Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Robert Murray on 19/02/2009 08:51:22
-
GRAVITY
ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW
INTRODUCTION
Gravity, among all the forces and laws of nature, stands out as one that most affects daily living. In moving from place to place, we know that we must use energy to keep going against the combined effects of gravity and friction rather than being able to float gracefully about in any desired direction. We avoid high exposed places without thinking about it too much, because we know that falling can be very bad for us, and we take care not to stand beneath large unstable heavy things.
With all our familiarity with the effects of gravity, and unlike most other forces and phenomena, we still don’t know how gravity works. For the moment, let’s not try to think at Albert Einstein’s level, where there is an explanation in the ‘curvature’ of space-time, except to note that space or time would have to be very obviously curved to account for the pain that can be felt when one falls over onto concrete.
Since Einstein, no one has been able to establish any other plausible physical mechanism to account for gravity. That may be because gravity and other forces of attraction, such as magnetism between opposite poles, are harder to imagine than forces that work through repulsion, such as simply to push something away with a hand or a foot, or to propel a vehicle with a rocket motor or a jet engine.
The force of gravity has, from long ago, been defined and measured. The scientist Galileo used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that objects of different mass would fall to earth from the same height in the same time, making allowance for the way passage through the air would slow some things down more than others. The great scientist and mathematician, Sir Isaac Newton, legendary for his detailed analysis of planetary motion, determined that gravitational force between any two physical objects would be proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Newton also determined that when a force is applied to an object, it will accelerate in proportion to that force and inversely proportional to its mass. The force of gravity was thus explained as an acceleration affecting all objects that have mass. This model for gravity has with a very high level of accuracy – but not 100% as has more recently been observed in the case of the orbit of the planet Mercury – accounted for the motions of all the stars, planets, moons and galaxies in the universe.
Gravity obeys the principle of superposition. That is, if there are not just two objects, but many more (to help illustrate, we can assume that some are in direct line astern), each object will affect each further object as if the intervening ones did not exist. For example, the tides on the Earth are driven by both the Moon and the Sun. When in line with each other such as at new Moon or full Moon, there is an especially high tide on the seas of the Earth.
There are huge numbers of objects in the universe and billions of atomic particles in every physical object that we can see or hold. Every atom in the universe gravitationally affects every other atom in the universe, all according to Newton’s laws and the principle of superposition.
This gives rise to a puzzle in two parts. The first part of the puzzle is that we know force is needed to accelerate a mass and that every thing, right down to atomic level and beyond, provides such a force through gravity and therefore a corresponding amount of energy. Considering any small particle ‘M’. Gravity is exerted between M and every other small particle in the universe in proportion to the product of each pairing of M with all the other masses and, of course, reduced by the square of their respective distances. This endows each particle with colossal potential energy due only to the presence of other particles. A collapsed universe may one day prove this energy to exist but there is a nagging thought that the gravitational force a particle can generate should perhaps be a property of the particle and not a property of its surroundings.
The second part of the puzzle has to do with the inverse square law. This says that if there is a gravitational force of 1 Newton between two masses M1 and M2 one metre apart, that force will be 0.25 N if the distance were increased to two metres, and be about 0,11 N at three metres, dividing 1 Newton by the square of 1, 2 and 3 respectively for these distances.
When a balloon is inflated, the area of its surface increases in proportion to the square of its diameter. The volume of air needed inside increases in proportion to the cube of the diameter. But we have seen that gravity does not behave as an expanding surface. It affects everything within a volume and is unaffected by obstacles in its path. Therefore one would expect gravitational effects to diminish according to an inverse cube law, not an inverse square law.
Thus, in this introduction, the notions are advanced that the behaviour of gravity contradicts what intuitively we would have expected of it in terms of its physical properties, and that it has been incredibly elusive to scientific efforts for its detection.
Perhaps we have been looking for it in the wrong places,
A SCENARIO
1 Matter does not need to generate gravitational energy and attract other matter, but it can act as an obstacle to the passage of gravitational force.
2 There is omni-directional gravity permeating the universe. This is commonly understood, but in this scenario it acts in the opposite direction to that currently perceived.
Consider any two particles in this universe. They would be forced towards each other due only to the shielding effect that each one has for the other. The net force on each would be inversely proportional to the square of their separation, and proportional to the product of their masses.
It is not supposed that all the gravitational forces flowing omni-directionally through the boundaries of matter will interact with all the particles within. Indeed, most will pass through, others, perhaps being either deflected, reflected or absorbed and will not continue further along their original lines. If a single object is considered, it should remain in equilibrium as a result. But place another object nearby, and then the flow of gravitational force from the direction of the original object will be reduced somewhat, and vice versa.
The resulting motion of each individual interaction would probably follow the laws of conservation of momentum and energy.
Introduce more particles, and they will add to the shielding effect, maintaining the same Inverse Square and Product of Masses relationships that are observed today. Superposition of the gravitational effect is achieved simply as a result that once a gravitational flow has been deflected, the effect is felt everywhere downstream of the deflecting object. In omni-directional flow, that means everywhere.
This scenario invites many questions. For example, what would be the source of the gravitational force? Why deny the possibility that gravity attracts when there are strong attractive forces within the atomic nucleus and in magnets? And many more.
The following sections attempt to deal with some of these; others are questions that are not comfortably explained even with gravity being seen as an attractive force.
Pertinent to this scenario, however, is the principle of William of Occam’s ‘razor’. Is it simpler to explain gravity as an intelligent force that has infinite reach to all particles in the known and unknown universe, and then somehow to provide a towing service in the correct direction at the correct rate? All this while assuming each particle to be capable of contributing its share of the needed energy – each particle matching the sum of gravitational energy shared with every other particle in the universe. It is this assumption that leads to the expectation that the universe might at some time reverse its expansion, overcoming immense outward kinetic energy.
