1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: what would happen if gravitational mass were different than inertial mass?

« on: 13/05/2021 10:34:28 »

Gravity does not propagate through objects,

So my head is weightless if I stand up?

One of the odd things about gravity is that it does indeed propagate through objects, and rather than being attenuated as happens with other forces, it is enhanced.

2

New Theories / Re: Does Einstein’s Equivalence Principle have any physical standing?

« on: 17/11/2019 16:54:02 »

Let’s just suppose (as a special case) that in interstellar space there is a planet exactly like earth about 50 billion miles away from the space ship, which weighs 2 tons or 2000 Kg. Then the acceleration due to that  planet would be 9.8m/s2 and the gravitational  attraction between the planet and the space ship would be  G x (5.972 x 1024 x 2x 103)/((5X1010)2) = 0.000318860846 m3 kg-1 s-2 .

For one, you screwed up your equation.  You put the (2 x 10^3), which I assume was a rough attempt to convert miles to meters*,  in the wrong half of the equation   It needed to be multiplied by the 5 x 10 so that the you had
 G x (5.972 x 1024 )/((5X1010x 2x 103)2) . In other words, the numerical value of your number was off by a factor of at ~ 8e10. in addition to being expressed in the wrong units.  Correctly used, the equation gives an answer in m/s^2 or acceleration.  For example, the equation used for the surface of the Earth (a distance of ~6378000 meters from the Earth center gives
G(5.972e24/6378000^2 = 9.8 m/s^2 or the acceleration due to gravity at the surface.)
A more accurate value for your scenario is 6.23e-14 m/s^2.    Which is the acceleration due to gravity at this distance from the Earth. 

It is now possible to see that the gravity exerted on the space ship is very small, therefore if the mass of the spaceship were to be multiplied by the force of gravity a total force of 0.00031 N which is an extremely small force would be exerted by gravity. If the ship were being accelerated at 9.8m/s2 then the force exerted on the space ship would be equal to F = 2000 Kg x 0.00003 m/s1 = 0.62 N which is a ridiculously small force and certainly would not have the effect of pushing anyone in spaceship back against their seats.

The above arrived at value 6.23e-14 m/s^2 multiplied by the 2000 kg of the rocket gives the amount of thrust or force the rocket would have to generate in order to "hold station" at this distance and not slowly begin to drift towards the planet (1.25e-10 N).
A 80 kg man standing on the floor of said rocket would feel a force of ~5e-12 N Small, yes, but no more or less than what he would feel if standing on the surface of a planet with a mass equal to that of the Earth and 50 billion miles in radius.  It is also exactly the same force he would feel pressing him against the floor if the rocket were accelerating at 6.23e10-14 m/s^2 in empty space with no gravitational forces present.  The point of the equivalence principle is that our passenger, would not be able to distinguish between "hovering" 50 billion miles from an Earth massed planet and the rocket accelerating at 6.23e10-14 m/s^2 through free space with there being no gravity.  The fact that the force he feels is in all practical effect too small to be measured doesn't mean that it is the same in both cases.

Where am I going with this? I am trying to show that the equivalence principle of Einstein’s has absolutely no real meaning, it is just using gravitation as an explanation of itself. Here we have an object in space being accelerated to an equivalent acceleration of the acceleration due to the gravity on earth (i.e., 9.8 m/s2 ) yet it has no effect, some gravitational mass is needed close by to make it work.

No. What you have shown here is that you don't actually grasp the meaning behind the equivalence principle. The flaw is in your understanding, not the principle itself.

*more accurate would have been 8/5 x 10^3. And if you are going to rough out this by this degree (2 instead of 1.6, or only to to 1 significant digit), it really doesn't make sense to carry out the Earth's mass to 5 significant digits.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why don't neutron stars turn into a cloud of hydrogen?

« on: 22/09/2017 19:43:36 »

Black holes have their genesis in neutron stars. Consider the following:  Nuclear reactors emit a lot of neutrons, so theoretically it is possible to fill a small container with neutrons. If placed on a desk and left alone for a few hours all the neutrons disappear! This is because neutrons have a half-life of about 10 minutes. What this means is that a neutron star should not last for more than 10 hours at a maximum (given that the average neutron star has the volume of about a city block). Thus, in theory, no free-standing neutron star should last for more than 10 hours or so. All that should be left (with a little luck) is a small cloud of hydrogen.   

