Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: JohnDuffield on 03/03/2017 18:05:29

IMHO it's an unfortunate convention that gravitational potential is set to zero at infinity and negative at the surface of the Earth. This negative is not a true negative, in that there are no things that exist that are comprised of negative energy. Instead a body has less massenergy at a lower elevation, hence the mass deficit. It doesn't have the same massenergy plus some magical mysterious negative potential energy.
Unfortunately some people promote bad physics. The one that I particularly dislike is gravitational energy is negative so the net energy of the universe is zero. This is pseudoscience, particularly since gravitational field energy is positive. See Einstein saying as much here (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6trans/197?highlightText=gravitatively): "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy".

I too have been puzzled by the energetics of gravity. As a matter of practical science, we can observe that a mass, on approaching a gravitating body, experiences a force in the direction of its motion, which constitutes work upon the body (as seem by an observer on the gravitating body), and if that work is removed from the system as by friction and thermal radiation, the energy of the system ends up less than what it was before. Accordingly, we observationally conclude that the energy of the system is less when the bodies are close together, and on that basis, assign to the lower altitudes a lower gravitational potential. But does that mean we have literally negative energy? That involves delving into some difficult areas. One is the quantum equivalent of energy, namely frequency, in which a particle of energy E has a frequency of 2 pi E/h . There is reason to think that the correct E in this formula is the mass of the particle (special relativity seems to require that). For a particle to have literally negative energy, the mass would have to be negative, which has the curious consequence that not only must the quantum frequency be negative (resulting in a reversed complex exponential), but its mass must be negative also. But if its mass is negative, then it creates repulsive rather than attractive gravity. No such thing has ever been seen of ordinary matter; however if we consider the gravitational field itself as having an energy, then it itself may generate additional gravity. That contradicts Newton's formulation of gravity, but is not necessarily in error because Newton's formulation of gravity is an imperfect approximation valid only in the limit of fairly ordinary circumstances. Does a gravitational field, being of negative energy, generate additional gravity that opposes itself? These are the kinds of questions that can't be answered without digging into the messy details of general relativity.

This is from a book John
"you have to increase the gpe of the mass to take it into infinity where is gpe is zero it original position must have been one is negative gpe( equals to minus the work you have todo) and therefore negative gravitational potential"
so it's only negative in relation to You doing work to it, or a mathmatical principle of an equation, not a physics.
The other theory is gravitational field strength, it seems is from the radius of the earth toward the centre where gravity is reduced owing to less mass beneath it as you go toward the centre, and more mass attracting you the other direction(negative mathmatics again). Surely thats wrong as on a mountain you weigh less even though theres more mass beneath ?

Is there really such a thing as true "kinetic energy"? I mean according to "Relativity Theory", nothing really moves. It just depends on how you look at it.
For example, when you look at the Sun from a place on Earth, the Sun looks like it's moving across the sky. That movement must give it kinetic energy.
But when you look at the Solar System from outside, the Sun stays still, and it's the Earth that's moving, so the Earth must have kinetic energy.
It seems therefore that both the Sun and the Earth have kinetic energy. But how do you measure it?

Is there really such a thing as true "kinetic energy"? I mean according to "Relativity Theory", nothing really moves. It just depends on how you look at it.
For example, when you look at the Sun from a place on Earth, the Sun looks like it's moving across the sky. That movement must give it kinetic energy.
But when you look at the Solar System from outside, the Sun stays still, and it's the Earth that's moving, so the Earth must have kinetic energy.
It seems therefore that both the Sun and the Earth have kinetic energy. But how do you measure it?
Excellent. Good to see you really thinking rather than making odd interjections.
What you have realised is that the measurement of energy is relative and depends where you make the measurement from. This is also true of potential energy, if you are at the bottom of hill an object at the top has more PE relative to you than if you were half way up. So you have to be careful to define what scientists call the system when you make your measurements and then energy is conserved within that system.

so it's only negative in relation to You doing work to it, or a mathmatical principle of an equation, not a physics.
You have to understand that Mr. Duffield has a book to sell and a pet idea to peddle. He has admitted many times that he doesn't actually do physics problems.