Curvature of space-time caused by the presence of mass is a very short but definitely not simple explanation, and it does not help much in identifying a physical mechanism – a project that occupies many learned minds in searches for gravity particles and waves even now.
SOME DIFFICULT QUESTIONS
1 Where would this omni directional gravitational force have come from?
If it is generated from within matter itself as a repelling force, we might have to accept that matter is expanding at the same time as being accreted together. Edwin Hubble measured cosmic expansion to be a fact and some studies have indicated some acceleration.
If all matter were expanding it would be interesting to see if that made any difference because the only measures we have of size are all relative and sourced in matter. We could not tell the difference between expansion of matter into empty space, and the contraction of space in and around matter.
If it is not generated by matter itself, then we might have to look at the example of background radiation, and wonder whether gravity could have a similar source. Background radiation is believed to be from the ‘big bang’ of creation and was detected initially by accident by Edwin Hubble and his team. It took a year of adjustment, cleaning and analysis before it was found to be a universal radiation. It exists as a low frequency signal from all directions with very little variation in wavelength or strength. It is an omni directional radiation.
For gravitational radiation to behave as it does, it would need to have a very small particle size or very short wavelength to account for the stability of small particles, and very high flux density to account for black holes. If true, then it does raise the possibility that there may be an upper limit to the compression that gravity can achieve within a black hole.
2 If magnets can attract, then why can’t gravity do the same?
Magnets exhibit an approximately inverse cube distance-force relationship with each other, and this removes one of the issues about gravity.
Magnets work because of alignments of positively and negatively charged particles within their structures called dipoles. Strong magnets have well aligned dipoles and weak magnets have greater randomness in dipole orientation. If we choose within a magnet an orientation for one dipole, then there should be a greater chance that it will be affected by gravitational radiation or collision from an arrival at right angles to the major axis of a dipole than an arrival parallel to that axis.
For strong magnets with a high degree of dipole alignment, it may be possible for gravitational shielding to produce what would look like strong magnetic effects, and in materials with completely random alignments, to produce none at all.
3 If there is a gravitational field out there, how is it possible for moving objects in free space not to be slowed down because of differences in collision velocity along the line of travel?
This is a difficult question. I think we have exactly the same problem with our present conception of gravitation - if everything is pulled towards each other, should there not be a difference in gravitational attraction along the line of travel? An orbiting satellite should rapidly lose altitude because of it.
But we know that gravity does not impose a lesser force from behind the direction of travel (except due to the inverse square law) and this may be due to the way that waves such as shock waves change their rate of forward propagation as a function of the material through which they pass. It is calculated as function of the material’s Young’s modulus and its density.
Thus, a shock wave travelling through touching layers of glass, wood and metal would travel with three different velocities, which are additional to any motion this composite might have. If a wave can “catch up” or slow down with a moving body, then the speed of collision with internal particles might be a constant.
The speed of light will be measured the same in a laboratory on the ground as aboard an orbiting space station, a difference of some tens of thousands of kilometres an hour. If gravitational arrivals behave like light, then the speed of a collision with internal particles might be a constant.
If the collision speeds are constant regardless of the trajectory of the body concerned, then it should not be impeded along its line of travel.
4 Black holes are thought to be almost infinitely dense and very small inside their event horizons as they accrete more and more mass and seem to be without limit in their power. Would this not exceed the plausible gravitational flux density postulated for any field acting on an inert mass?
Gravitational flux density certainly seems to be enough to trap light. And there also seems to be no limit to the capacity of empty space to accept such high concentrations of force and radiation. Every part of the universe not occupied by matter continuously allows free passage to billions of photons and other stellar emissions, gravitational forces, and whatever else is out there. The emptiness of atoms is an indication that if there a gravitational flux, most of it would pass through without interacting. Compression would cause more flux to interact, progressively.
CONCLUSION
There is no general theory to explain all physical phenomena. Either this will come with time and perseverance, or there is none to be had, or something that has been accepted as true is, in some part, false.
The history of scientific research has been one of hypothesis, debate, measurement, modelling and formulation, and testing. It is the great strength of the scientific community and the reason why people have progressed so far.
If there is a sense of hiatus in this forward progress, maybe it is because one of out fundamental concepts has not been debated enough – that of the mechanism of gravity.
-
Gravity, among all the forces and laws of nature, stands out as one that most affects daily living.
I would take serious issue with that, initial, statement. It is ELECTRIC force which keeps us together and governs all the chemistry in our bodies and in the rest of the World.
We could still exist perfectly well in microgravity situations during spaceflight but the Electric forces would still be there. If they changed by only a tiny amount, we would not survive.
-
Consider any two particles in this universe. They would be forced towards each other due only to the shielding effect that each one has for the other. The net force on each would be inversely proportional to the square of their separation, and proportional to the product of their masses.
It is not supposed that all the gravitational forces flowing omni-directionally through the boundaries of matter will interact with all the particles within. Indeed, most will pass through, others, perhaps being either deflected, reflected or absorbed and will not continue further along their original lines. If a single object is considered, it should remain in equilibrium as a result. But place another object nearby, and then the flow of gravitational force from the direction of the original object will be reduced somewhat, and vice versa.
This looks like a take off on the "Push Gravity" (http://keelynet.com/gravity/wright.htm) concept that was popular for a time back in the 1960's. I'm surprised you didn't consider the neutrino as that all invasive particle that pushed matter towards other matter because of the shadow effect. Richard Feynman suggested that this concept wouldn't work because matter would lose momentum to the pushing particles. Orbiting objects should then spiral into each other.
The origin of gravitational force in other masses has the consequence that the force is repulsive at large, cosmological distances, but attractive at short distances. And this easily explains the expansion of the universe. The attraction at short distances (on the cosmological scale) is due to "shadowing". That is, a planet throws a shadow on nearby objects, which means that the force from that side is reduced. Clearly the effect of this force will be proportional to the size of the shadow, which follows an inverse square law.
