Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Thebox on 21/10/2017 23:22:47

Title: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Thebox on 21/10/2017 23:22:47
I have a question.

Two objects that have different amounts of mass both fall to the ground at the same speed.  The differences in mass playing no part on the speed. So what do both objects have that is equal?

equal speed = ????????

The answer to this answers gravity.


Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/10/2017 09:59:30
They have the same ratio of gravitational mass to inertial mass.
(as far as we know, everything has- but there's no obvious reason why)
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 25/10/2017 20:41:23
I have a question.

Two objects that have different amounts of mass both fall to the ground at the same speed.  The differences in mass playing no part on the speed. So what do both objects have that is equal?

equal speed = ??? ??? ??

The answer to this answers gravity.



Wait, let me check on something … Ok, I see you posted this in the “New Theories” sub-forum, which in a sense, means that the discussion can take on an alternative perspective to generally accepted physics.

You are implying that your two different masses have something else in common besides the fact that they are accelerated by Earth’s gravity at the same rate, and the other thing that is equal between them answers gravity.


I plan to answer with some alternative ideas as is expected between you an me:

The standard model of particle physics has an open spot for a force carrier of gravity; the graviton. It is proving hard to find or they would have found it, along with a quantum solution to gravity.

The thing that is allowed in this sub-forum, that is completely out of place in the hard science discussions in the other sub-forums, is creative thinking, unsupported by facts, and only supported by the implications of various observational evidence.

I do go there, as you know from visits to my threads, and you have stated various objections about some things, but have expressed agreement about others, so I’ll address your question from my perspective, on your thread, just as you do on mine.

The thing that massive objects have in common that directly relates to your question, and to a quantum solution to gravity, is that particles and objects are composed of wave energy, in quantum increments. How does that make all mass accelerate at the same rate on Earth?

1) There is an inflowing and an out flowing gravitational wave energy component to all wave-particles, and therefore to all mass which is composed of wave particles. 
2) There is a wave energy density profile in all space, consisting of the out flowing gravitational wave energy emissions in the surrounding space, that governs the directional (gravitational) motion of objects in that local space. It is that density that is the same for all objects in the local space.
3) The sameness of the gravitational wave energy density in the local space governs the rate that wave-particles emit and absorb gravitational wave energy into and from the wave energy density profile of the local space that surrounds them.
4) The emission and absorption of gravitational wave energy by wave-particles is proportional the their mass, and so all objects have the same mass to gravity relationship when they are in the space with the same gravitation wave energy density.
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/10/2017 21:12:55
It is said that a constantly accelerating frame of reference is indistinguishable from one that is supported against gravity and that a free falling frame is indistinguishable from an inertial frame with constant velocity. However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation. A freely falling frame will have an increasing time dilation whereas an inertial frame will have a constant time dilation. Therefore a freely falling frame has more in common with an accelerated frame than first thought. The same for an inertial frame and one supported by gravity. There is a crossover that may explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/10/2017 22:08:27
an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation
from whose point of view?
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: jeffreyH on 26/10/2017 00:33:32
an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation
from whose point of view?


Not the accelerating frame's point of view.
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/10/2017 00:38:12
Not the accelerating frame's point of view.
Meaning from all other points of observation, if I get your drift.


Edit: Jeffrey's reply #3 is quite good. Newton's 3rd law, inertial and free falling frames, time dilation differences between them, very good points.
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Thebox on 26/10/2017 20:09:36
They have the same ratio of gravitational mass to inertial mass.
(as far as we know, everything has- but there's no obvious reason why)
In English?
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Thebox on 26/10/2017 20:27:40
1) There is an inflowing and an out flowing gravitational wave energy component to all wave-particles, and therefore to all mass which is composed of wave particles. 
There is  a recurrent pattern of coming and going or decline and regrowth that is happening at the same time of an event, action or object that clearly shows or embodies something abstract or theoretical in the sense of not mixed or adulterated with any other substance or material other than itself.  A point like density that can only co-exist with it's opposite sign.  A river flows at a constant rate and regardless of mass the objects flow at the same rate as the flow.
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 26/10/2017 22:43:19
There is  a recurrent pattern of coming and going or decline and regrowth that is happening at the same time of an event, action or object that clearly shows or embodies something abstract or theoretical in the sense of not mixed or adulterated with any other substance or material other than itself.  A point like density that can only co-exist with it's opposite sign.  A river flows at a constant rate and regardless of mass the objects flow at the same rate as the flow.