An ether theorist like myself gets quite a different picture of how gravity works.
An atomic/quantum structured body like a planet has an auric energy field composed of elemental etheric energy units, which operate through vibrational resonance between elemental units. (The elemental ether units had originated after a firstcausal oscillational world transitioned to a universal, unstructured, vibrational, ether matrix.) After the formation of this universal ether (containing identical, elemental, units, in intimate proximity, resonating with each other vibrationally, in a smooth, perfectlylinear, mechanism), next, a quantum/atomicallystructured world was formed, like the one we are in. Atoms of solid bodies were built up from the elemental units of the ether  thus, these kinds of quantum units still retain the ability to resonate with elemental units, such as those that make up the ethermatrix existing in space. (This is the only way to understand Quantum Entanglement, for example. The socalled "entanglement" of two quantum units occurs because they communicate, through the ether matrix, via perfectlylinear radiated packets of elemental ether units, in the space between them. Elemental ether units are the only actual participants in that phenomenon, with the quantum units "walled off," kinetically, like cool "arms" of a smooth, purring, underlying matrixmechanism.) This elemental ether matrix is undetected by our technologies because of the extremely rarified scale of the etheric units making it up.
A pair of bodies in space are gravitationally attracted toward each other because they each have an auric field, coming from the ether units radiated from the quantum units their atoms are composed of. (The true, formative, forces binding the atoms are these elemental ether units.) Radiated elemental units from the densely packed atoms of two solid bodies resonate with identical elemental units of the ether in the space between them. Thus, the auric space between the two bodies is more etherically resonant than is the ether in the space outside of the auric zone, so the auric zone represents a zone of greater resonance, and gravitational attraction.

You have to understand that Mr. Duffield has a book to sell and a pet idea to peddle. He has admitted many times that he doesn't actually do physics problems.
I don't have a book to sell or a pet idea to peddle. I'm here to educate and inform with reference to robust physics and so oppose the popscience misinformation that is sadly all too common these days. Einstein made it clear that gravitational field energy is positive, and that this energy has a gravitational effect.

John they are going for 51p used on amazon.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0956097804/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1488917147&sr=81&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=relativity%2B+duffield (https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0956097804/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1488917147&sr=81&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=relativity%2B+duffield)

Einstein made it clear that gravitational field energy is positive, and that this energy has a gravitational effect.
An impossibility, positive v positive = expansion not contraction.

Einstein made it clear that gravitational field energy is positive, and that this energy has a gravitational effect.
An impossibility, positive v positive = expansion not contraction.
Exactly!

Those used copies are nothing to do with me. I can't stop people selling them on Amazon. No new copies have been on sale for about 5 years now.

Einstein made it clear that gravitational field energy is positive, and that this energy has a gravitational effect.
An impossibility, positive v positive = expansion not contraction.
Exactly!
It is the negative of any S that holds the positive of that S in situate..

An impossibility, positive v positive = expansion not contraction.
It's not an impossibility, it's general relativity. Check out the stressenergymomentum tensor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor) that "that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime". It's the energydensity gradient that makes light curve and matter fall down. Also see the Einstein digital papers (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6trans/197?highlightText=gravitatively): "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy".

Ok John can you list some of the exact solutions to the Einstein field equations that have been found. I can check the answers for you if you like. Seeing as you are such an expert relativist. Oh and not to include the Schwarzschild or Kerr type solutions.

Ok John can you list some of the exact solutions to the Einstein field equations that have been found. I can check the answers for you if you like. Seeing as you are such an expert relativist. Oh and not to include the Schwarzschild or Kerr type solutions.
See the scholarpedia article by Malcolm MacCallum. It perhaps gives you what you're looking for:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Exact_solutions_of_Einstein%27s_equations#Some_important_solutions

An impossibility, positive v positive = expansion not contraction.
It's not an impossibility, it's general relativity. Check out the stressenergymomentum tensor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor) that "that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime". It's the energydensity gradient that makes light curve and matter fall down. Also see the Einstein digital papers (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6trans/197?highlightText=gravitatively): "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy".
Sir have you ever heard the expression , don't always believe what the papers says.! well I am going to extend on this, don't always believe what the ''papers'' say , try using some common sense and science knowledge.
Likewise polarities repel each other, do you agree with that?

Likewise polarities repel each other, do you agree with that?
Yes I do. But two bodies attract one another, in line with F = G m_{1}m_{2} / r˛. The m stands for mass, and the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content, as per Einstein’s E=mc˛ paper (https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/). There are no bodies that contain less than zero energy, just as there are no pencils less than zero inches long. Hence there is no gravitational repulsion. Nor is there any runaway motion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Negative_mass&oldid=766842082#Runaway_motion) comprised of “a push that repels the positive mass from the negative mass, and a pull that attracts the negative mass”.

Ok John can you list some of the exact solutions to the Einstein field equations that have been found. I can check the answers for you if you like. Seeing as you are such an expert relativist. Oh and not to include the Schwarzschild or Kerr type solutions.
See the scholarpedia article by Malcolm MacCallum. It perhaps gives you what you're looking for:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Exact_solutions_of_Einstein%27s_equations#Some_important_solutions
It took you only ten minutes to google that. That IS impressive.