I read the whole opening post twice and still didn't get your main point. Is it possible to say in a couple of sentences what you're talking about without getting lost in all the background arguments? [:)]
-
A collapsed universe may one day prove this energy to exist but there is a nagging thought that the gravitational force a particle can generate should perhaps be a property of the particle and not a property of its surroundings
Surely the essence of Einstein's theories is that the mass of the object is the very energy that exists (Mass being a form of energy - E=mc2), and that it is only through interaction, through the warping of space-time, that that mass (energy) creates what we know as gravity.
What is interesting, and what keeps nagging at me now, is whether this (the basis of interaction between particles) isn't the best method of justifying relativity and quantum physics in terms of gravity. That the interactions between particles alters the probability wave of each other.
-
What is interesting, and what keeps nagging at me now, is whether this (the basis of interaction between particles) isn't the best method of justifying relativity and quantum physics in terms of gravity. That the interactions between particles alters the probability wave of each other.
Quantum Physics doesn't really have a workable theory of gravity. We always revert to General Relativity to answer gravitational questions. Maybe that's why we find so many new and diverse attempts to understand gravity among science buffs.
-
What is interesting, and what keeps nagging at me now, is whether this (the basis of interaction between particles) isn't the best method of justifying relativity and quantum physics in terms of gravity. That the interactions between particles alters the probability wave of each other.
Quantum Physics doesn't really have a workable theory of gravity. We always revert to General Relativity to answer gravitational questions. Maybe that's why we find so many new and diverse attempts to understand gravity among science buffs.
I didn't make my last point very well (I had to rush as I had a job to get done....). I'm aware that there is no theory of gravity in quantum physics, and that was what I was alluding to - is what I meant by 'justifying' quantum physics and relativity in terms of gravity.
-
Hi angst; I wasn't disagreeing; I was just adding another thought [:)]
-
Many thanks for your comments.
In a nutshell, my point is that the origination of gravity might not have to be from physical masses, but from somewhere else. The same gravitational phenomena might also result from inert masses within an omni directional incoming gravitational field.
I suppose it may be a 'take off' of a push concept. I wasn't aware of such a thing, but I do remember the 60's and reports of deep mine bubble tanks in the neutrino search, and their expected characteristics of deep penetration with low probability of collision in ordinary matter. Very much as I would guess a unit of gravitation might behave. How momentum would be lost in a specific direction within an omni directional field of gravity impulses was not explored in my article except in 'difficult question 3'. Maybe it would depend on some coefficient of restitution, on whether arriving particles are absorbed or reflected, or vene re-emitted.
On the use of energy as a function of mass in the production of gravity, would it not perhaps happen that as a mass unit attracts something, and uses its mass equivalent energy, would its mass not somehow be affected? Also that of the item being attracted. There certainly would be kinetic or thermal energy in evidence at the end of the day.
On space-time, I have not the ability to imagine the mechanism for it. All the simplified illustrations I have seen so far show a sagging net holding a large ball. But no explanation of why the net sags.
Best wishes to all
Robert Murray
South Africa
-
The sagging net was Einstein's idea of space-time distortion. Einstein changed the concept of the cause of relativity phenomena from the Lorentz view that massive objects were distorted by motion. In Einstein's view space and time were lumped together as space-time and relativity phenomena resulted from space-time distortion. I always liked the Lorentz view better. And I see that it is gaining favour again. (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=20576.0)
-
Hi Robert,
What do you think about my theory of wy the net sags :)
-
On reflection about neutrinos, I'm glad in a way that I did not hazard any guesses as to what the omni directional flux could be made of. Neutrino interactions at their so far measured arrival and interaction rate within, for example, molecular radius would battle to have any effect on bonding of any sort and could hardly, at the other end of the scale, be expected to trap light in black holes.
Ben, I could not find your theory. I'd be interested to see it.
-
On the use of energy as a function of mass in the production of gravity, would it not perhaps happen that as a mass unit attracts something, and uses its mass equivalent energy, would its mass not somehow be affected? Also that of the item being attracted. There certainly would be kinetic or thermal energy in evidence at the end of the day.
On space-time, I have not the ability to imagine the mechanism for it. All the simplified illustrations I have seen so far show a sagging net holding a large ball. But no explanation of why the net sags.
Best wishes to all
Robert Murray
South Africa
The more I think about this (or try to..) the more I consider that gravity (and indeed why energy is manifest as what we understand as mass, and all that goes with it - eg inertia) is the result of a fourth spatial dimension by which means we experience time - and that we cannot experience as a spatial dimension, for whatever reason.
That's pretty vague, I know, but I consider that is what Einstein's theories actually expound. And that gravity is to be understood in these terms. In a way what I am saying is that gravity is a function more of time (or what we perceive as time), as in this fourth spatial dimension, that manifests within the spatial dimensions as we understand them because they are a function of this fourth dimension.
I hope that that makes some sense - and perhaps this is understood already and I'm missing that implication within other's descriptions. The problem is with modelling it, either physically such that one can explain it, or even internally, in order to understand what the nature of that dimension is. Perhaps superstring theory is really describing what i am here, and that it is the fact that this 'fourth dimension' is actually multi-dimensional that makes it so difficult to model (visualise) in any way other than mathematically.
-
Ben, I could not find your theory. I'd be interested to see it.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=20561.0
-
On the use of energy as a function of mass in the production of gravity, would it not perhaps happen that as a mass unit attracts something, and uses its mass equivalent energy, would its mass not somehow be affected? Also that of the item being attracted. There certainly would be kinetic or thermal energy in evidence at the end of the day.
It is pretty well established that energy is not expended by bodies in the process of attracting each other gravitationally. This may be a little bit counter intuitive since a falling object gains energy as it falls. Actually it is simply exchanging potential energy for kinetic energy.
-
[:)]
I have idea this.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Mechanism of gravity is matter-density.
