What effect does mass-energy density have on gravitational field strength?

  • 94 Replies
  • 20032 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
I have often thought that collapsing systems such as black holes and neutron stars can only exist in an expanding system.
I can't see why? What leads you to believe this?

Quote from: jeffreyH
If the system were collapsing we should see white holes.
What system are you referring to and why would you expect to see white holes. There's no evidence that such objects even exist.

Quote from: jeffreyH
I This is why white holes are unstable ...
Do you have a source for this assertion? I can't imagine why it would be so.

Jeff - You seem to enjoy black holes. You should consider reading Exploring Black Holes - 2nd Ed by Taylor, Wheeler and Bertschinger at http://exploringblackholes.com/

I think you'd also get a great deal of satisfaction reading Black Holes and Time Warps - Einstein's Outrageous Legacy by Kip Thorne. Thorne is the worlds leading theorist on black holes.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
I have often thought that collapsing systems such as black holes and neutron stars can only exist in an expanding system.
I can't see why? What leads you to believe this?

Quote from: jeffreyH
If the system were collapsing we should see white holes.
What system are you referring to and why would you expect to see white holes. There's no evidence that such objects even exist.

Quote from: jeffreyH
I This is why white holes are unstable ...
Do you have a source for this assertion? I can't imagine why it would be so.

Jeff - You seem to enjoy black holes. You should consider reading Exploring Black Holes - 2nd Ed by Taylor, Wheeler and Bertschinger at http://exploringblackholes.com/

I think you'd also get a great deal of satisfaction reading Black Holes and Time Warps - Einstein's Outrageous Legacy by Kip Thorne. Thorne is the worlds leading theorist on black holes.

Sorry this is getting to be a personal theory and this topic isn't really the place for that. I will get the references you suggest and may pursue this further.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
No apology necessary. Let me know when you get the reference in a PM please. Iím curious as to what thatís all about. Thanks.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I was wondering if the Pauli exclusion principle could be one of the principle mechanisms of gravitational interaction. Note I didn't say gravitational generation, because I still doubt that gravitation comes out of matter. The spin combinations may be a clue.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
I was wondering if the Pauli exclusion principle could be one of the principle mechanisms of gravitational interaction.
Yes. In some cases it plays a role. Neutron stars is a perfect example. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
Quote
Astronomy provides a spectacular demonstration of the effect of the Pauli principle, in the form of white dwarf and neutron stars. In both types of body, atomic structure is disrupted by large gravitational forces, leaving the constituents supported by "degeneracy pressure" alone. This exotic form of matter is known as degenerate matter. In white dwarfs atoms are held apart by electron degeneracy pressure. In neutron stars, subject to even stronger gravitational forces, electrons have merged with protons to form neutrons. Neutrons are capable of producing an even higher degeneracy pressure, albeit over a shorter range. This can stabilize neutron stars from further collapse, but at a smaller size and higher density than a white dwarf. Neutrons are the most "rigid" objects known; their Young modulus (or more accurately, bulk modulus) is 20 orders of magnitude larger than that of diamond. However, even this enormous rigidity can be overcome by the gravitational field of a massive star or by the pressure of a supernova, leading to the formation of a black hole.

Thanks for asking this question. I learned asomething today, i.e. a new term "degenerate matter" - an exotic form of matter!

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
In my mental musings over the past few days it appears to me that the most crucial component of e=mc^2 is actually the distance c. This distance bears a direct relationship to Planck scales which is critical to the understanding of forces in the universe.

We can rewrite this as e=m(Planck length)^2.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2013 10:15:52 by jeffreyH »
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 644
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
In my mental musings over the past few days it appears to me that the most crucial component of e=mc^2 is actually the distance c. This distance bears a direct relationship to Planck scales which is critical to the understanding of forces in the universe.

We can rewrite this as e=m(Planck length)^2.

That "c" is the speed of light, which is not a distance.
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
In my mental musings over the past few days it appears to me that the most crucial component of e=mc^2 is actually the distance c. This distance bears a direct relationship to Planck scales which is critical to the understanding of forces in the universe.

We can rewrite this as e=m(Planck length)^2.

That "c" is the speed of light, which is not a distance.

