0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mike - the upshot of that gedanken is that antimatter is attracted to matter. You will note that this has "kinda" been checked experimentally with the deflection of neutrinos and antineutrinos being the same
Mike I have tried to explain simpler notions to you - you refuse to compromise or see that you could possibly be wrong. The creation of particle pairs will have same amount of excess energy independent of the height above centre of mass of planet - it follows that the two forms you have suggested will have same xs energy, thus if energy is conserved only the attractive model works
Attractive might be the wrong word Mike. You could also think of it as 'gravity' having a 'direction'. That 'direction' gives you a 'up' and a 'down' biologically. Magnets can 'attract' or 'repel'. Gravity just is.
The whole point of the gedanken is to take the antimatter/matter particle pair crunch them together - increase energy of photons produced, remake the pair and the excess energy gained by the photons falling towards earth is matched by the kinetic energy required to move the the particle pair back up to original level. this balance works for attractive.if we assume that antimatter is repulsive of matter then you will get the particles again with enough kinetic energy to get them back to the original higher level BUT now the repulsive antimatter particle gains additional kinetic energy as it accelerates outwards - so instead of having two particle at rest (which is the starting situation) you have the matter at rest and the antimatter with increased velocity and accelerating outwards. So you have gone from two stationary particles at beginning of experiment to one stationary and one fast moving at the end; that is the failure of conservation of energy.
Ordinary gravity, can be thought of as kinetic energy. Repulsive gravity is the opposite, as kinetic energy is gained from acceleration in a gravitational field, so gravitational potential energy is lost. The accelerating antiparticle is gaining kinetic energy at the cost of loosing gravitational potential energy the higher it climbs out of the gravity well. The two cancel and the total energy remains the same. The accelerating antiparticle is not gaining energy.
Quote from: MikeS on 18/06/2011 15:18:22Ordinary gravity, can be thought of as kinetic energy. Repulsive gravity is the opposite, as kinetic energy is gained from acceleration in a gravitational field, so gravitational potential energy is lost. The accelerating antiparticle is gaining kinetic energy at the cost of loosing gravitational potential energy the higher it climbs out of the gravity well. The two cancel and the total energy remains the same. The accelerating antiparticle is not gaining energy.No gravity CANNOT be thought of a kinetic energy - this is just nonsense.Forget Potential Energy. This is why: 1. PE is proportional to distance from centre of mass (CofM) - no matter whether that of antimatter or matter2. Particles are x metres from CofM at begining of experiment3. Particles are x metres from CofM at end of experiment4. Particles mass is same as at beginning and position is same --> PE must be same at beginning and end of experiment.5. There is no change between PE beginning and end whether Anti-M is repulsive or not. But - Kinetic Energy varies. This is why1. There is a FoR in which the two particles start at rest - ie zero kinetic energy2. At the end of the experiment the two particles return to this point3. But by the end the matter particle is at rest - whereas the anti-matter (if repulsive) has a velocity & kinetic energy4. So there is a change in Kinetic Energy iff anti-matter is repulsive under gravityThis is a closed system and you have ended up with more energy than you started with I have laid it bit by bit - Tell me which bit of the above is wrong.
Everywhere in the universe is within a gravitational field, therefore all mass is moving.
Sorry for butting in, but QuoteEverywhere in the universe is within a gravitational field, therefore all mass is moving. does not seem right at all.Just because matter is in a gravitational field, there is no guarantee that it is moving, and matter can be moving regardless of the gravitational field that it is in.
Mike - one last try! Gravitational Potential Energy is proportional to ONLY the masses, the separation and the force.True or False?TrueThe particles are in exactly the same place, have exactly the same mass, and the graviational force is the same at both beginning and end of experiment. True or False?TrueThe particles have the same Potential Energy at beginning and end.True or False?TrueThe fact that the antimatter particle (if g is repulsive) has too much kinetic - does NOT mean that this energy can only have come from lost potential of the same amount! We have shown above that PE remains the same. The fact that KE has increased shows that Energy has not been conserved. if you insist on this form of analysis then you must calculate the PE at the moment of re-creation of the two particles - this is difficult!KE, has either not increased (when the two particles are back at their original starting points KE has not increased) or has increased at the expense of gravitational potential energy GPEWhere I have answered true to the above points, I mean true when the particles are back in their original starting positions.Geezer is correct, I am currently sitting at my desk putting off my phd research, I am in a gravitational field with a force of approx 9.8ms-2, to the best of my knowledge I am not moving
Mike - you keep saying this, it is wrong. PE is ONLY proportional to distance, mass, and gravitational attraction. Either tell me this is wrong, or agree with it.If you give me a straight answer (ie one word) then I can build on that to explain where you are wrong - cos you are wrong. If you insist on long and rambling replies which ignore my posts I am gonna call it quits