The Naked Scientists
Toggle navigation
Login
Register
Podcasts
The Naked Scientists
eLife
Naked Genetics
Naked Astronomy
In short
Naked Neuroscience
Ask! The Naked Scientists
Question of the Week
Archive
Video
SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
Articles
Science News
Features
Interviews
Answers to Science Questions
Get Naked
Donate
Do an Experiment
Science Forum
Ask a Question
About
Meet the team
Our Sponsors
Site Map
Contact us
User menu
Login
Register
Search
Home
Help
Search
Tags
Member Map
Recent Topics
Login
Register
Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side
New Theories
Lambert's Cosine Law
« previous
next »
Print
Pages:
1
...
5
6
[
7
]
8
9
...
17
Go Down
Lambert's Cosine Law
324 Replies
105208 Views
0 Tags
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #120 on:
27/10/2014 01:15:07 »
We can rearrange the equation for g to get the time factor as SQRT([M*L^2]/g*[L*lP^2]/[hbar*r^2]). This graph is also linear and starts at L/1. This can be thought of as the speed of light at an infinite distance from any gravitational source. Moving horizontally right is equivalent to moving into an intensifying gravitational field where light is effectively slowed down as viewed by an observer at infinity.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #121 on:
27/10/2014 01:22:47 »
The time axis in the above graph will reach infinity at the event horizon. Any marked effects represented by the plot will only occur near massive dense objects. The attached plot of earth's g shows no noticeable difference on the time axis as this will be measured in nanoseconds and will be unobservable under normal conditions. This can be considered a linear relationship in a less intense gravitational field.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #122 on:
27/10/2014 08:12:00 »
Kinetic energy is given by E = (1/2) mv^2. E is kinetic energy, m is the mass and v is velocity. We can derive momentum as p = √(2Em). The deBroglie equation for wavelength is λ = h/p where here λ is the wavelength, h is Planck's constant and p is momentum. This can be written as λ = h/√(2Em). Since we have already derived t from the gravity equation then we can also derive m. Then time and kinetic energy will be variables in the wave equation. This can be used to show the evolution of the wave under the influence of gravity. In which case m becomes the mass of the particle with r^2 indicating the particle radius squared. The value of g for the particle is most important. This is our way into quantum gravity.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #123 on:
27/10/2014 20:16:50 »
The most profitable investigation would be into the relationships between mass-energy, kinetic energy and time.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #124 on:
30/10/2014 23:18:18 »
I am now in the position that I need to derive the mass equation. This is to test an hypothesis that gravitation is merely a catalyst and not a force in its own right.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #125 on:
31/10/2014 00:34:14 »
So we end up with M =
-1
. Looking at it this way the g force is inherent in the mass with gravity as the catalyst.
«
Last Edit: 31/10/2014 00:40:45 by jeffreyH
»
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #126 on:
31/10/2014 01:19:17 »
Finally we can rearrange as M = g
-1
. So now we only need modify g and r to find the mass contained within a radius that will produce a particular g force. We can attempt to apply this to a particle or to a black hole. There is a direct relationship to density inherent in the equation. This neglects time dilation and length contraction but it is straightforward to modify to take these into account. However the complexities rises with four independent variables.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #127 on:
31/10/2014 01:51:26 »
Our mass equation can then be substituted into the momentum equation p = √(2Em) where L/t does matter as this has an effect due to both time dilation and length contraction. It can also be a way of showing the effects on kinetic energy. We have to be careful in the application of this formula as it is the mass energy that changes in order to have an effect on the kinetic energy. Which is the wrong way round. Unless we consider it a change in flux rate.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #128 on:
31/10/2014 20:59:58 »
I think that gravity as a catalyst is unworkable for a variety of reasons.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #129 on:
01/11/2014 01:36:43 »
To get energy Mc^2 we arrive at
-1
. Which we can rearrange as Mc^2 =
-1
. The deBroglie wavelength being h/p we should be able to use these equations to model the effect of gravity on particle waveforms. For momentum we get p = √(2kEg/c^2[{lP^2/r^2}{L/hbar}]^-1).
«
Last Edit: 01/11/2014 01:44:49 by jeffreyH
»
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #130 on:
01/11/2014 03:18:47 »
Having the Planck area lP^2 in the equation is of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
"The Planck area, equal to the square of the Planck length, plays a role in black hole entropy. The value of this entropy, in units of the Boltzmann constant, is known to be given by A/4lP^2, where A is the area of the event horizon. The Planck area is the area by which a spherical black hole increases when the black hole swallows one bit of information, as was proven by Jacob Bekenstein."
The term lP^2/r^2 can therefore link our mass-energy to a density function that relates to the horizon black hole.
