Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: ron123456 on 04/02/2021 20:49:00
-
Why does a small atomic mass have the same gravitational force ( Newton's 3rd law) on a larger mass unless dark matter has a greater influence on ' the smaller the mass'...? Yes,.... Andromeda has a larger influence on it's companion galaxy, but still the force of gravity is equivalent for both....
-
Pardon?
You seem to be asking about half of each of 3 or 4 questions at the same time.
-
Why does a small atomic mass have the same gravitational force ( Newton's 3rd law) on a larger mass unless dark matter has a greater influence on ' the smaller the mass'...? Yes,.... Andromeda has a larger influence on it's companion galaxy, but still the force of gravity is equivalent for both....
Newton didn't know about "Dark Matter". So his Law of Gravity didn't take any such thing into account.
His Law certainly works when applied to local phenomena. Such as planetary orbits within our Solar System. And even to local stellar systems, such as binary stars within our Galaxy. All these compute properly, and give sound and verifiable predictions. Which gives us confidence in him.
Personally, I think "Dark Matter" doesn't really exist. It's probably just some chimera like "Phlogiston" or "Luminiferous Ether" or the "Martian Canals". Or "Spacetime". These things always crop up in Science, over the ages.
Just wait patiently. Truth is the daughter of time
-
Personally, I think "Dark Matter" doesn't really exist.
On one side we have the whole of science; on the other side we have a hunch from a man who started a thread called "I don’t understand physics..."
-
Personally, I think "Dark Matter" doesn't really exist.
On one side we have the whole of science; on the other side we have a hunch from a man who started a thread called "I don’t understand physics..."
I didn't start that thread! It was you! Or some moderator who saw it as a snazzy headline to relieve the boredom of such a quiescent site..
I was well annoyed, I can tell you ! But I kept quiet. For fear of getting thrown off, if I complained about it.
Anyway, let it go.
-
It was you!
Guess again.
But am I right in my recollection that you did actually say that you don't understand science?
-
It was you!
Guess again.
But am I right in my recollection that you did actually say that you don't understand science?
I never said that. You must've been off your face to recollect that.
I merely raised certain questions about current scientific theory. Especially about the Higg's Boson.. I do recall expressing myself in a rather forthright manner on that subject.
But all within the bounds of scientific rectitude. I hope I haven't offended .anyone.
-
Yes, even the title being expressed as a question is rambling garbage.....Please, let me try again....I will quote something initially to assist what I'm trying to state:
"The force of gravity of the earth on a ball falling near it's surface varies directly as the mass of the ball. By Newton's third law, the ball exerts a force on the earth that is equal and opposite to the force of the earth on the ball."
Now I will try to ask my question......If the ball is so small compared to the earth, then how does it produce an equivalent gravitational force? Does dark matter supplement the ball's mass to produce the same gravitational force? I have other questions, but I will stop here so far......
-
Now I will try to ask my question......If the ball is so small compared to the earth, then how does it produce an equivalent gravitational force?
Because the force is proportional to both masses, A and B
One sees a force of A times B
And the other sees a force of B times A
Does dark matter supplement the ball's mass to produce the same gravitational force?
No.
It has essentially nothing to do with it.
If you somehow got a ball and added some dark matter to it, you would add to the mass. This would seem rather odd, but the ball would still behave like a ball with that higher mass.
-
….makes good mathematical sense...thx
-
Yes, even the title being expressed as a question is rambling garbage.....Please, let me try again....I will quote something initially to assist what I'm trying to state:
"The force of gravity of the earth on a ball falling near it's surface varies directly as the mass of the ball. By Newton's third law, the ball exerts a force on the earth that is equal and opposite to the force of the earth on the ball."
Now I will try to ask my question......If the ball is so small compared to the earth, then how does it produce an equivalent gravitational force? Does dark matter supplement the ball's mass to produce the same gravitational force? I have other questions, but I will stop here so far......