In my ether model for gravity described in my last post, an auric etheric zone between two solid bodies in space contracts the ether there. As elemental ether units in the "auric zone" between the bodies resonate, their outward vibrations form more connections, producing an increase in the entrainments among the ether units, which contracts the ether between the bodies, compared to the ether outside the auric zone. A key to this model is the idea that elemental units in the ether matrix resonate in a perfectly linear way (no spin, vectors, waves, or other nonlinear mechanisms involved, only a linear vibrational mechanism between identical elemental matrix units.)
As I said in that post, an ether theorist like myself gets quite a different picture of gravity.

In this ether model, the ether in the auric zone between two bodies in space contracts because of the spatial relationship between the elemental units of the ether.
The part of the model pertaining to the question of, how close together elemental ether units would have to be, relates back to how individual etheric units would have arisen from a firstcausal world in which spatial "points" oscillated. At that time, oscillational fatigue led adjacent pairs of "points" to fall toward each other, in Yin and Yang fashion, after which pairs of elemental spatial points would have had to reequilibrate with the oscillational setting in space, and reversibly revert to elemental singleton units, which now became outofphase with the oscillational world, breaking its symmetry, and thus producing an "elemental point" ether, which vibrates in an energicallylinear fashion.
In the original oscillational world, individual "points" were finite, because if oscillationalreciprocity distanceparameters had been infinite, oscillation would not have occurred, and nothing further could have happened.
Since the pointlike elemental ether units were derived from spatial "points" which acted discretely while transitioning, as above, the concept one derives about their spatial relationship is that inasmuch as elemental ether units would have to be discrete in space as they vibrate, there has to be a slight spatial separation from unit to unit, although as their outward vibrations cause them to contact each other resonationally, they become contiguous with each other, but only as they connect with each other.
Thus, the space between ether units contracts when two units resonate vibrationally, which, in the case of the relativelyenergized, more resonational, "auric zone" between solid bodies in space, means that the ether in that zone contracts, compared to the ether outside of the auric zone, producing gravitation between the bodies.

An impossibility, positive v positive = expansion not contraction.
It's not an impossibility, it's general relativity. Check out the stressenergymomentum tensor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor) that "that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime". It's the energydensity gradient that makes light curve and matter fall down. Also see the Einstein digital papers (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6trans/197?highlightText=gravitatively): "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy".
This is simply not true and Mr. Duffield knows it. Of course, this kind of false statement is exactly what the moderators of this forum seem to appreciate.
The stressenergy tensor is on one side of the Einstein Field Equation, on the other side is the spacetime curvature. It is the spacetime curvature that determines the movement of bodies through spacetime, not any gradient.

An impossibility, positive v positive = expansion not contraction.
It's not an impossibility, it's general relativity. Check out the stressenergymomentum tensor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor) that "that describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime". It's the energydensity gradient that makes light curve and matter fall down. Also see the Einstein digital papers (http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6trans/197?highlightText=gravitatively): "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy".
This is simply not true and Mr. Duffield knows it. Of course, this kind of false statement is exactly what the moderators of this forum seem to appreciate.
The stressenergy tensor is on one side of the Einstein Field Equation, on the other side is the spacetime curvature. It is the spacetime curvature that determines the movement of bodies through spacetime, not any gradient.
Spacetime curve is a 2d explanation of a 3d spacetime gradient. The gradient causes the tenser.

Classical physicists, including Newton, all believed in the existence of an ether. The reason an ether was discarded by mainstream physics was the series of experiments by Michelson et al dating to the late 1800s, and first half of the 1900s. However, Michelson et al's experiments, on the basis of which the theory of an ether was discarded, all were based on what I believe was a false assumption about the nature of the possible kinds of ether. They assumed that any ether would have to act as a medium for conducting light (These experiments were based on measuring light's behavior under different ambient conditions, and how the assumed ether would affect this behavior). However, if the kind of ether presented in my model exists, its behavior would depend on the fact that such an ether's elemental units would be the primary force acting in light transmission, i.e., the ether would be a fundamental part and parcel of light transmissions, so that detecting the existence of an ether would not involve measurements based on it being a medium for the transmission of light, as was assumed in those experiments. Physics still dismisses the ether based on those old experiments.
Ether is the only path to unifying cosmic forces.

I agree its either mechanics or magic transferring light.

Spacetime curve is a 2d explanation of a 3d spacetime gradient.
Odd that it's represented by 4D tensors. Or maybe you're wrong.