Another important point on this page is this.
"In doubly special relativity, the Planck length is observer-invariant."
So is length contraction valid or are space and time separate.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #131 on:
02/11/2014 15:11:30 »
Upon reading further there are serious problems with double special relativity so I am going to ignore it for now. The energy equation is important as it relates energy to gravitation rather than mass. As the photon is massless this is the only way we can use the equation with the photon wave equation. I will be looking at Pete's relativistic mass page soon to see how it can all be combined.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #132 on:
04/11/2014 23:08:29 »
We can finally rearrange the mass equation from M = g
-1
to M = g
to remove the reciprocal with units of joule second^2 metres^-2.
Correction the units are joule second metres^-2. And of course 1 (joule second) per (square metre) = 1 kg / s
«
Last Edit: 04/11/2014 23:39:19 by jeffreyH
»
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #133 on:
05/11/2014 00:06:09 »
So now if we multiply this mass value by 1 second we get our kg value. Since our 1 second value relates to light speed. As time dilation increases our time value increases. Multiplying by the new value gives our increase in mass due to time dilation and increasing velocity.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #134 on:
05/11/2014 01:45:09 »
This of course gives us mass flow rate A.K.A mass flux. This is usually used in fluid dynamics although there is no reason not to use it in other ways.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #135 on:
06/11/2014 00:30:03 »
The mass equation M = g
can be rearranged in the same way the energy equation was to become M = g
. The term
gives us the number of Planck squares in our radial square area and therefore reduces the magnitude to a scalar Planck multiplier. If the value of r were 2lP this would equal the rs value of the event horizon of a Planck mass black hole. The scalar value then becomes 2. Interestingly this is the factor in the rs equation 2GM/c^2. To derive the Planck mass value from this expression would simply require finding the corresponding value for g.
«
Last Edit: 06/11/2014 00:36:51 by jeffreyH
»
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #136 on:
06/11/2014 00:43:24 »
To hold r at 2lP and simply increase g is the same as increasing mass within a set volume. Therefore increasing density. When we get to the point where instantaneous acceleration equals the speed of light we will have found a value of great interest. This will be the point of no return at which a singularity is inevitable.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #137 on:
08/11/2014 23:07:00 »
We have kinetic energy e
k
=
and potential energy e
p
= -
. These equations balance as energy is converted from potential to kinetic and visa versa. What is not taken into account here is the effect of time dilation due to a changing gravitational field. The derived equations above can however take this into account. Using energy instead of mass in these equations is the only way to proceed when dealing with massive or massless particles.
To verify length contraction an effect upon kinetic energy must be present. This must be equivalent to a loss of energy when viewed from a remote frame. I intend to show that there is no such effect upon the overall kinetic energy of an object moving through a gravitational field. As the kinetic energy reduces there is an equal amount of increase in the potential energy. This can be thought of as the kinetic energy being negative and the potential energy as positive. Kinetic energy becomes positive only when approaching a mass through its gravitational field. Which is why no force is felt. When accelerating outside of a significant gravitational field, a mass carries with it its own gravitational field and so does feel a force as it cannot be moving through its own field. Its kinetic energy is inherently negative.
«
Last Edit: 08/11/2014 23:22:50 by jeffreyH
»
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #138 on:
09/11/2014 00:20:54 »
So we arrive at e
p
=
. We now need the same form for e
k
. Here we have m^2 s^-2 but with hbar having joule second units which signify angular momentum. So how do we square this with a kg unit?
«
Last Edit: 09/11/2014 01:14:39 by jeffreyH
»
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
jeffreyH
(OP)
Global Moderator
Naked Science Forum King!
6996
Activity:
0%
Thanked: 192 times
The graviton sucks
Re: Lambert's Cosine Law
«
Reply #139 on:
09/11/2014 01:34:42 »
Well one answer from yahoo is:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110820184453AABGGvX
"Do you really mean m^2/s^2 and not m/s^2, which is just acceleration.
But m^2/s^2 could mean many things. For example, during the recent nuclear disaster in Japan, the radiation dose rate received by workers and citizens was measured in Seiverts/hour. The unit of dose, the Seivert has the dimension m^2/s^2, which is equivalent to Joules (energy) per kg:
Example: Energy(Joules) = force x distance (Nm) = mass x acceleration x distance (kg m^2/s^2)
Energy per mass = Dose (Seivert) = mass x acceleration x distance / mass (m^2/s^2)"
So this could be thought of as energy per mass. What of the hbar in our denominator in joule seconds?
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
Print
Pages:
1
...
5
6
[
7
]
8
9
...
17
Go Up
« previous
next »
Tags:
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...