In the scenario you are discussing, the gravitational force from the falling ball, obviously exerts an equal upward attraction from the Earth. That's to say, the ball pulls the Earth upwards.
But since the huge Earth is so much more massive than the small ball, the ball's attraction is too small to make a difference.
.As for your mention of "Dark Matter", I think you would be best to disregard it. It's just a phantasm conjured up by theoretical physicists, to account for anomalies in the observed rotations of nearby galaxies.
A similar situation arose in the 19th century. Anomalies in the observed rotation of Mercury around the Sun, led some theoretical physicists to postulate that there must be another planet. Closer to the Sun than Mercury. They even gave it a name "Vulcan".
But "Vulcan" doesn't exist. There is no such planet. It was just a phantasm.
-
Why does a small atomic mass have the same gravitational force ( Newton's 3rd law) on a larger mass
Not sure this is correct, more mass means more energy means more gravitational strength.
unless dark matter has a greater influence on ' the smaller the mass'...?
Ok how does that function?
Yes,.... Andromeda has a larger influence on it's companion galaxy, but still the force of gravity is equivalent for both....
Black hole suns?
-
Not sure this is correct,
It is.
-
Not sure this is correct,
It is.
Cant be a sun and a black hole(sun)do not have the same gravitational strength
-
Not sure this is correct,
It is.
Cant be a sun and a black hole(sun)do not have the same gravitational strength
Would you like to try writing that in better English?
-
Not sure this is correct,
It is.
Cant be a sun and a black hole(sun)do not have the same gravitational strength
Would you like to try writing that in better English?
Not really. It's fine. I could add a comma after be. But no it's ok.
-
Cant be a sun and a black hole(sun)do not have the same gravitational strength
They do if they have the same mass.
-
Appreciate some gravitation terminology: Please correct if I'm incorrect....The gravitational strength is actually the gravitational field strength which would be a property of the object exerting the gravitational force....
-
Appreciate some gravitation terminology: Please correct if I'm incorrect....The gravitational strength is actually the gravitational field strength which would be a property of the object exerting the gravitational force....
Pretty much, yeah.
-
Does our motion affect what I'm asking? I have read that the motion of the observer affects (x,y,z,t)?
-
Appreciate some gravitation terminology: Please correct if I'm incorrect....The gravitational strength is actually the gravitational field strength which would be a property of the object exerting the gravitational force....
Under Newtonian mechanics, the gravitational strength is expressed as an acceleration which is a function of mass and the distance from that mass. A = GM/r² which works out to 9.8 m/sec² here on the surface of Earth.
Under relativity, gravitational strength is expressed as a stress energy tensor which describes the curvature of spacetime in the vicinity of mass.
Does our motion affect what I'm asking? I have read that the motion of the observer affects (x,y,z,t)?
Neither are coordinate system dependent, so no.
-
Thx again .....I suspect dark matter has a 2D influence on all gravitational field tensors when passing through masses and this would be based on galaxies eventually having a tendency to be conglomerate in sheets as opposed to just randomly...
-
Thx again .....I suspect dark matter has a 2D influence on all gravitational field tensors when passing through masses and this would be based on galaxies eventually having a tendency to be conglomerate in sheets as opposed to just randomly...
Dark matter is mass like any other mass and is described the same way with the stress energy tensor.
Ordinary matter particles tend to conglomerate because they interact with each other through the other three forces and slow each other down. Dark matter doesn't interact in this way and thus tends to maintain its energy levels indefinitely (no losses to radiation or friction).
-
If there is no type of radiation of energy in dark matter, then is it possible that dark matter simply has a floating ground state due to any input of energy?
-
Just chatting ( and rambling on ): (Just Chat allows?)
Probably the type of mass involved in dark matter has nothing that spins and thus cannot set up proper energy levels and thus has only a ground state susceptible to energy fluctuations......Perhaps spin is time dependent and dark matter formed after atomic matter when things cooled beyond what spin required?....
-
Just chatting ( and rambling on ): (Just Chat allows?)