Object stay that position where matter-density is same round of object than object itself.
[:)]
-
If a theory is "falsifyable" it would mean that an experiment can be performed to test some or all of its predictions. When Newton advanced his laws of gravitation, they passed the test insofar as it was possible to predict physical motion using his mathematical models describing the relationships between mass, force and acceleration. All these were observable, and the observed behaviours physically and astronomically (at the time) confirmed his mathematical model. The model could not be falsified from experiment or observation. It has since been modified, of course.
One part of Newton's model asserted that gravity is a force of attraction. Since no mechanism for attraction has been observed, it cannot be falsified since no other mechanism has been found. Nor, equivalently, can the opposite assertion be falsified. A surrogate for observation has been the development of very elegant and sophisticated mathematical constructs.
I think the work being done by particle physicists and the development of theories of everything such as has been mentioned by one respondent, string theory in 10 or 11 degrees of freedom, and one dimensional black holes, is absolutely brilliant. There are many areas about which I would love to ask questions, but it is not my purpose to debate their work. Only to argue that there is a gap about the vector of gravity that is not yet tested.
Mathematical models of great sophistication are also applied in statistical problems, where any number of random points can be fitted to a polynomial curve described by a sufficient number of dimensions, but succeeding with a regression coefficient of unity to the polynomial does not necessarily invalidate other explanations.
"Push" theories are debunked by some on the grounds of implied momentum loss. But if there is no known mechanism, how can momentum loss be assumed for it and not equally to "pull" theories? If particles are involved, what are their properties, if waves, what form do they take and momentum would they impart ? Has what is being pushed or pulled been sufficiently defined, since mass becomes defined as energy in some physics. de-bunking must surely take all possibilities into account, not just those assumed by the critic.
-
[:)]
Robert,,,you text is so long and scientifical so i dont understand it well,,hmm. i draw a paint what i mean.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
I think that when submarine and air-balloon can stop one point of level without engine-help then those density must be same than density round of those.
Satellites get one level and stay that long time,,sometimes need driving i think?
Moon is one level and stay almost same distance,,,only rotating and sun-pull/push cause changes of that distance.
Therefore i think;
1. Space is full of matter,
2. Matter density is near planet and density decrease through distance of planet.
3. And if planet is like direct plate then there is not density-thing like ball-object has. ?
This all are only thoughts what i see when i look sub-marine, air-balloon, satellite,,,and moon in the winter nights.
I dont see any wire between moon-earth and if this between is matterless then wire is quite mystical.
Air-balloon stays same level even it is near equator or north-south pole,,even that there is different rotating speed m/s like we knon.
[:)]
-
Is this more "larf"?
-
Is this more "larf"?
I'm beginning to suspect that your suspicion might be correct [:)]
-
Garbage can be generated, even by a computer program.
-
Garbage can be generated, even by a computer program.
Indeed. What I was trying, in a very roundabout way, to say earlier is that alot of the 'new theories' regarding gravity are simply an expression of befuddlement. That there is an urge to want to understand gravity in a very simple form, one that can be visualised within a simple three-dimensional paradigm.
If I can change the subject just a little.... there's a serious question that I'd like to ask regarding the mechanism of gravity. I keep seeing references to the graviton, and most importantly, that it should propogate at the speed of light. There is a search for gravity waves that is linked with this..... My question is, is there any evidence that gravity is propogated at the speed of light? If my understanding (and, indeed, what superstring theory - as I can understand it - advocates)of gravity is correct(that it is a manifestation of an interaction in extra-spatial dimensions) then the search for the graviton is a red herring - and I am somewhat puzzled as to the reasoning behind the search for it or gravity waves.
-
Garbage can be generated, even by a computer program.
That comment wasn't aimed at all the posts on this thread!
-
The slowing of rotation of binary pulsars was predicted based on general relativity and a finite speed of gravity. Measurements confirmed the predictions of a velocity similar to the speed of light(c). There are other interpretations, but then there always are. The reason it is thought to be exactly c is that no one can think of a reason it should be similar to c without be equal to c.
I think there has been evidence of gravity waves in galaxy structures, but not certain.
-
Indeed. What I was trying, in a very roundabout way, to say earlier is that alot of the 'new theories' regarding gravity are simply an expression of befuddlement. That there is an urge to want to understand gravity in a very simple form, one that can be visualised within a simple three-dimensional paradigm.
In my case it wasn't befuddlement; I was simply examining an old hypothesis, that I suspect, originated with Maxwell. Hypothesis: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
I put together a hypothesis about gravity, but it wasn't the urge to understand more about gravity. I was trying to solve the puzzle of whether it is possible to describe all the forces of nature within the electromagnetic field, using no other concept.
It turns out that it is possible to do that. Within that concept, gravity can be the result of photon's reaching saturation amplitude within the fields of other photons. The points of saturation are offset toward increasing field strength.
-
"Push" theories are debunked by some on the grounds of implied momentum loss. But if there is no known mechanism, how can momentum loss be assumed for it and not equally to "pull" theories? If particles are involved, what are their properties, if waves, what form do they take and momentum would they impart ? Has what is being pushed or pulled been sufficiently defined, since mass becomes defined as energy in some physics. de-bunking must surely take all possibilities into account, not just those assumed by the critic.
The debunking of the push concept considered a well defined particle as the pusher. If the properties of the pushing mechanism is unknown, then the debunking has no grounds. But then the concept is not falsifiable, and so can't progress beyond hypothesis. But there's nothing wrong with that. All theories begin as hypothesises.
-
It is pretty well established that energy is not expended by bodies in the process of attracting each other gravitationally. This may be a little bit counter intuitive since a falling object gains energy as it falls. Actually it is simply exchanging potential energy for kinetic energy.
[/quote]
Let's look at potential energy. E(P).
