green line measured by the Source frame.
Forget light for a moment and consider a tennis ball.Here, Einstein's idea's are moving around Newton's inverse square law. The space ship is far away from the mass, deep in space, still there is gravity, how?. Finally, he came to know a conclusion that it may be due to acceleration. This is one of the incorrect ideas of Einstein.
Spaceman in no gravitational field (or freefall) feels weightless. If they push a tennis ball away from them it will go in a straight line to the opposite wall (as would light).
Now the spaceship starts to accelerate, the ‘bottom’ wall of the ship moves up and pushes against the feet of spaceman so he has to use leg muscles to stand; if he now pushes the tennis ball away it will fall towards his feet, exactly the same as if he were standing on earth in a gravitational field. Acceleration and gravity are equivalent.
The space ship is far away from the mass, deep in space, still there is gravity, how?
Gravity never increases due to acceleration and there are no instances or proof as such.
All the above posts about "What is Gravity", make me wonder whether a similar question could be asked, such as:What you are saying is 100% correct. There is no strong nuclear force or weak gravity force, there is only one force. The truth will come out if science develops. Let us wait for the same.
What is the "Strong Nuclear Force".
This "force", as far as I understand it, makes protons in the nucleus of an atom gather together. Despite the protons' mutual positive charges. Which ought electrically to repel them from each other, and make them fly apart.
This "Strong " force seems to be accepted as a "Fundamental Force of Nature". Without needing an
explanation.
If this is so, can't the "Gravitational" force , which makes atoms gather together, also be accepted as a "Fundamental Force of Nature". Without needing an explanation?
Why can't we treat "Gravity" like the "Strong Force" - ie, as just the way things are in the Universe?
There is no strong nuclear force or weak gravity force, there is only one force.
Let's compare this scenario to waves created by a ship moving in a pond. Scenario presented on your animations shows a situation, where a wave is propagating perpendicuralry to the motion of a boat in a pond, which moves together with the boat in relation to a stationary observer - it propagates perpendicularly in the frame of boat and diagonally in the frame of stationary observer. However wave propagating perpendicuralry to a moving boat in a stationary pond will behave differently - it will propagate perpendicularly to the moving boat in the frame of stationary bystander and diagonally in the frame of the boat.
If the motion of light is not affected by the motion of it's source in the frame of a stationary observer, then it's the second option (with stationary pond), which should be applied to this scenario.
What you are saying is 100% correct. There is no strong nuclear force or weak gravity force, there is only one force. The truth will come out if science develops. Let us wait for the same.
Ok, if the space ship accelerates from ISS and if there is gravity due to acceleration, I am sure that I will accept that mine hypothesis is wrong. What is there.You accept that in the ISS the astronauts are in freefall and feel no gravitational force, this will be the same in a spaceship alongside.
What ever you are saying is truth. But I am talking about future. In my view, not only Gravity, several other theories will be re-written in future. It may take lot of time, still I am fully confident that it will be proved that only "one force" exists.There is no strong nuclear force or weak gravity force, there is only one force.
How can that be the case when they behave so differently?
As long as the elevator is at rest or stationary on the ground, light beam moves out from one hole to other hole.In the thought experiment the elevator is on the ground and so it is in a gravitational field. The light will not go out of the other hole, it will hit the wall below the hole.
Equivalent to gravity or something is not gravity. As said by Newton, same medium is present on Earth as well as in space. It is the density of this medium that matters.Ok, if the space ship accelerates from ISS and if there is gravity due to acceleration, I am sure that I will accept that mine hypothesis is wrong. What is there.You accept that in the ISS the astronauts are in freefall and feel no gravitational force, this will be the same in a spaceship alongside.
If that spaceship accelerates at 9.8m/s2 the astronauts will feel a force pushing them towards the back of the ship and that force will be the same as that due to gravity on earth. It is not gravity (which is due to the attraction between masses) but it is equivalent to gravity.
This has been proven by astronauts travelling to and from the ISS.
