Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: trevorjohnson32 on 24/05/2019 19:41:21
-
If there was an 'aether' or gas filling space, it would have currents in it like any gas, which would cause fluctuations in a gravity field. If space were like an atmosphere things that move through space would slow down from the resistance. Space can have density by which I mean a large volume can be squeezed into a smaller area. The density of a gravity field puts a tight squeeze around a particle of matter. So unlike cutting through an atmosphere, matter moving through space squeezes the space it passes through up against it. A boat on water doesn't do this. The squeezing of denser regions on other regions which cause gravity fields and gravity also keeps an object travelling through space at a constant speed. The outward pull of the universe against the pull of the extremely dense particle of matter balances to create the gravity field. Since the pull of the universe is equal on all sides of the particles gravity field, whichever direction the particle is headed in is a less dense region that is attracted to the density. This doesn't propel the particle however because the pull is equal on all sides, but allows the particle to travel along its path without slowing down.
-
Space can have density by which I mean a large volume can be squeezed into a smaller area.
How might one express this density? Liters per liter? How might space with density 1 liter per liter be distinguished from space with 3 liters per liter? I suppose if there were identical 1kg rocks in each of the two liters, the one in the 3 liters-per-liter box would be measurably less dense since there's thrice the space in that same volume. Maybe it would float.
I don't think you would float if space were denser, it probably be harder to move around in it, like on the moon where gravity is less dense and they kind of bound and bounce around.
-
For aether to slow down something travelling through it, it would need to have mass. Without mass, there would be no reaction to the action on the travelling object, a violation of the 3rd law of motion.
It is quite easier to move on the moon since there is nothing there (air) to slow you down. One can in principle orbit a meter above the ground and as long as you don't choose a path with a hill in the way, you can maintain that orbit a long time. Apollo 8 orbited the moon 10 times, bringing it within 15 km, which is apparently the orbit that would be used by later missions to make a landing. On Earth, a low orbit like that would slow in a moment and the object would promptly hit the ground.
The astronauts move in bounds on the moon because that's a natural locomotion for human physiology in 1/6 Earth gravity. Trying to do it by moving massive legs back and forth would probably put you sideways from the angular forces. Running might be possible by holding out weights in outstretched arms to counter this.
Locomotion in even lower gravity uses the arms more than legs, the latter mostly just getting in the way.
Gravity is only a tiny bit less 'dense' (as you put it) on the moon as it is here. The difference in potential is about 6100 km at a standard Earth 1G, less than 1% of the total gravitational potential. Neither the Earth nor the moon contribute significantly to it.
-
The difference in potential is about 6100 km at a standard Earth 1G, less than 1% of the total gravitational potential.
Can you explain this further, please?
Is this talking about the gravitational potential of the "Moon + Sun + Galaxy" vs "Earth + Sun + Galaxy"?
Where does the "6100 km at a standard Earth 1G" come in? Is this referenced to a point "at infinity" compared to our galaxy?
-
The difference in potential is about 6100 km at a standard Earth 1G, less than 1% of the total gravitational potential.
Can you explain this further, please?
Is this talking about the gravitational potential of the "Moon + Sun + Galaxy" vs "Earth + Sun + Galaxy"?
Yes, except not just those 3 things. The rest of the universe drags us quite deep into a gravity well. When on the moon, you're still very much in the gravity well of Earth. So it isn't escape energy at earth, but not that far from it either.
Where does the "6100 km at a standard Earth 1G" come in? Is this referenced to a point "at infinity" compared to our galaxy?
6100 is the difference in potential between Earth and the surface of the moon, meaning it would take the same energy to get a mass to the moon as it would to raise it 6100 km against a constant 1G of force. It is a relative figure, so there is no infinity involved. It actually takes about 6390 km of energy to get over the hump to get there, but you get some back as you fall to the surface of the moon.
Clocks run a bit faster on the moon because of this potential difference. I said that the figure is less than a percent of the total, so that means it would take at least 100x that energy to get to zero potential energy. If there was a direction you could go to escape all mass in the universe, one could get to this zero potential energy and clocks would run a non-dilated time. There's nowhere where you can do this, but you can still compute it.