Neutron stars do not decay into hydrogen clouds for the following reason:
When a neutron decays, it does so into a proton and electron with a release of some energy.  The proton- electron pair take up more volume than the neutron did.  Thus for a neutron star to decay, it would have to expand to a larger volume.  But that would require energy to lift its mass against it own gravity.  If the mass of neutrons is great enough, the energy needed to expand the mass against it own gravity is larger than the energy involved with the decay of the neutrons. The neutrons can't decay, because the energy needed to allow them to do so is more than the energy they have available. 

If you have a small enough sample of neutrons, then their mutual gravity would not be enough to prevent decay.  What this means is that there is a minimum mass for a stable neutron star, but not that all neutron star have a limited life.  (There is also an upper limit. As the mass increases, it finally reaches a point where the neutron star forms an event horizon and becomes a black hole.)

4

New Theories / Re: What makes the idea of an aether so attractive?

« on: 05/05/2016 12:51:30 »

Virtual particles never leave the confines of a Feynman diagram. Can you please explain to us dolts why that is McQueen?

Not according to Laurence Krauss. Kruass says 'empty' space is a sea of virtual photons, with mass, popping into and out of existence out of nothing. What Krauss fails to realize is that what he thinks of as virtual particles, with mass, popping into and out of existence out of nothing is actually the chaotic nature of the mass which fills 'empty' space. In the following video, at the 1:52 mark, is a visual representation of the mass which exists in the proton unoccupied by the quarks. Where the quarks exist the mass has been displaced.

5

Chemistry / What is the magic number in eV for electrons in glass, transparent liquids, and

« on: 24/04/2016 21:39:18 »

.... transparent plastics for light to transmission completely through the material.
Is this eV level known in glass, liquid, and transparent plastics, for electrons to transmission light.
Physicists say that "In most solid or liquid substances, the electron structure is so complex that emissions are not confined to one wavelength, but are smeared out.
Therefore, emission features of solids and liquids are barely discernible."
So basically its like its physicists are saying its to hard to try, because the material maybe has so many different elements, so you cannot find the absorption band of a certain color of light.
But what about a material composed of one atomic element, not mixed with any others.
Could it then be possible to find the absorption, and emission spectrum of the solid material.
The answer to this question is not on the internet.
I am grateful for your help, anything helps, even a few words.

6

Just Chat! / Re: What will happen to petrol prices........

« on: 31/03/2016 20:15:14 »

Petrol prices are at an all time low. Recently I was discussing the low petrol prices that we were experiencing, with my son. I expressed the opinion that this was just a temporary trend and that petrol prices would soon reach an all time high, as has happened so  many times in the past, a low in prices  and then a high.  I was therefore surprised when my son suggested that this was a trend that was not going to reverse and that low petrol prices would continue to be a feature of the market. On considering this, I suddenly realised that he was probably right, the reason for the low petrol prices being the trillions of tons of natural gas that were being retrieved in the US, this was something that was  not going to change any time soon.  Unfortunately, side by side with this vision of an unexpected bounty in the form of low petrol prices was a vision of God's own country, devastated by fracking; the underground water systems of some of the most beautiful and fertile lands on earth, being exhausted because of the  millions of cubic tonnes of fresh water involved in the fracking process, and the rest of the unused water being polluted for untold millions of years, by the deadly chemicals used in fracking that are  pumped back into the earth.
Is it really worth it ? Is there no other way ?

Well fracking is actually not ecconomically viable, it costs far more to get the oil then they can get back from selling it; unless the oil price goes to something like 110 to 120 dollars a barrel Frackers will always lose money. The low prices today are actually making the losses even greater. As for why we have low prices it's really a tacktic to try and get the ecconomy going, massive credit injections from the bankers, really low oil price, and negative interest rates that seek to reduce the massive debts or atleast stop them exploding, is all about trying to push the ecconomy forward and it's really not working.

There are terrible fundamentals, it's jobs, manufacturing, inivation that we need and as the conglomerates are eliminating compertician and wealth is all being sucked up by the top 10% the dynamics are all off, the big boys have taken all the wealth, bankrupted the system to do so and are now doing everything they can to keep the status quo going. A status quo that's built on fantasy more then reality when you see the difference the between the electronic world and the real one. "Wages are lost profits"

Fracking is never really going to be a profitable business, as oil prices rise more fracking opperations will come on line and thus reduce the price as more oil enters the market- the idea as I see it is to combate peek oil price escalation. It's an insanity when you consider the terrible state of the enviroment.

There are pleanty of other ways. but big oil/ big energy has a monopoly, and they do not want to give it up. They'll only accept solutions that assist and help them keep their position. Same goes for banking and other corporate interests. There is no lack of solutions, but those in power are not interested in solutions they cant benefit from.