E(P) = mgh (Mass * value of g * height
E(P) turns into kinetic energy, then heat
Usually, mass does not change due to falling through h, so energy is probably not derived from that source
Height is usually arbitrary, since we could choose any datum (ground level, down a mine, etc. So that is not likely to be the provider of energy. Height has a value of convenience only due to the presence of gravity, g.
If g is zero, then mgh is zero. So it would seem that it (g) would be the only candidate for the provision of energy for an unchanging mass accelerating in a gravitational field from an arbitrary 'height'. That is not to say in which sense 'g' operates, except that it seems unlikely to originate in the masses affected by it.
-
If g is zero, then mgh is zero. So it would seem that it (g) would be the only candidate for the provision of energy for an unchanging mass accelerating in a gravitational field from an arbitrary 'height'. That is not to say in which sense 'g' operates, except that it seems unlikely to originate in the masses affected by it.
The mutual attraction of the two bodies does provide the energy. But nothing in either of the bodies is consumed to create the energy.
-
Robert Murray
Let's look at potential energy. E(P).
E(P) = mgh (Mass * value of g * height
That's not really the right formula to use - it only relates to the situation for constant gravitational field - i.e. when raising an object a small distance above Earth's surface.
The correct expression for the Gravitational Potential of a mass m at a position r from the centre of a sphere of mass M (and outside the sphere) is
E = -mMG/r
That represents the energy change when bringing an object from infinity to that height.
Moving from one distance to another, you subtract the potential at one distance from the potential at the other distance. It simplifies to your expression when the two distances are nearly the same.
It's what you need to use for any discussion of energy between astronomical objects.
ΔE = Δm c2 will apply, of course but we're talking seriously small numbers!
-
Thanks for the corrections in the direction of completeness. My engineering definition is usable for short distances, which I could choose to locate anywhere in the universe except maybe inside a black hole.
Introducing e=mc2 does complete the energy balance but then do we not have an additional manifestation of mass/energy due to motion - More energy to be found from somewhere? Corections to a point at infinity don't seem to address any component from which the needed energy is derived. It still remains in debate whether the universe known to us will eventually start to contract. For the universe as a whole, there is much (force multiplied by distance = energy/work) integrated over the whole sphere of values for 'g' that must be applied for that to happen. Is it reasonable just to say the energy is already 'there' in the form of potential energy - assuming a factor for 'h' of infinity ? If so, why do you think it is reasonable ? - I'm most keen to learn more
-
Your definition only works for small trips above the Earth's surface - cranes and escalators. You need the full definition for anything cosmological. Certainly, if you want to include the relativistic effects, you also need to include the spherical geometry of the system.
The only reason to involve infinity is that you need to define the energy in terms of an integral of work done between limits. You have to choose a starting distance and it could be zero, infinity or some arbitrary distance. 1/0 would not be a good idea! T
he infinity idea is never really invoked because you work out the actual energy difference between two finite distances, as in
ΔE = 1/r1 - 1/r2
i.e. you never really consider the absolute Potential, just the Potential Difference
Look at wikkers for some confirmation.
-
Yes, your equation is in energy units. My original scenario suggests that all gravitational relationships and mathematics would be the same as they are now. You could not tell the differece between a pull mechanism and a field one.
The units of MLT exist in both equations, so I do not see that your refinement adds to or subtracts from the argument.
Your responses are very welcome, but you have used the term, I think, of 'befuddlement' and 'larf' whatever that means. It would be most helpful if you are able to show where the befuddlement is in the scenario I presented before this somewhat fruitless squabble about formulae began.
-
[;)]
Hi.
Little bit more of this issue.
This image i show that different what is earth and moon about that space-matter layer density.
But i think that this different is not important,,,space-matter push things to planet surface almots same power.
Different comes because earth has air-layer.
Therefore my thought is that;
1. Gravity-power dont exist.
2. This so called Gravity is only that balls goes and stays on the density-level.
3. G-value is only mathematical value that we can use to calculate this movements and etc.
But i can be wrong also. [;D]
[;)]
-
Hei-Tai - I have to thank you for finding this thread. Where was it? I am always amazed at the new topics that come up which, in fact, have been debated for some time. How does one find old threads?
And Robert Murray - may I congratulate you on the pure eloquence of your argument in the opening thread. I am a rank amateur of physics but passionately interested. I sincerely hope you still follow this thread. I'd hate to lose you. For the record - it is the first time since joining this forum that I have found anything so lucid, logical and simple without being simplistic. I have always believed that good physics must be clear. Truly I am blown away.
I now have to study your opening post again. What a pleasure.
-
How does one find old threads?
Simply type keywords into the search box at the top right hand corner.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Many thanks Chemistry4me. Finally!! I often read your posts. They're good. I wish you'd update your profile.
-
They're good.
Haha, I wish! [::)]
I wish you'd update your profile.
Nothing special, just a nobody. [:-'(]
-
Chemistry4m - nobody? We've got another machine operated poster? You've marshalled that POIS link with exceptional vim and vigour. And I see you follow EVERYTHING.
Still like to see an update.
-
And I see you follow EVERYTHING.
And I see you do too. [:)]
------
We've got another machine operated poster?
Not just one. Hundreds of them.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=20389.0
It's no longer a new theory any more.
-
Indeed. So. Where's that update?
-
Indeed. What I was trying, in a very roundabout way, to say earlier is that alot of the 'new theories' regarding gravity are simply an expression of befuddlement. That there is an urge to want to understand gravity in a very simple form, one that can be visualised within a simple three-dimensional paradigm.
In my case it wasn't befuddlement; I was simply examining an old hypothesis, that I suspect, originated with Maxwell. Hypothesis: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.
I put together a hypothesis about gravity, but it wasn't the urge to understand more about gravity. I was trying to solve the puzzle of whether it is possible to describe all the forces of nature within the electromagnetic field, using no other concept.
It turns out that it is possible to do that. Within that concept, gravity can be the result of photon's reaching saturation amplitude within the fields of other photons. The points of saturation are offset toward increasing field strength.