It doesn’t look like you are arguing against the inflow and out flow concept of gravitational wave energy. You seem to be acknowledging that there is some sort of quantum action going on to sustain the presence of mass and gravity. In my alternative view, that is accomplished by the presence of wave-particles and quantum gravity.
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Thebox on 27/10/2017 10:51:09
There is  a recurrent pattern of coming and going or decline and regrowth that is happening at the same time of an event, action or object that clearly shows or embodies something abstract or theoretical in the sense of not mixed or adulterated with any other substance or material other than itself.  A point like density that can only co-exist with it's opposite sign.  A river flows at a constant rate and regardless of mass the objects flow at the same rate as the flow.

It doesn’t look like you are arguing against the inflow and out flow concept of gravitational wave energy. You seem to be acknowledging that there is some sort of quantum action going on to sustain the presence of mass and gravity. In my alternative view, that is accomplished by the presence of wave-particles and quantum gravity.
Remove the wording of wave and wave- particles and we would be in some agreement yet again.

The apple falling to the ground is not a consequence of the apple, for up high the rivers inward flow is weak but strengthens nearer the epi-centre.
Gravity is a ''river'' and put any boats in the river and they all flow at the same rate. The rivers flow is constant and momentum is acceleration.
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: atbsphotography on 27/10/2017 11:15:03
In a vacuum, two objects of differing masses fall at the same time and at the same velocity. For example, a bowling ball would fall at the same time and velocity as a feather, but in our atmosphere, they fall at different rates of velocity. Though in retrospect the feather has mass several time lower than that of  a bowling ball. But if it was just a mass differential of a couple of grams the result would be near equal velocity if dropped at the same time. Take for instance two apples, one with a mass of 450g and the other 455g they would fall at the same velocity due to the fact that gravity and velocity overcome the density of our atmosphere. That being said a feather travelling at the same velocity would fall at the same time as an apple. Velocity is the main force alongside that of gravity. Imagine you are holding both apple's gravity wouldn't pull them from your hand but as soon as you let go gravity becomes the dominating force thus creating the velocity of the apple. Due to their only being a differential between the apple's of a couple of grams they would fall together in a uniform straight line. And then once they hit the floor gravity again takes the main stage and keeps them where they are, the resultant friction of landing wouldn't move them once they are in their place.
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Thebox on 27/10/2017 11:18:26
but in our atmosphere, they fall at different rates of velocity.
No, the feather still falls at the same force, but the air slows it down. G is a constant to all objects.
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: atbsphotography on 27/10/2017 11:21:06
but in our atmosphere, they fall at different rates of velocity.
No, the feather still falls at the same force, but the air slows it down. G is a constant to all objects.

Many apologies, I was supposed to have mentioned that air slows the feather, I seem to have missed it out.
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/10/2017 14:58:25
Remove the wording of wave and wave- particles and we would be in some agreement yet again.

The apple falling to the ground is not a consequence of the apple, for up high the rivers inward flow is weak but strengthens nearer the epi-centre.
Gravity is a ''river'' and put any boats in the river and they all flow at the same rate. The rivers flow is constant and momentum is acceleration.
The acceleration of gravity on Earth is 32 feet per second squared (9.8 m/s^2) which is the g in F=m*g., and you can and do equate that to the effect that the flowing river has on the an object falling into it. The object accelerates relative to the drop position as it catches up with the rate of the river’s flow.

An object in free fall in space will accelerate at g (32ft/s^2) right up until it impacts, while the object that fell into the river will accelerate only until it reaches the velocity of the flowing river, and then it will go with the flow. So the analogy to a river can work but is limited. Your point though, that it is not about the apple, the apple could be a whole tree limb, and it would still be caught up in the acceleration of gravity at the same rate as the tiny apple (and both would be caught up in the river flow at the same rate too).

The OP was about the thing that is the same, besides the fact that both the light object and the heavy object fall at the same rate of acceleration. As you said, the answer to what else is the same, answers gravity. I was agreeing with you by musing about some possible mechanics of quantum gravity; those mechanics are what I was suggesting is the other “sameness”.

Quantum gravity, when it is solved, may very will be associated with the concept that particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, each quanta being a tiny increment of the objects total mass. That would mean that instead of the standard particle model’s premise that fundamental particles have no internal composition (they can be taken as points for convenience in mathematics), the quantum gravity solution may turn out to use wave mechanics of quantum particles whose internal composition is measured in numbers of quanta in a complex standing wave pattern (the quanta then become the points). I’m supposing that pattern equates to multiple quanta (huge numbers of momentary and continually refreshing individual high energy density spots that form at the wave intersections of the pattern as gravitational wave energy inflows and out flows). So that is why I bring in the mention of waves and wave particles; it was part of my answer to your opening post.