Probably the type of mass involved in dark matter has nothing that spins and thus cannot set up proper energy levels and thus has only a ground state susceptible to energy fluctuations......Perhaps spin is time dependent and dark matter formed after atomic matter when things cooled beyond what spin required?....
Could Dark Matter particles always "spin" in the opposite direction to Atomic Matter.
And if "spin" is time-dependent, as you suggest, mightn't this universal DM/AM opposite-spinning, cancel out the effects of Time, in the Universe as a whole. So that the Universe keeps on existing, in a timeless "Steady State".
Mightn't that explain the puzzling Hubble Telescope photographs of the most remote galaxies
The photographs show far-distant galaxies as they were, many billions of years ago. Not long after the "Big Bang". So they might be expected to look "primitive", rather "chaotic" and roughly-formed.
Yet - is it true, that they don't look like that at all? Rather they're quite similar to close-by galaxies, such the M.31 Andromeda galaxy. They're neat, well-organised spirals.
Could that be because of DM/AM interactions across the Universe?
-
Charles asks: Could Dark Matter always spin in the opposite direction to Atomic Matter? That wasn't exactly what I stated, but perhaps even more interesting? Does Galaxy A1689-zD1 (700 million years after the Big Bang) agree with this?...thx
-
Just chatting ( and rambling on ): (Just Chat allows?)
Probably the type of mass involved in dark matter has nothing that spins and thus cannot set up proper energy levels and thus has only a ground state susceptible to energy fluctuations......Perhaps spin is time dependent and dark matter formed after atomic matter when things cooled beyond what spin required?....
"Spin" has nothing to do with it. The neutrino has a spin of 1/2 and is basically a type of "Dark matter". It has a mass but does not interact via the electromagnetic interaction. It would be the type of Dark Matter known as a WIMP ( Weakly Interacting Massive Particle.)
-
Is a neutrino not simply just a lepton with the following characteristics:
"The mass of the neutrino is much smaller than that of the other known elementary particles. The weak force has a very short range, the gravitational interaction is extremely weak, and neutrinos do not participate in the strong interaction. Thus, neutrinos typically pass through normal matter unimpeded and undetected."
…….But the neutrino still has gravity.....I guess WIMP.....
Despite the similarity and spin 1/2:
"The mechanics of the infinitely small say that a nucleus can exist only in a limited number of states characterized by an energy level, in the same way that atomic electrons belong to specific layers associated to a limited number of energy levels."
.....I'm trying to ask, that without a firm ground state: would there will be no transitioning due to a floating ground state in dark matter. Despite the similarity to a neutrino, the cause may defer between the two with dark matter mass never having any spin.....
-
Ron, you shouldn't get too involved with the fine details of current theories.
They will be soon be replaced by new theories. I predict that in 20 years' time, the whole idea of "Dark Matter" will have been consigned to the dust-bin of history.
And new students of Physics in the class of 2041, will laugh at it, but with some respect for their predecessors, who didn't know any better. As in their time, "QX-Fields" hadn't yet been discovered.
-
Charles, mathematics is so important as a tool in Physics and vectors are so important when talking about Gravity, yet still, one idea may inspire. Cannot dark matter have all energy levels floating all over the place due to a floating ground energy level? There would be no excitations of any sort or release of energy of any sort....
-
I can even kick myself in the ***....Perhaps dark matter is simply clouds of leptons, (not spin 0 as I stated), left over from the big bang and does not interact, as Janus states, due to a floating ground energy level state?..........
-
Charles, mathematics is so important as a tool in Physics and vectors are so important when talking about Gravity, yet still, one idea may inspire. Cannot dark matter have all energy levels floating all over the place due to a floating ground energy level? There would be no excitations of any sort or release of energy of any sort....
Ron, I agree with your general thrust. Personally I doubt that "dark matter" and "dark energy" actually exist. They're most likely temporary inventions to paper over our lack of understanding.
To improve our understanding, we need to ask the sort of perceptive questions that you pose.