We understand the electromagnetic field. People have problems with the gravitational field. However it is one and the same field. The only difference is that the gravitational field is a bipolar field whereas the electromagnetic field is split into positive and negativecomponents.
-
We understand the electromagnetic field. People have problems with the gravitational field. However it is one and the same field. The only difference is that the gravitational field is a bipolar field whereas the electromagnetic field is split into positive and negative components.
That works for the EM-nature concept. I needed a mechanism that didn't require modification of the field. Saturated points within fields of all other points worked. All the fields contribute toward saturation. So saturation must occur at an offset toward increasing field strength.
-
We understand the electromagnetic field. People have problems with the gravitational field. However it is one and the same field. The only difference is that the gravitational field is a bipolar field whereas the electromagnetic field is split into positive and negative components.
That works for the EM-nature concept. I needed a mechanism that didn't require modification of the field. Saturated points within fields of all other points worked. All the fields contribute toward saturation. So saturation must occur at an offset toward increasing field strength.
There are several ways of looking at the gravitational field. I do not quite understand what you are saying. From a photonic viewpoint we could say that all the photons continually hit everything. A mass is constantly losing mass/energy. Thus it continuously loses photonic energy. These photons react with the photons of space causing a back pressure.
-
Okay; let me try again. Visualize a photon, or even a dot wave, moving through fields of electric and magnetic amplitude. The fields get stronger in one direction and weaker in the other. Points of saturation reach saturation amplitude as the photon moves along its path. The fields of electric and magnetic amplitude contribute toward the amplitude of the points. This contribution causes the points to reach saturation at a slight offset toward increasing field strength. This offset causes migration toward increasing field strength.
In other words; the field amplitude in the photon's path does not reset to zero as the photon begins to interact with them. They start the photon amplitude where the photon found them. Since the amplitude they finally reach is a constant, the photon reaches this amplitude more quickly. It has a head start.
We have to describe a photon a little differently than any previous description, but it still adheres to all the rules. (http://photontheory.com/pte.html)
-
Okay; let me try again. Visualize a photon, or even a dot wave, moving through fields of electric and magnetic amplitude. The fields get stronger in one direction and weaker in the other. Points of saturation reach saturation amplitude as the photon moves along its path. The fields of electric and magnetic amplitude contribute toward the amplitude of the points. This contribution causes the points to reach saturation at a slight offset toward increasing field strength. This offset causes migration toward increasing field strength.
In other words; the field amplitude in the photon's path does not reset to zero as the photon begins to interact with them. They start the photon amplitude where the photon found them. Since the amplitude they finally reach is a constant, the photon reaches this amplitude more quickly. It has a head start.
We have to describe a photon a little differently than any previous description, but it still adheres to all the rules. (http://photontheory.com/pte.html)
Today I have been cleaning up my shed. Then I run in to look at your answers. These words are not clicking in my brain.
-
Here's a few different descriptions of the fundamental force of gravity as a photonic action.
Here's Filbert Wagman's take on it (http://photontheory.com/grav.html)
Think of a photon as it ripples through space and concentrate on the peak amplitude point. As that point swims through the remnient fields of other photons, them remnient fields gotta be part of peak amplitude. If the remnient fields are stronger in one direction the swimming point must be slightly offset toward that stronger direction because of the contribution from the remnient fields.
Here's Vernon Brown's take on it (http://photontheory.com/gravity.html)
A photon moving through radiated fields (photon flux) of other photons must then reach its positive and negative amplitude limits taking into account the existing photon flux. Because of this each photon's point of maximum amplitude is offset toward increasing field strength of the photon flux. That is the cause of gravity. It cannot possibly be otherwise.
Massive objects, comprised as they are of field-radiating photons, must gravitate toward each other because of the saturation offset of photons. This is one way of looking at gravity in a photonic universe.
Here's Professor Willis Thompson's take on it (http://photontheory.com/willis.html)
Gravity:
Photons in a "mass" emit the electric and magnetic fields just as do photons free in space. Photons traveling through the same local area must share the available "action" of that area since the action is a property of space and not a property of individual photons. A photon reaches saturation at an offset toward increasing field strength of the fields present in this local area. This causes photon paths to bend toward massive objects and since massive objects are comprised only of photons, massive objects change direction toward increasing photon field strength. So they approach each other or are attracted.
-
Here's a few different descriptions of the fundamental force of gravity
Photons in a "mass" emit the electric and magnetic fields just as do photons free in space. Photons traveling through the same local area must share the available "action" of that area since the action is a property of space and not a property of individual photons. A photon reaches saturation at an offset toward increasing field strength of the fields present in this local area. This causes photon paths to bend toward massive objects and since massive objects are comprised only of photons, massive objects change direction toward increasing photon field strength. So they approach each other or are attracted.
[/quote]
Thanks for the info. I think I got what you are saying but I disagree with it. The forces you describe would cause objects to repell each other. Thus photons from the sun and photons from the earth bombard eachother and cause a replusive action.
As we look far away from the Earth and Sun the photonic gravitational field turns into a planar surface. This pushes against space and expands it. Space pushes back against the expanding photonic wave. This causes vector forces centered at the gravitational center between Earth and Sun.
thus gravity is due to the expansion of the entire universe.
-
[:)]
We understand the electromagnetic field. People have problems with the gravitational field. However it is one and the same field. The only difference is that the gravitational field is a bipolar field whereas the electromagnetic field is split into positive and negativecomponents
[:)]
Who understand and who dont. [:o)]
One question.
Is so called "gravitational field" matter or not matter. [?]
Is so called "electromagnetic field" matter ot not matter. [?]
My point is;
Nature dont has exist "gravitational force".
Therefore G-value is not existing thing value,,,,only mathematical value which help us to calculate motion and speed and etc.
Electric is matter-flow motion process.
