0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
As of this date, no extrasolar planets have been discovered.
An extrasolar planet, or exoplanet, is a planet beyond our Solar System, orbiting a star other than our Sun. As of August 2009[update], 373 exoplanets are listed in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia. The vast majority have been detected through radial velocity observations and other indirect methods rather than actual imaging. Most announced exoplanets are massive gas giant planets thought to resemble Jupiter, but this is a selection effect (bias) due to limitations in detection technology. Projections based on recent detections of much smaller worlds suggest that lightweight, rocky planets will eventually be found to outnumber extrasolar gas giants.
In this example, extra-solar refers to planets without stars not just planets outside of our solar system. Those have yet to be found.
gloves - that's right. I said nothing to the contrary.
gasparri - why would anyone beat you over the head? I have the opposite view as to what you expressed. Time is entirely man made. It is not a thing at all other than a convenient method for us to organize and understand other things. Gravity, in what ever final form we may decide it is, is a real thing.
Currently, if gravity is 1 then the other forces are a power of 10 to the 25th to 10 to the 38th greater. That doesn't make sense.
Photons attract other photons gravitationally. This is not something I just made up. It is true in the Lorentz relativity predictions; it is true in the theory of special theory of relativity; it is true in the General Theory of Relativity; it is true in Quantum Theory, and it is true in Quantum Electrodynamics theory.So it is part of classical theories and it is a part of modern theories. Things would be very troubling if this were not so. We know, for example, that photons trapped in a mirrored box add massiveness to the box. The extra mass must have a corresponding increase in gravity. If it did not, the maths would be broken.We can take it even further. Space debris must absorb light. When it does, it becomes more massive according to all currently accepted theories. This additional mass carries with it additional gravitational attraction.
Photons attract other photons gravitationally.
Do photons have mass? And what's the mass of one photon? Please, support your possible argument wiht serious references.
Hey... It's the full moon.
Why do you say photons trapped in a mirrored box are virtual photons. Photons are real changes in electric and magnetic potential. It is when a photon's potential is realized that QM theory brings in a virtual photon to affect the change.Real electromagnetic waves trapped in a local area by any method are mass. Notice that I didn't say they have mass.
Quote from: Vern on 08/09/2009 18:54:16Why do you say photons trapped in a mirrored box are virtual photons. Photons are real changes in electric and magnetic potential. It is when a photon's potential is realized that QM theory brings in a virtual photon to affect the change.Real electromagnetic waves trapped in a local area by any method are mass. Notice that I didn't say they have mass. I said they are virtual photons considering that we have not an external operator neither a source of energy. Those photons into the closed system would need to gain energy. If the energy of one photon is obtained by cooperative interactions, one of the photons would undergo a decrease of its energy density and the other would experience the increase of its energy density. Through obtaining energy, the gravitational energy of the photon would invariably get higher in proportion to the increase of its energy density, so we would need an external operator or a source of energy into the box to make all photons into the cage have the same energy density so they can be considered having like mass. On the other hand, if gravitational energy increases, the photon would become crazy and would be jumping on the top of the field until finally it starts sliding slowly down to the vacuum band, where it would remain oscillating as any real photon. Remember that the laws of thermodynamics are homogeneous and symmetric.
Quote from: NN on 09/09/2009 22:48:28Quote from: Vern on 08/09/2009 18:54:16Why do you say photons trapped in a mirrored box are virtual photons. Photons are real changes in electric and magnetic potential. It is when a photon's potential is realized that QM theory brings in a virtual photon to affect the change.Real electromagnetic waves trapped in a local area by any method are mass. Notice that I didn't say they have mass. I said they are virtual photons considering that we have not an external operator neither a source of energy. Those photons into the closed system would need to gain energy. If the energy of one photon is obtained by cooperative interactions, one of the photons would undergo a decrease of its energy density and the other would experience the increase of its energy density. Through obtaining energy, the gravitational energy of the photon would invariably get higher in proportion to the increase of its energy density, so we would need an external operator or a source of energy into the box to make all photons into the cage have the same energy density so they can be considered having like mass. On the other hand, if gravitational energy increases, the photon would become crazy and would be jumping on the top of the field until finally it starts sliding slowly down to the vacuum band, where it would remain oscillating as any real photon. Remember that the laws of thermodynamics are homogeneous and symmetric.Maybe there is a language barrier or something, but I can find no logic in your reasoning. Photons in a mirrored box would not need outside help and would not need to be virtual photons. A virtual particle is one that exists for less time than it takes to detect it.
Gasparri, I read your theory. I think you have something to work with there and thinking in a simplistic manner is, in my opinion, always the best answer. (Occam's Law would agree). What you need to quantify the notion is a formula that works.
Wow! Please don't beat me in the head but I have consignedgravity and time to the grey box. To me gravity is a result not a force.Time is a tool to measure motion and nothing more. By discarding those abstracts, time and gravity, my view of the universe has become much clearer.