If you do not believe this is a distance then e=mc^2 must be telling us how fast energy is travelling rather than how much of it relates to the mass. To expand on this c is important in the relationship between energy and inertia. When viewed that way yes c is a speed.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2013 17:18:16 by jeffreyH »
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 72
    • View Profile
If I throw a ball, presumably the mass of the ball will increase since I have imparted some kinetic energy to it but would I lose energy? My arm would be travelling at the same speed as the ball before I let it go so the ball and arm would experience the same kinetic energy. However, I must have used up some energy in the process of throwing the ball so what is the net result of all this?

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Mostly transformed into heat, as I understands it, the 'thing' missing from your muscles etc, costing 'energy' for you. But if you mean that there seems to be something weird about the concept that everything just transforms, and nothing ever is lost, the universe being in a equilibrium I agree :) Just turn it around and ask yourself why accelerations and life exist, if there just is a equilibrium? Doesn't mean it has to be wrong though, but there is some aspect missing to it. The one explaining why accelerations and life exist.
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Mostly transformed into heat, as I understands it, the 'thing' missing from your muscles etc, costing 'energy' for you. But if you mean that there seems to be something weird about the concept that everything just transforms, and nothing ever is lost, the universe being in a equilibrium I agree :) Just turn it around and ask yourself why accelerations and life exist, if there just is a equilibrium? Doesn't mean it has to be wrong though, but there is some aspect missing to it. The one explaining why accelerations and life exist.

Acceleration is one of the things Einstein should have concentrated on a bit more. Dimension and momentum have a relationship that brings into play a weird effect regarding density. I have only just started putting this together. If I start discussing too much of it now it will only cause a lively debate without the mathematics in place to back it up.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 72
    • View Profile
If I throw a ball, presumably the mass of the ball will increase since I have imparted some kinetic energy to it but would I lose energy? My arm would be travelling at the same speed as the ball before I let it go so the ball and arm would experience the same kinetic energy. However, I must have used up some energy in the process of throwing the ball so what is the net result of all this?

Mostly transformed into heat, as I understands it, the 'thing' missing from your muscles etc, costing 'energy' for you. But if you mean that there seems to be something weird about the concept that everything just transforms, and nothing ever is lost, the universe being in a equilibrium I agree :) Just turn it around and ask yourself why accelerations and life exist, if there just is a equilibrium? Doesn't mean it has to be wrong though, but there is some aspect missing to it. The one explaining why accelerations and life exist.

Ok, I see. So, most of the energy used in throwing the ball would be expended as heat although a tiny amount of mass in my arm would be increased due to acceleration.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
If you do not believe this is a distance ...
It's a given that nobody believes that's distance, not just Supercryptid. c is, by definition the speed of light and thus a speed which is distance/time it's given that tis is not distance. But you know that already, right. Since you surely know that this is different than distance what exactly are you trying to imply here?
« Last Edit: 10/10/2013 11:09:31 by Pmb »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
If you do not believe this is a distance ...
It's a given that nobody believes that's distance, not just Supercryptid. c is, by definition the speed of light and thus a speed which is distance/time it's given that tis is not distance. But you know that already, right. Since you surely know that this is different than distance what exactly are you trying to imply here?

There is a time element to energy, kilowatt hours being an example, because that is the most sensible way to view it as energy and momentum are linked. This is not the actual momentum but the amount in that time. The speed component of c translates into amount of energy per second squared with no implicit momentum. I know what I mean but sometimes explain it in a bad way.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
There is a time element to energy, kilowatt hours being an example, because that is the most sensible way to view it as energy and momentum are linked.
That's incorrect. It's wrong to say that there is a time element to energy because time is related to power by P = E/t. This is like saying that a spatial location has a time element because v = S/t 

You need to rethink your response.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
There is a time element to energy, kilowatt hours being an example, because that is the most sensible way to view it as energy and momentum are linked.
That's incorrect. It's wrong to say that there is a time element to energy because time is related to power by P = E/t. This is like saying that a spatial location has a time element because v = S/t 

You need to rethink your response.

But also E=Pt where multiplying by a time element gives energy. So power is energy over time. The time is implicit.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 644
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Time may be implicit in power, but it isn't in energy. Power and energy are two different concepts. E=mc2 deals with energy, not power.
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
There is a time element to energy, kilowatt hours being an example, because that is the most sensible way to view it as energy and momentum are linked.
That's incorrect. It's wrong to say that there is a time element to energy because time is related to power by P = E/t. This is like saying that a spatial location has a time element because v = S/t 

You need to rethink your response.