The concept of gravity from my ether Model  that gravitational attraction between two solid bodies occurs due to contraction of the ether in the "auric zone" between the bodies, relative to the state of the ether outside of that zone  can be considered in more detail, by examining how, inside a body, the crowding of atoms produces an extremely high degree of resonanceactivity of ether units inside the body. In the auric space just outside the body, on the other hand, this resonational etheractivity, although it continues, drops off suddenly and markedly. Such an extreme gradient in ether activity would have to accentuate what would otherwise be a lesser effect on the local inertial behavior of bodies, and this would produce a local effect affecting how two nearby bodies behave, in their "cosmologically localized," gravityattraction zone. (One can think of how, in this auric zone, the accentuation of etheric energic activity from bodies, occurring "locally," would require a compensatory "field" effect, further out in space, in order to "rebalance" the forces on a larger scale. But the local effects, specifically the attraction between the bodies, would have taken place, regardless.)
To draw a similarity to magnetic fields, in the model of the ether, if you were to set up a dipolar electric system with an electric current flowing inside of it, the system would radiate a magnetic field into space around the electric system  which, at its basic level of the ether, is made up of elemental ether units. Both the electrical field and magnetic field, therefore, are composed of identical, elemental, units, and the process is continuous, linear, and "smooth," between the internal electrical system and the magnetic field outside. The magnetic field is "rebalancing" forces, in the wider spatial neighborhood of the doublepole electrical system.
In the case of gravity, a similar process would occur, in which forces in space, further out, are "rebalanced." The inertial attraction, between two solid bodies, remains as (in a broader cosmological sense) "merely an incidental" effect.

Spacetime curve is a 2d explanation of a 3d spacetime gradient.
Odd that it's represented by 4D tensors. Or maybe you're wrong.
The universe is 3d and motion. Of that statement it is unlikely that I am incorrect.
Energy is of space and not mass. Space energy moves electrons. There is a dilation of energy to the center of mass. Energy of a frame is measured by a clock. A BH has no energy but it does have kinetic properties. Your tenser is just a gradient dilation of fundamental energy. Light cannot reach a black hole because it is bent around a BH. Space energy is dilated to the max around a BH. Mass is the kinetic form of energy. There is always a ratio between PE and KE measured by a clock.

Spacetime curve is a 2d explanation of a 3d spacetime gradient.
Odd that it's represented by 4D tensors. Or maybe you're wrong.
The universe is 3d and motion. Of that statement it is unlikely that I am incorrect.
Energy is of space and not mass. Space energy moves electrons. There is a dilation of energy to the center of mass. Energy of a frame is measured by a clock. A BH has no energy but it does have kinetic properties. Your tenser is just a gradient dilation of fundamental energy. Light cannot reach a black hole because it is bent around a BH. Space energy is dilated to the max around a BH. Mass is the kinetic form of energy. There is always a ratio between PE and KE measured by a clock.
You really don't understand physics.

Spacetime curve is a 2d explanation of a 3d spacetime gradient.
Odd that it's represented by 4D tensors. Or maybe you're wrong.
The universe is 3d and motion. Of that statement it is unlikely that I am incorrect.
Energy is of space and not mass. Space energy moves electrons. There is a dilation of energy to the center of mass. Energy of a frame is measured by a clock. A BH has no energy but it does have kinetic properties. Your tenser is just a gradient dilation of fundamental energy. Light cannot reach a black hole because it is bent around a BH. Space energy is dilated to the max around a BH. Mass is the kinetic form of energy. There is always a ratio between PE and KE measured by a clock.
You really don't understand physics.
I understand what you were taught. The subjective interpretation of main stream teaching model is incorrect.
Relativity is correct. I could ask you to follow the logic but you follow only what you were taught. A photon moves at a vector speed faster than an electron. If energy was from mass this would be impossible. The photon can go through different mediums at different velocities and speed back up in a vacuum. The electron and photon is confounded in every frame. You and the scientific community have faith energy is of mass and not space. You fail to think for yourself by following logic. The more the mass the less potential energy in the center of mass. Gravity is not energy, it is the loss of energy. A BH has zero time so zero energy. Sucking mass out of the universe is not energy. There is not enough space energy to keep atoms apart in a BH.
BH's size in our universe proves the BB is not in the time frame of 13.6 billion years old for the universe. And yet you are apparently a believer in the BB. Your science leaves something to be desired
Yes I do not understand your physics that violate observations. Over 30,000 AU for a BH? It would take trillions of years!!!! The size of our sun as a BH is only about 1.6 miles in diameter. Really I do not understand physics?????

You are assuming to know what I was taught.