My thought,,,, [:o)]can be right or wrong. [:I]
[:)]
-
Here's a few different descriptions of the fundamental force of gravity
Photons in a "mass" emit the electric and magnetic fields just as do photons free in space. Photons traveling through the same local area must share the available "action" of that area since the action is a property of space and not a property of individual photons. A photon reaches saturation at an offset toward increasing field strength of the fields present in this local area. This causes photon paths to bend toward massive objects and since massive objects are comprised only of photons, massive objects change direction toward increasing photon field strength. So they approach each other or are attracted.
Thanks for the info. I think I got what you are saying but I disagree with it. The forces you describe would cause objects to repell each other. Thus photons from the sun and photons from the earth bombard eachother and cause a replusive action.
As we look far away from the Earth and Sun the photonic gravitational field turns into a planar surface. This pushes against space and expands it. Space pushes back against the expanding photonic wave. This causes vector forces centered at the gravitational center between Earth and Sun.
thus gravity is due to the expansion of the entire universe.
[/quote]
Overnight I had to change some of my ideas. In my post today on the gravitational force vector, I came to realize that gravity is similar to a skin effect. The grav-photonic waves meet at a common point. This produces a force tending to shrink the planar surface.
-
As we look far away from the Earth and Sun the photonic gravitational field turns into a planar surface. This pushes against space and expands it. Space pushes back against the expanding photonic wave. This causes vector forces centered at the gravitational center between Earth and Sun.
thus gravity is due to the expansion of the entire universe.
I think there is a problem working out orbital dynamics along the lines of gravity being the result of the expanding universe.
-
As we look far away from the Earth and Sun the photonic gravitational field turns into a planar surface. This pushes against space and expands it. Space pushes back against the expanding photonic wave. This causes vector forces centered at the gravitational center between Earth and Sun.
thus gravity is due to the expansion of the entire universe.
I think there is a problem working out orbital dynamics along the lines of gravity being the result of the expanding universe.
One book I just read said the explanations must be background independent. So I had to change to high energy dot-waves which are independent of the expansion of the universe and low energy dot-waves which depend upon the radius of the universe.
In a similar manner, my cosmology of the universe has a gravitational field which depends upon the big bang and the expansion of the universe.
Now that I feel that the local gravitational effect is caused by photonic fields which bend, I feel that what you say is correct. If we can come to a simple local effect, then we can leave the gravitational component due to the expansion of the universe to cosmology.
It may very well be that gravity has several components. At out level and measurements the local effect is sufficient to explain gravity.
-
It may very well be that gravity has several components. At out level and measurements the local effect is sufficient to explain gravity.
You're still adding to the complexity; I suspect that nature is fundamentally simple. Its most fundamental thing from which all other things are made is electric and magnetic change.
-
It may very well be that gravity has several components. At out level and measurements the local effect is sufficient to explain gravity.
You're still adding to the complexity; I suspect that nature is fundamentally simple. Its most fundamental thing from which all other things are made is electric and magnetic change.
What do you mean by electric and magnetic change. Does this indicate variations of electric and magnetic fields with time? Then you have moving fields. Then you have complex equations of moving fields. As the fields change, they could produce local change and long term change.
Therefore we get local effects and cosmological effects.
Please explain what you mean by change.
-
What do you mean by electric and magnetic change. Does this indicate variations of electric and magnetic fields with time? Then you have moving fields. Then you have complex equations of moving fields. As the fields change, they could produce local change and long term change.
Therefore we get local effects and cosmological effects.
Please explain what you mean by change.
Yes; I mean a change in the electric and magnetic amplitude of points in space. When the electromagnetic amplitude of any point changes adjacent points respond and visa versa. And yes; this one simple action does lead to all the complexity of the universe.
I'm working on a computer model of this action. The action is that the point that is greatest in amplitude continues gaining amplitude until it reaches saturation. The first point to reach saturation begins to lose amplitude. This change affects adjacent points, so they don't continue but immediately follow the first point's action.
That is why the dots and their associated waves exist as moving points. The fact that they saturate is the mechanism of gravity.
-
What do you mean by electric and magnetic change. Does this indicate variations of electric and magnetic fields with time? Then you have moving fields. Then you have complex equations of moving fields. As the fields change, they could produce local change and long term change.
Therefore we get local effects and cosmological effects.
Please explain what you mean by change.
Yes; I mean a change in the electric and magnetic amplitude of points in space. When the electromagnetic amplitude of any point changes adjacent points respond and visa versa. And yes; this one simple action does lead to all the complexity of the universe.
I'm working on a computer model of this action. The action is that the point that is greatest in amplitude continues gaining amplitude until it reaches saturation. The first point to reach saturation begins to lose amplitude. This change affects adjacent points, so they don't continue but immediately follow the first point's action.
That is why the dots and their associated waves exist as moving points. The fact that they saturate is the mechanism of gravity.
Sounds like you are describing a hologram universe or a three dimensional motion picture. Where are the protons? How does a proton split in space to form u-mesons and pi-mesons?
-
Sounds like you are describing a hologram universe or a three dimensional motion picture. Where are the protons? How does a proton split in space to form u-mesons and pi-mesons?
Protons are composed of three photon shells. When a proton splits apart the three shells unfurl into photons again. During the splitting process observations can show intermediate unstable particles.
-
Sounds like you are describing a hologram universe or a three dimensional motion picture. Where are the protons? How does a proton split in space to form u-mesons and pi-mesons?
Protons are composed of three photon shells. When a proton splits apart the three shells unfurl into photons again. During the splitting process observations can show intermediate unstable particles.
That is fine. However how can you make the shells from nothingness??
-
I have no problem with electric and magnetic fields existing in empty space. It also doesn't matter what empty space is composed of. It is as we find it. The only determinable properties we know about are permittivity and permeability.
-
I have no problem with electric and magnetic fields existing in empty space. It also doesn't matter what empty space is composed of. It is as we find it. The only determinable properties we know about are permittivity and permeability.