The New Theory of Gravityand Force UnificationOccams Razor states "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.".With that in mind, I propose that the simpler and more correct formula should be:F=mr* rather than F=Mm/r2 The reasons are as follows:The big question in science today is why gravity has not been unified with the other forces of electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear. These forces also fall along the electromagnetic or light spectrum except gravity. I do not believe that gravity is so different than the other forces at all and may, possibly, be one in the same. The current way of explaining gravity is like a bowling ball on a bed sheet. The idea is that a body bends space creating a "dent". Objects within this dent are drawn to the object creating the dent while their motion keeps them from colliding. This is largely based on Einstein theory and observations of a light bending affect.(GR/SR) While the observations match my theory and provide accurate predictions, the why, is different.Inductance and magnetism are a means by which to electrically interact with another object without a wire. In this submission, we will think of the planets and stars as large coils or magnets. These coils have different properties. The properties differentiate based on the material make up of the individual coils, the size, as well as their location to one another. It stands to reason that since the most basic of particles interact based on charge, so does everything else. And, while we can observe the effects of many things, observing them themselves is often elusive. This is true of the interaction between two coils. They are connected by nothing more than the space around them and the magnetic field they induce. It seems obvious to me that the same is true of the rest of the universe. Einstein's theory and those that followed are based, partly, on the bending of light. Visible light, ultraviolet, radio and so on, all fall along different positions in the electromagnetic spectrum. I believe the gravitational forces do as well because they are not a separate force at all. This can provide for an alternative explanation of these bending effects. As of this date, no planets without suns have been discovered. This fact may support this theory. Specific gravity has no fixed unit of measure. It is tied to the units of interest in the formula. Gravity is directly related to density. A higher density of electrons and protons will have a greater reaction with the magnetic field of a star. It is possible, although unlikely, that extra solar planets remain elusive not only due to darkness but the absence of a magnetic field and therefore gravity. A systems entire gravitational force may be wholly dependent upon a star. Evidence for this may lie in routine pole reversal of planets. A field source, oscillating a field will not only induce magnetic energy in an object but will also reverse the pole with each pulse. This is also demonstrable. If the body is located or shielded by another object or body, this effect can be reduced. This could explain varying historical strengths from geological samples. This pulsing is also evident in the noise of the universe.It is also interesting to note that by observing particles being attracted to a magnet, a sudden and rapid shrinkage of the magnet while not changing its field strength, ends with particles being ejected at great force. This is quite similar to the observed effects of a black hole ejecting gamma ray bursts. Imagine that you have a magnetic plate 12 wide and you are able to observe all the little particles that interact with it. As you increase or decrease the field strength, particles will be attracted faster or slower respectively. When you reduce that plate to ¼ its size, you notice greater particle density as there is less real estate to spread out over. If you then rapidly reduce the plate to a much smaller size, the particles will begin to collide with one another and fly off away from the plate. This same series of events applies to massive stars. They have a strong magnetic field. As the density of particles increases, the forces pull the particles more tightly together. This is likened to shrinking the plate. Simultaneously, the increased density draws more particles and this continues to increase the field density while packing the star into an ever tighter physical density. In the extreme cases, where sufficient particle fuel has existed, these stars reach the point of super density or black holes.Early on in this theory, there was the Mars problem was: Why is there gravity on Mars when there is no magnetism? The answer came in two parts. The first is that there is magnetism on Mars. The argument was that there was no magnetosphere. The magnetosphere is assumed not to exist because of distanced and non-detailed measurements. However, solar wind bending has been observed. Since Mars has no real atmosphere, the bending must be a result of a magnetosphere. The scale shows that it is inline with what would be expected. In short, there is no Mars problem, just a lack of science and some assumptions. This argument has received enough attention to warrant further studies in upcoming Mars missions.If we apply Occam's Razor, we realize that our problem is not complex but rather simple. If all other known forces fall within the electromagnetic spectrum, except gravity and if all forces are relative in terms of strength, the logical conclusion is that gravity as a separate force must not exist. *What I propose is that, rather than the force of gravity being calculated based on the entire mass of a body, it should be calculated based on the magnetic mass and properties of a body. In the aforementioned formula, only the radius is considered and not squared. A simpler solution is using the mass of the core rather than the entire planet or star. In the case of Earth, the core is ~ 1.7% of the total mass. This general figure is used due to the concentration of highly magnetic iron typically found at a planets core. When the 1.7% is used in the simpler formula I propose, the force of gravity is now 700,000 times greater but a 200 pound person still weighs 200 pounds. In other words, a simpler formula that yields the same result. The original formula seemed to predict this result by proxy rather than by correctness. The larger the body, the larger the core, the greater density of responsive particles. We have proven that minerals and gases are both responsive to magnetism, although on varying degrees. Such observations can be related to their weight if gravity is indeed a form of magnetism. This electromagnetic force for gravity will apply at both the large and small scale something traditional gravity theory fails to do. To understand the vast differences in force strengths, refer to figure 1. (too bad figures cant be displayed here)It is clear to see that the scale is far from uniform with gravity involved. Notice that gravitons, the unit of measure for gravity, has not been discovered. The simple reason for this is that science is looking for an explanation for what gravity is and why it doesnt work. Also take note that both gravity and electromagnetic force have the same infinite range. To go even further, Einstein stated that gravity travels at the speed of light. This is, at least, some small evidence that gravity must fall on the spectrum. More detailed work must be completed to define the specifics of the r in even this new formula. We can predict when we will be completely accurate when the force of gravity is equivalent to the other known forces.Robert Dean MatsonAugust, 2009