But also E=Pt where multiplying by a time element gives energy. So power is energy over time. The time is implicit.
You're twisting things to meet what you'd like to see written. That's bad science.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
There is a time element to energy, kilowatt hours being an example, because that is the most sensible way to view it as energy and momentum are linked.
That's incorrect. It's wrong to say that there is a time element to energy because time is related to power by P = E/t. This is like saying that a spatial location has a time element because v = S/t 

You need to rethink your response.

But also E=Pt where multiplying by a time element gives energy. So power is energy over time. The time is implicit.
You're twisting things to meet what you'd like to see written. That's bad science.

OK. Bear with me a while. Humour me in other words.
Firstly c is distance travelled over time taken. So yes in respect to light that is a speed. Can we agree on that first? Then I will proceed to the next step in my thinking.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
OK. Bear with me a while. Humour me in other words.
Firstly c is distance travelled over time taken.
Yes. That is correct.

Quote from: jeffreyH
So yes in respect to light that is a speed. Can we agree on that first? Then I will proceed to the next step in my thinking.
And I will do the same in my thinking as well. Space and time are primative quantities. That means that they are not defined in terms of other quantities. Defined terms such as speed v = distance/time are defined in terms of other quantities.

Words such as "element" as in "There is a time element to energy, .." are not defined in physics. However without such a definition we use the one found in a dictionary

See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/element

However your use is far from clear as it can be found in a dictionary. Otherwise when you start solving for variables in equations and saying "There is an x element to this physics because x is in the equation" isn't a very useful notion.

It'd be far better if you clearly stated what you mean by ""element".

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
OK. Bear with me a while. Humour me in other words.
Firstly c is distance travelled over time taken.
Yes. That is correct.

Quote from: jeffreyH
So yes in respect to light that is a speed. Can we agree on that first? Then I will proceed to the next step in my thinking.
And I will do the same in my thinking as well. Space and time are primative quantities. That means that they are not defined in terms of other quantities. Defined terms such as speed v = distance/time are defined in terms of other quantities.

Words such as "element" as in "There is a time element to energy, .." are not defined in physics. However without such a definition we use the one found in a dictionary

See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/element

However your use is far from clear as it can be found in a dictionary. Otherwise when you start solving for variables in equations and saying "There is an x element to this physics because x is in the equation" isn't a very useful notion.

It'd be far better if you clearly stated what you mean by ""element".

Let's ditch the element issue for now. Einstein came to the conclusion that there was a link between inertia and energy. Inertia is applicable in two situations. when a mass it at rest or moving at a constant velocity as long as no external forces are applied. Acceleration, deceleration and change of direction are the external forces. This is the next issue to agree upon.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
Einstein came to the conclusion that there was a link between inertia and energy. Inertia is applicable in two situations. when a mass it at rest or moving at a constant velocity as long as no external forces are applied. Acceleration, deceleration and change of direction are the external forces. This is the next issue to agree upon.
The essence of his derivation is found in my website here
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm
Take a look at it and let me know what you think.
[/quote]

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
Einstein came to the conclusion that there was a link between inertia and energy. Inertia is applicable in two situations. when a mass it at rest or moving at a constant velocity as long as no external forces are applied. Acceleration, deceleration and change of direction are the external forces. This is the next issue to agree upon.
The essence of his derivation is found in my website here
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm
Take a look at it and let me know what you think.

Very interesting. The energy-momentum relation is not what I am investigating. It is the simplified e=mc^2. I will post some more points when I get some time to put a document together. One thing to ponder. Is the Planck scale invariant with regard to the distortion of spacetime? The answer to this has a great bearing on how the search for a workable theory of quantum gravity.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
The energy-momentum relation is not what I am investigating.
Sorry, but I don't see your point. I never mentioned that.

Quote from: jeffreyH
It is the simplified e=mc^2.
Huh? What does that mean? I.e. what is the simplified e=mc^2? Do you believe that there is there a non-simplified e=mc^2?

Quote from: jeffreyH
One thing to ponder. Is the Planck scale invariant with regard to the distortion of spacetime?
Yes. I believe so.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
The energy-momentum relation is not what I am investigating.
Sorry, but I don't see your point. I never mentioned that.

Quote from: jeffreyH
It is the simplified e=mc^2.
Huh? What does that mean? I.e. what is the simplified e=mc^2? Do you believe that there is there a non-simplified e=mc^2?

Quote from: jeffreyH
One thing to ponder. Is the Planck scale invariant with regard to the distortion of spacetime?
Yes. I believe so.