And the gravitational constant. And the speed of light. etc. And the ability to produce stars and planets. Most importantly the ability to produce the electric and magnetic fields.
Thus everthing that exists today was produced by the stuff of pure empty space which I maintain is not quite so empty.
-
It may very well be that gravity has several components. At out level and measurements the local effect is sufficient to explain gravity.
You're still adding to the complexity; I suspect that nature is fundamentally simple. Its most fundamental thing from which all other things are made is electric and magnetic change.
It may be "fundamentally simple" in as far as there may be some alternative, very basic equations, which describe what's happening. BUT, have you written them down AND solved them? Hats off to you if you are anywhere near doing that.
Let's face it, the basic Schroedinger Equation for the H atom couldn't be much simpler. The actual solution is a bit harder, though. It has one great strength, though - it ties in fairly well, numerically with experimental results.
-
Let's face it, the basic Schroedinger Equation for the H atom couldn't be much simpler. The actual solution is a bit harder, though. It has one great strength, though - it ties in fairly well, numerically with experimental results.
I agree with that; I would like to find a most basic simple relationship between adjacent points in space; but realize that one of the solutions to this most basic relationship must lead to Shrodinger's wave functions to explain atomic behaviour. Also to Maxwell, etc. etc.
I'm looking for it; I have not yet found it. [:)]
-
With respect, it's not too surprising.
It won't be a stroll in the park!
-
In my original post, I put forward ‘difficult question 3’ about the different collision speeds between a moving mass and a postulated omni directional gravitational field along the line of travel.
The higher the collision velocity, the greater would be the change in kinetic energy so that head on collisions would slow down a moving mass more than would collisions from behind. Orbiting objects would fall down much more rapidly that has been observed.
This view has been expressed not only in the original post, but also by other visitors to the thread.
If, instead, moving masses do not collide with gravitational particles having mass, but with entities having only energy to impart, a similar problem will arise, because then packets of energy arriving from ahead will have a higher frequency while those arriving from astern will have a lower frequency. Such energy is a function of amplitude and frequency, so orbiting objects would not stay aloft very long under these conditions either.
Omni directional gravitational fields made up of radiation or matter, or a combination of the two could not therefore create a plausible mechanism for gravity.
In my reply to one or two questions on the subject, I commented that a hypothesis should not be debunked on the basis of assumptions made by the debunker, the above two being examples. But it has been difficult to find other examples that might work
One possibility comes (not readily) to mind. It flows in part from the discussion in these pages about saturation states of photons.
Suppose that throughout everything, there are small bursts of energy lasting for approximately zero time each. They might be caused by intersections from all directions, of radiation to create peaks of reinforcement like Newton’s rings. And, perhaps also in the fashion of quantum particles -now you see them, now you do not.
The frequency of interaction between a moving particle and such events might no longer be a function of particle velocity, but of event frequency only. Further, if we assume that a quantum of energy delivered by a burst to be a constant, then it would not matter in what direction an affected particle is travelling at the time.
In this scenario, we could perhaps have external gravitational force acting on inert mass in a way that does not result in excessively decaying orbits.
-
How about this for the possible mechanism of gravity?
Time is relative to the observers frame of reference which we all know. A clock in another moving frame of reference slows with respect to our observer. If we had a one kg block setting on a frictionless surface and apply a force of 1kg.m/sec^2 it will accelerate at 1m/sec^2. The only way to increase this acceleration is to increase the applied force OR slow the observer's clock. Isn't this exactly what happens in a gravity well?”
Any particle can be considered it's own clock ( an observer ) and that a clock even one nanometer higher in a gravity well will run slightly faster than a clock one nanometer lower. Suppose we had a frictionless tube, one meter long, whose inside diameter is just large enough to allow a diatomic hydrogen molecule to move freely up and down in the tube. We fill the tube with diatomic hydrogen at STP and stand the tube up perpendicular to the surface of the Earth. Each molecule is moving up and down in the tube colliding with the molecule above and below. Let’s observe the path of a particular molecule which we call B. The molecule above we call A and the one below we call C. We start watching B as it moves down the tube toward C with velocity d/t. The molecule B (clock/observer) will calculate it's momentum, at the instant before the collision with C, using it's clock which is running slightly slower than when it collided with A. B will find it's momentum at C to be greater than the momentum of the collision with A. Doesn't this suggest that gravity is strictly a function of time dilation?
-
I can't quite get the picture. My feeling is that gravity is something that manifests itself in the space that matter is moving through. I like to think in terms of depleted electromagnetic field remnants. You may like gravitons, what ever they are, we don't have them defined exactly.
If we explore gravity as something that occupies space, and look at photons moving through that space, we can reduce the problem down to how can that property affect the future path of a photon moving through it? It can not be a direct electromagnetic interaction; gravity is much too weak for that.
My speculation is that gravity contributes to the saturation amplitude of photons so that their points of saturation occur at an offset toward increasing field strength. This causes the trajectory of a passing photon to migrate toward increasing field strength of remnant fields of electromagnetic force.
-
If time dilation occurs in a gravity well (we know it does), then my mechanism for gravity is correct. The real problem is the mechanism of time dilation. Why does matter and energy cause the dilation? I include energy because I'm ninety nine percent sure that all matter that enters a black hole is converted into radiation and a black hole definitely has gravity, caused by extreme time dilation.
-
Time dilation is a very simple concept when you consider just exactly what is the time of which we speak. It is a slowing of repeating patterns in atoms. We chose the caesium atom as the time standard.
Now that we have time, we only need to deduce why the patterns repeat more slowly when the atom moves. It is because, at the most elemental level, atomic constituents must always move at the invariant speed of light. The constituents of the repeating patterns must move a greater distance to complete the patterns. Since the constituents are already moving at their constant speed, more real time is required for the pattern to repeat. So the atom experiences time dilation.