-
Clocks run a bit faster on the moon because of this potential difference. I said that the figure is less than a percent of the total, so that means it would take at least 100x that energy to get to zero potential energy. If there was a direction you could go to escape all mass in the universe, one could get to this zero potential energy and clocks would run a non-dilated time. There's nowhere where you can do this, but you can still compute it.
I dont agree.
There is no such thing as time, & no such thing as time dilation.
The ticking of atomic clocks is affected by the aetherwind kmps & by the nearness of mass.
The ticking of ordinary clocks (pendulums, tuning forks, balance wheels etc) are affected by length contraction.
I kind of agree re clocks ticking faster well away from mass etc. And i would agree even moreso if u added that if here the aetherwind was zero kmps.
Re computing it, i doubt it. I think i can. But i think others cant.
-
If there was an 'aether' or gas filling space, it would have currents in it like any gas, which would cause fluctuations in a gravity field.
If space were like an atmosphere things that move through space would slow down from the resistance.
Yes aether has currents. Yes currents cause fluctuations in gravity.
Aether offers no resistance to things moving at constant velocity. But offers resistance to changing velocity, creating inertia.
-
Yes aether has currents. Yes currents cause fluctuations in gravity.
Aether offers no resistance to things moving at constant velocity. But offers resistance to changing velocity, creating inertia.
I think space has aether like properties but there is no gas that fills space. The density of space is affected by particles which are tiny blocks of super dense space, and like the universe, are fixed so as to be undividable. However can a horse pull the moon into a lake? we'll find out what GR people think next.
-
we'll find out what GR people think next.
The Generally Reasonable people know that the Ether was shown not to exist a long time ago.
-
Hi,
I don't understand this very well(because I am 13), but the aether in space could be the solar wind/ background radiation of other stuff.
Also, is the mass giving the particles gravity. I do not understand. I am asking this because I read somewhere that a field of “higgs boson” particles might be the particles that give atoms their mass. Is this right and could this be part of the way gravity works? Please let me know.
-
I don't understand this very well(because I am 13), but the aether in space could be the solar wind/ background radiation of other stuff.
Aether was a hypothetical thing that was invented in order to explain how light can behave as a wave. The idea at the time was that a wave can only exist if there is a medium for that wave to travel through (like sound needing air or some other material substance). Sound is a vibration that passes through matter. In similar manner, aether was thought to be a "substance" that existed in all of space and light was thought to be a vibration in that aether.
All experiments that have looked for an aether have either turned up ambiguous or negative results. It is now thought that light is a vibration in the electromagnetic field instead.
Also, is the mass giving the particles gravity. I do not understand. I am asking this because I read somewhere that a field of “higgs boson” particles might be the particles that give atoms their mass. Is this right and could this be part of the way gravity works? Please let me know.
Gravity is indeed given by mass (or equivalently, energy). The thing about the Higgs boson is that it is not responsible for all mass that exists. The majority of the mass of an atom comes from the motion of the quarks in the atomic nucleus. The energy of that motion is equivalent to mass via E=mc2.
-
Ok. Thanks.
-
All experiments that have looked for an aether have either turned up ambiguous or negative results. It is now thought that light is a vibration in the electromagnetic field instead.
They look for the aether with interferometer's which are flawed in the first place. The light would have a different measurement travelling in the aether on an outward path. In all those experiments they bounce light back along the same path, eliminating any momentum gained or lost this way. But General relativity people willargue long maths to their setup and eventually win. It's very frustrating.
-
All experiments that have looked for an aether have either turned up ambiguous or negative results. It is now thought that light is a vibration in the electromagnetic field instead.
They look for the aether with interferometer's which are flawed in the first place. The light would have a different measurement travelling in the aether on an outward path. In all those experiments they bounce light back along the same path, eliminating any momentum gained or lost this way. But General relativity people willargue long maths to their setup and eventually win. It's very frustrating.
So, you don't understand why an interferometer is looking for a 2nd order effect.
Why not learn science?
-
But General relativity people willargue long maths to their setup and eventually win. It's very frustrating.
Only if you are a loser.
Learn how to do science and you can be on the winning side.
-
General relativity doesn't have anything to do with the aether, so you don't know what you are talking about.