Regardless, there are some areas of agreement with your river flow analogy.
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Thebox on 27/10/2017 17:03:51
Remove the wording of wave and wave- particles and we would be in some agreement yet again.

The apple falling to the ground is not a consequence of the apple, for up high the rivers inward flow is weak but strengthens nearer the epi-centre.
Gravity is a ''river'' and put any boats in the river and they all flow at the same rate. The rivers flow is constant and momentum is acceleration.
The acceleration of gravity on Earth is 32 feet per second squared (9.8 m/s^2) which is the g in F=m*g., and you can and do equate that to the effect that the flowing river has on the an object falling into it. The object accelerates relative to the drop position as it catches up with the rate of the river’s flow.

An object in free fall in space will accelerate at g (32ft/s^2) right up until it impacts, while the object that fell into the river will accelerate only until it reaches the velocity of the flowing river, and then it will go with the flow. So the analogy to a river can work but is limited. Your point though, that it is not about the apple, the apple could be a whole tree limb, and it would still be caught up in the acceleration of gravity at the same rate as the tiny apple (and both would be caught up in the river flow at the same rate too).

The OP was about the thing that is the same, besides the fact that both the light object and the heavy object fall at the same rate of acceleration. As you said, the answer to what else is the same, answers gravity. I was agreeing with you by musing about some possible mechanics of quantum gravity; those mechanics are what I was suggesting is the other “sameness”.

Quantum gravity, when it is solved, may very will be associated with the concept that particles are composed of wave energy in quantum increments, each quanta being a tiny increment of the objects total mass. That would mean that instead of the standard particle model’s premise that fundamental particles have no internal composition (they can be taken as points for convenience in mathematics), the quantum gravity solution may turn out to use wave mechanics of quantum particles whose internal composition is measured in numbers of quanta in a complex standing wave pattern (the quanta then become the points). I’m supposing that pattern equates to multiple quanta (huge numbers of momentary and continually refreshing individual high energy density spots that form at the wave intersections of the pattern as gravitational wave energy inflows and out flows). So that is why I bring in the mention of waves and wave particles; it was part of my answer to your opening post.

Regardless, there are some areas of agreement with your river flow analogy.
Well my answer to gravity is the N-field and the n-field, waves are ripples of the n-fields and cause and affect is an invert force that compresses the field to cause a linearity to be wave like. If you can imagine putting pressure on a ''rod'' the ''rod'' will bend.
It is also F=ma not F=m*g  where m is the mass and (a) is the acceleration at 9.82m/s2 which is a gravitational constant. 

The apple and the tree trunk have one thing in common that is equal, they are both likewise in polarities that measure N.




Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 27/10/2017 17:23:54
Well my answer to gravity is the N-field and the n-field, waves are ripples of the n-fields and cause and affect is an invert force that compresses the field to cause a linearity to be wave like. If you can imagine putting pressure on a ''rod'' the ''rod'' will bend.
I can; it is like the archer's paradox, where the paradox is that the bow is directly in the line of sight to the target, so the arrow has to curve around the bow. It does so because the arrow has some flex, and a standing wave forms when the arrow curves out around the bow, and then flexes back and forth between the bow and the target. 

The apple and the tree trunk have one thing in common that is equal, they are both likewise in polarities that measure N.
It is good to see you put your N-field into the mix, and I see how that also answers the question in the OP.
Quote
It is also F=ma not F=m*g  where m is the mass and (a) is the acceleration at 9.82m/s2 which is a gravitational constant.
You have a point. “F=“ is “force=“, and I wasn’t specific but the F in F=m*g is F(gravity), in which case the "a" from F=ma, which is acceleration, is replaced by the acceleration of gravity, “g”.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/Acceleration-of-Gravity (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/Acceleration-of-Gravity)
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: syhprum on 27/10/2017 17:44:21
"Two objects that have different amounts of mass both fall to the ground at the same speed"

They actually fall at slightly different rates depending on the ratio of their masses to that of the Earth but as we are normally interested in objects that have a tiny mass compared to that of the Earth the difference it hard to notice
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Thebox on 27/10/2017 19:41:53
You have a point. “F=“ is “force=“, and I wasn’t specific but the F in F=m*g is F(gravity), in which case the "a" from F=ma, which is acceleration, is replaced by the acceleration of gravity, “g”.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/Acceleration-of-Gravity
Thank you for the lesson :D

g=N?

Because neither a N-rock or a N-stone has the mechanism to repulse gravity because N is constant?

Also the n-field that the N-rock falls through  does not have enough magnitude of Q.F.S (quantum field solidity) to apply Newtons third law?

Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Thebox on 27/10/2017 19:44:45
"Two objects that have different amounts of mass both fall to the ground at the same speed"

They actually fall at slightly different rates depending on the ratio of their masses to that of the Earth but as we are normally interested in objects that have a tiny mass compared to that of the Earth the difference it hard to notice
1 atomic mass = 1 atomic mono-polarity

2 opposite atomic masses = 2 atomic opposite polarities

It does not matter if there is 100 electrons and 100 protons atomic mass, there only is ever two atomic polarities?
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 28/10/2017 23:05:13

It is said that a constantly accelerating frame of reference is indistinguishable from one that is supported against gravity and that a free falling frame is indistinguishable from an inertial frame with constant velocity. However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation. A freely falling frame will have an increasing time dilation whereas an inertial frame will have a constant time dilation. Therefore a freely falling frame has more in common with an accelerated frame than first thought. The same for an inertial frame and one supported by gravity. There is a crossover that may explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.
An example of the reference frame supported against gravity is the person standing on the ground. An example of a constantly accelerating frame of reference is a person standing in a rocket that is accelerating at the same rate as gravity. The people will experience the same sense of gravity, and they would weigh the same on a scale.


“… and that a free falling frame is indistinguishable from an inertial frame with constant velocity.”

In a free falling frame, the person is weightless,

I’m not sure I understand an inertial frame with constant velocity. Can you give me an example?


Edit: Oh, here: An inertial frame of reference, in classical physics, is a frame of reference in which bodies, whose net force acting upon them is zero, are not accelerated, that is they are at rest or they move at a constant velocity in a straight line. In analytical terms, it is a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner. Conceptually, in classical physics and special relativity, the physics of a system in an inertial frame have no causes external to the system. An inertial frame of reference may also be called an inertial reference frame, inertial frame, Galilean reference frame, or inertial space.More at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference)

I was only considering part of the definition of an inertial frame, the "at rest" or not accelerated. I see that there is also the part, "or they move at a constant velocity in a straight line". That would be like sitting in a car going 70 mph.

Ok then.


Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Bogie_smiles on 29/10/2017 13:45:08


However, an accelerating frame will experience an increasing time dilation whereas one supported against gravity will have a constant value of time dilation. A freely falling frame will have an increasing time dilation whereas an inertial frame will have a constant time dilation. Therefore a freely falling frame has more in common with an accelerated frame than first thought. The same for an inertial frame and one supported by gravity. There is a crossover that may explain the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.
That possible crossover, I think, is an interesting connection, and an example of sameness sought out and referred to in the opening post by TheBox.

It implies that the intricacies of time dilation involve many factors related to relative motion between massive objects. Time dilation would be a net of those multiple factors, in a multitude of situations. There would be some pluses and some minuses, all netted together in results that compare the individual clock results used to quantify time dilation.

The future will likely see the impacts of the individual factors tested by highly mobile and highly accurate clocks, which futurists say may reveal unexpected and as yet unseen individual impacts intwined in the net dilation amounts. Is there a close tie to wave energy density in space, and would confirmation of that lead to improved definitions and explanations for local energy density conditions? Is there to be some recognition of the effect of gravitational wave energy density in space on the local speed of light?
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/10/2017 13:49:26
They have the same ratio of gravitational mass to inertial mass.
(as far as we know, everything has- but there's no obvious reason why)
In English?
Yes it is.
And, not only that, but it's all made up of words and phrases that you can google if you don't know what they mean.
I'm not, for example, trying to redefine words to mean something else.
It's less confusing this way.
Perhaps you should try it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inertial-mass
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gravitational-mass?s=t
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Thebox on 29/10/2017 15:40:15
They have the same ratio of gravitational mass to inertial mass.
(as far as we know, everything has- but there's no obvious reason why)
In English?
Yes it is.
And, not only that, but it's all made up of words and phrases that you can google if you don't know what they mean.
I'm not, for example, trying to redefine words to mean something else.
It's less confusing this way.
Perhaps you should try it.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inertial-mass
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gravitational-mass?s=t

You have not defined what mass is, you are saying something is equal which is the question I asked originally, that something which is polarity explains gravity.

They have the same ratio of gravitational polarity to inertial polarity.
Title: Re: What doe's an object have that is equal to another object?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/10/2017 16:01:02
You have not defined what mass is, you are saying something is equal which is the question I asked originally, that something which is polarity explains gravity.

They have the same ratio of gravitational polarity to inertial polarity.
Of course I haven't defined mass; that would be silly. There's already a definition for it.
If I tried redefining t...
hang on, I'm getting a sense of  deja vu here.

I'm not, for example, trying to redefine words to mean something else.
It's less confusing this way.
Perhaps you should try it.