You are assuming to know what I was taught.
Same as you assume I really do not understand physics.
Neither of us are omnipotent. But I question what I was taught. When there is error in reasoning I must protest. I not only protest I also try to find the reason behind the false logic. There is no proof for anything about what we observe but there is the tool mathematics. While math cannot prove a theory it can disprove one.
Main stream does not follow the postulates of Relativity. They use weasel words to get around relativity. Especially the newcomers to relativity.
I will give you an example:
1. Light blue shifts down a gravity well so light must have momentum. That is a flagrant violation of relativity and yet it tends to be accepted. To follow relativity you need the gamma term for the gravity position. Now consider the speed of light is measured to be the same in a vacuum in all frames. It is important to recognize the qualifier measured. We know dilation by the gamma term so the measurement ruler expands as does the cells inside of a wavelength detector. You need to recalibrate your detector by the gamma factor to measure the wavelength of light created in another frame (dilation position). Dilation is a gradient to the center of mass as measured by the gamma factor. This would suggest gravity follows dilation of mass as more room for the electron to travel (increasing the length of your measuring stick). Mass is attracted to the maximum dilation by the inverse square of the distance.
Were you taught a blue shift is an increase in momentum? Or do you correctly understand it as light being created in a higher energy state?
2. Were you taught relativistic velocity does not follow Euclidean geometry? It follows quite nicely when you understand the mechanics of light during vector velocity. Were you taught the Lorentz contraction? Do you know where that came from? Its simple Pythagoras geometry if you follow the relativity postulate of light being independent of the source. Lets take half the speed of light vs. rest state in a light clock with mirrors. Light leaves one mirror but to reach the opposite mirror light has to travel 30 degrees forward. The parallel leg and the position where light reaches the second mirror creates a 30,60,90 triangle. Cos 30 = 0.866025 for the distance light would travel down the hypotenuse as a percent. This angle causes what we call contraction. And contraction of view. There is no perpendicular view in vector velocity.
Now lets look at the Lorentz contraction at half the speed of light. Sq. Rt. (1  1^2/2^2)= Sq. Rt. (1  1/4) = Sq. Rt. 0.75 = 0.866025.
When we follow Relativity postulates the math remains in Euclidean space.
I am OCD about relativity as was Einstein. I am not bright enough to have created the theory but I am bright enough to follow the theory after many failures in trying to understand the relativity process.
JeffreyH Were you taught something different?
And what so far about relativity physics do I not understand?

Is there really such a thing as true "kinetic energy"? I mean according to "Relativity Theory", nothing really moves. It just depends on how you look at it.
For example, when you look at the Sun from a place on Earth, the Sun looks like it's moving across the sky. That movement must give it kinetic energy.
But when you look at the Solar System from outside, the Sun stays still, and it's the Earth that's moving, so the Earth must have kinetic energy.
It seems therefore that both the Sun and the Earth have kinetic energy. But how do you measure it?
If I'm right it is possible to measure it with the deformation of the matter. The internal clock must be modified and the shape of the clock too.

The earth moves around the Sun, the sun moves through the Galaxy and the galaxy moves through the Universe. We can only measure relative positions and never by a true fixed position because nothing is fixed. Normal mass is a ratio of KE and PE while time is related to PE available in space. BH's are completely KE and no PE. The furthest position from mass is total PE.

The earth moves around the Sun, the sun moves through the Galaxy and the galaxy moves through the Universe. We can only measure relative positions and never by a true fixed position because nothing is fixed. Normal mass is a ratio of KE and PE while time is related to PE available in space. BH's are completely KE and no PE. The furthest position from mass is total PE.
I found a device to create the energy. That can be used in the gravity theory: electromagnetic attraction followed by a repulsion (push/pull). So, the mass doesn't exist, and the kinetic energy doesn't exist, it is a potential energy stored in the matter, and I think it is a deformation of the matter, like for example an electric capacitor. So it is possible to measure it and have a true reference : 0 to c. No deformation = velocity at 0 m/s.

Time is a verb not a noun. Plank time is also plank distance. Time is the energy related to distance. Total distance is c caused by energy. Available energy is the available speed of time. Time is the measurement of available energy. Motion is caused by energy. without energy there is no motion as in a BH.

Time is a verb not a noun.
I don't understand
Available energy is the available speed of time.
The modification of time (relativity) is a slave of the movement. No movement => the internal matter has no energy from the deformation. Total energy of a closed device is a variable that I can change the value.
Motion is caused by energy.
I'm agree

Time is a measurement like 5 inches. It is nothing but the present motion in the Universe. Its not a thing we can give noun status. Its a description verb like. No time travel.