21
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: what is the nature of a photon ?
« on: 11/03/2013 17:54:20 »
Probably Einstein had Great gravitational field,which was fastly moving the Earth to him...
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
HmmNo,that doesn't.Gravity increases my energy.
. If you fall with the gravity, the gravity disappear for you.
Rotation defines some slowing of time.Rotation is just motion of masses relatively of another masses.We don't know general formula of gravitational-kinematic slowing of time.
=
Where is the frame of reference needed for defining a rotation?
Relative what?
(I stipulated 'no matter' just so that you wouldn't be able to use yourself as some 'static' proof of a three dimensionality. But the reasoning for rotations holds even if you would be there as matter)
So how do we get distance and motion? If light refuse to 'move'? Heh, that one is weird, isn't it?Your questions could be clearer in digits.
If gravity was a 'substance/force field' interacting, and we assumed that light too can interact without annihilating, as I think you need both to make it work, you would be correct. Do they? How?Photon interacts with gravitation.Their interacting defines energy of photon.Isn't it?Otherwise how does photon
You are right. Broken up meteorite interacts with oxygen.It creates explosion.What has caused meteorite explosion in atmosphere?
I posted something about this in another thread, but it should really be here, so I'll put a modified version of that here:-
An Australian by the name of Dr. Karl (who is a living scientific database) does a phone-in in the middle of the night (Radio 5, 3-4 on Thursday mornings). Last Thursday he said something very interesting about the mechanism by which asteroids/meteors burn up or explode. I'd always thought it was down to friction and heating generated from that, but with a big lump of rock that's only going to do superficial damage. He explained that it's actually pressure that tears these rocks to pieces as the rock piles into gas which builds up in front of it, compressing the rock because it's easier to do that than to get out of the way. He also said that things which we are taught are incompressible like water are actually compressible - if you smack something into water hard enough it can be compressed to 3/4 of its normal volume (I don't know if that's a limit or just an example taken from some specific experiment), but it will apply to solid things too, thereby giving an insight into what can happen when a rock slams into the atmosphere at tens of thousands of miles an hour. He didn't explain the heating mechanism, but I would imagine it comes along for free as a direct result of the compression, and it would take compression of the rock to drive it to tear itself to pieces - we're talking about a rock of ten to twenty metres across being reduced to fragments, and if it was done purely through heating the whole thing would turn into lava, but it clearly doesn't.
Does weight have gravitational energy?I don't understand your reasoning. It's a fact that a compressed spring has more mass than when the spring is not compressed and as such it weighs more. The energy in the spring also creates a gravitational field. So what do you mean "you have left nothing for the weight and its force" That has no meaning for me.Let's consider weight on spring.Counteracting forces are equal.If you think that energy of the spring creates gravitational field then you have left nothing for the weight and its force.Why potential energy of spring has mass, but gravitational potential energy has no mass?Gravitational energy does have mass. Who said it doesn't? It's for that reason that Einstein's Field Equations are nonlinear.
It's also for this reason that it is sometimes said that "gravity gravitates."
Let's consider weight on spring.Counteracting forces are equal.If you think that energy of the spring creates gravitational field then you have left nothing for the weight and its force.Why potential energy of spring has mass, but gravitational potential energy has no mass?Gravitational energy does have mass. Who said it doesn't? It's for that reason that Einstein's Field Equations are nonlinear.
It's also for this reason that it is sometimes said that "gravity gravitates."
Yes, moisture was exploding some of my stones in fire.Some stones can explode in a fire.I saw it,but I don't know the reason.
Isn't moisture content one of the reasons why stones explode in the fire.
However, as far as meteorites, I would have to imagine that asteroids orbiting with an orbit near Earth's orbit would tend to be dry due to the low pressures and the sun's heat.
Asteroids originating near Pluto, or further out, and not spending a lot of time near the sun would tend to have a higher water content.
However, if the meteorite consists mainly of water, it may be rapidly vaporized.
Many metals will also burn when heated in contact with oxygen.
Some stones can explode in a fire.I saw it,but I don't know the reason.What has caused meteorite explosion in atmosphere?
and if it was done purely through heating the whole thing would turn into lava, but it clearly doesn't.
Excessively complex model needs excessively complex math.There are examples of physicists getting their ideas geometrically, as you want. Think I read about one guy, having some drinks one late night, to then dream about a problem he was trying to solve, watching it develop geometrically in his dream. And it gave him the expression he then translated into mathematics, solving the puzzle. A Finnish guy if I remember right
But to be precise you must learn the mathematics, to be able to translate it into mathematical notation. There is no way around that fact I'm afraid. As for spin it would have to be faster than light to translate directly to a ordinary spin. It also would need to be explained why a full rotation takes twice 360 degrees, if you translate it into a ordinary rotation of some spinning top on the floor. So it's a really mysterious property to me. Doesn't mean that you should stop imagining, but you need the mathematics to prove your ideas.
I am not in a position to learn Calculus at home though. I asked someone to teach me on the internet, but they wouldn't.
I don't know any physics model of Da Vinci.Physics can tell about any mechanism.Any mechanism can't tell about physics.You can "guess" in science if your guess produce a falsifiable prediction. This should almost always be based on mathematics so that it's a quantitative prediction. Your prediction should also usually be sufficiently different from other predictions that you can differentiate them.
Well I've never been taught Calculus. I wouldn't mind learning Calculus, but I'm more like Da Vinci, and I work with physics in my head. I can create the computer models, but I don't think it's worth the effort without anybody actually caring what I produce.