Once again I reiterate that these are Einstein thought experiments only. It is known and proved fact that Sun is rotating on its axis.As long as the elevator is at rest or stationary on the ground, light beam moves out from one hole to other hole.In the thought experiment the elevator is on the ground and so it is in a gravitational field. The light will not go out of the other hole, it will hit the wall below the hole.
You do not need a changing gravitational field to bend light.
In the experiment where the gravity of the sun bends starlight the sun’s gravitational field does not change.
What ever you are saying is truth. But I am talking about future. In my view, not only Gravity, several other theories will be re-written in future. It may take lot of time, still I am fully confident that it will be proved that only "one force" exists.
As said by Newton, same medium is present on Earth as well as in space. It is the density of this medium that matters.
It is known and proved fact that Sun is rotating on its axis.Agreed
Ok, when Sun is rotating:That has nothing to do with the sun rotating
"Mass tells space time how to curve and curved space time in turn tells mass how to move".
So, naturally curved space or Gravity field of Sun is also moving. What else proof is needed. Light bending clearly indicates this.You are misrepresenting the equivalence principle and Newton.
It is known and proved fact that Sun is rotating on its axis.AgreedOk, when Sun is rotating:That has nothing to do with the sun rotating
"Mass tells space time how to curve and curved space time in turn tells mass how to move".So, naturally curved space or Gravity field of Sun is also moving. What else proof is needed. Light bending clearly indicates this.You are misrepresenting the equivalence principle and Newton.
Provide proof that the gravitational field of the sun is moving and this is responsible for light bending, or we will lock this topic.
What ever it may, thanks for comparing with Great man. I am after all a drop of water.
false-equivalence-race-hounds.png (54.27 kB . 300x300 - viewed 5464 times)
P.S. - In terms of Favouritism, 1 & 2 are Equal...
But that Does Not mean they are absolutely the Same.
✌️
(Equivalence)
01 It is true that as long as the elevator is on the ground, light beam moves out from one hole to the other in the opposite direction.Not so. If the elevator is on the ground it is in a gravitational field and light will bend.
02 Unless there is a change, up or down, there is no change or something is changing and it is scientifically proved only.No, there doesn’t need to be a change, just a static gravitational field.
Based on this information that:This is a misrepresentation of Einstein’s thought experiment and of actual experiments.
It is only when the elevator accelerates forward that light beam is moving down. It is true that,
basing on these information that Einstein predicted bending of light by Gravity. So as per the above information I had predicted that Gravity is moving down within the elevator and bending light. Further it is also clear that it is only when the elevator accelerates, clearly indicates that unless Gravity field changes or moves there is no change in the movement of light.
I had written above hypothesis based on Einstein thought experiments only. Those information is collected from the books only.Yes you have misrepresented, because Einstein never said that in his thought experiments.
Once again, I reiterate that I never misrepresented the facts.
Please go through Forbes, this is why Einstein knew that gravity must bend light:01 It is true that as long as the elevator is on the ground, light beam moves out from one hole to the other in the opposite direction.Not so. If the elevator is on the ground it is in a gravitational field and light will bend.02 Unless there is a change, up or down, there is no change or something is changing and it is scientifically proved only.No, there doesn’t need to be a change, just a static gravitational field.Based on this information that:This is a misrepresentation of Einstein’s thought experiment and of actual experiments.
It is only when the elevator accelerates forward that light beam is moving down. It is true that,
basing on these information that Einstein predicted bending of light by Gravity. So as per the above information I had predicted that Gravity is moving down within the elevator and bending light. Further it is also clear that it is only when the elevator accelerates, clearly indicates that unless Gravity field changes or moves there is no change in the movement of light.I had written above hypothesis based on Einstein thought experiments only. Those information is collected from the books only.Yes you have misrepresented, because Einstein never said that in his thought experiments.
Once again, I reiterate that I never misrepresented the facts.
Show the pages from the books or this will be locked.