Not E^2=(pc)^2+(m0c^2)^2.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12351
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
at webplodder: Your relative mass should increase I guess, as you accelerate your arm, as well as the balls mass should, but as soon as you both are uniformly moving, it must be gone:) Interesting idea, better check it with Pete though.
=

That's wrong, your relative mass will still be there, in a uniform motion as well as in a acceleration. What I was thinking of was inertia there, not relative mass. That is what will be gone in after you finished accelerating. That relative mass you have will be expressed as kinetic energy in a collision. And there your speed will matter, acceleration or no acceleration. The inertia is still existent in a uniform motion though, although unmeasurable for you. and the inertia accelerating, can in a uniformly constant acceleration (at one gravity), translate into the same gravity we meet on Earth. Maybe it's more correct to call it your arm feeling gravity :) accelerating? This is definitely Pete:s field of interest.

Hmm rereading it again: I must have meant that as soon as your arm stops moving it also has decelerated to the same speed it had before starting to throw a ball for example. And in so motto it is correct.
« Last Edit: 21/11/2013 17:32:04 by yor_on »
"BOMB DISPOSAL EXPERT. If you see me running, try to keep up."

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
The energy-momentum relation is not what I am investigating.
Sorry, but I don't see your point. I never mentioned that.

Quote from: jeffreyH
It is the simplified e=mc^2.
Huh? What does that mean? I.e. what is the simplified e=mc^2? Do you believe that there is there a non-simplified e=mc^2?

Quote from: jeffreyH
One thing to ponder. Is the Planck scale invariant with regard to the distortion of spacetime?
Yes. I believe so.

On the Planck scale issue, if the universe were measured out into Planck cubes and the cubes that were being traveled through by mass undergoing acceleration, would a length contraction be observed at that scale? On a macroscopic scale an observer external to the accelerating system would see length contraction. How can this be separated from the finer grained resolution?

What if contraction itself and the inherent momentum of the scaling factor produced the gravitational effect WITHOUT any elementary particle. Maybe we are looking for a graviton that doesn't exists. That might be the reason for all the failure. If momentum and mass-energy density are interlinked some strange effects may become apparent.
« Last Edit: 16/10/2013 21:47:20 by jeffreyH »
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
On the Planck scale issue, ...
The Planck scale comes from quantum gravity. Since I don't know quantum gravity you're going to find me very silent on questions about the "Planck scale issue" including your questions here. Sorry. I just don't think it's wise to talk about physics I'm not familiar with. I wish more people felt that way.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
One thing that never gets mentioned with respect to gravitational issues is parallax. We take it for granted but there are issues to do with this effect on a local scale.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
One thing that never gets mentioned with respect to gravitational issues is parallax.
That's because there's no reason why it should. It has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. It only pertains to optical observation of celestial bodies. Why do you think it should have anything to do with gravity at all?

Quote from: jeffreyH
We take it for granted but there are issues to do with this effect on a local scale.
When making assertions like this its helpful to back it up with facts. E.g. what are these issues that you're referring to?

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
One thing that never gets mentioned with respect to gravitational issues is parallax.
That's because there's no reason why it should. It has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. It only pertains to optical observation of celestial bodies. Why do you think it should have anything to do with gravity at all?

Quote from: jeffreyH
We take it for granted but there are issues to do with this effect on a local scale.
When making assertions like this its helpful to back it up with facts. E.g. what are these issues that you're referring to?

If you had a disc whose circumference was 300000000 meters you could never achieve one revolution per second as the angular momentum would reach light speed at the edges. Length contraction would be greater at the edges of the disc as it approached light speed which would mean that the spacetime distortion would produce strange parallax effects. Gravitation and momentum cannot be separated so these effects are important in understanding these forces.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
If you had a disc whose circumference was 300000000 meters you could never achieve one revolution per second as the angular momentum would reach light speed at the edges. Length contraction would be greater at the edges of the disc as it approached light speed which would mean that the spacetime distortion would produce strange parallax effects.
First let's be clear on something. The contraction of the circumference of a disk does not mean that there is any spacetime distortion whatsoever. The only way that spacetime can be distorted here is due to the energy of the rotating disk rotating such that parts of it have near superluminal speeds.

All you're really saying is that light is bent by gravity. Bringing in parallax only serves to confuse things. There's no need for it to be quite honest.

Let's be clear here. Parallax is defined as follows
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax
Quote
Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines.
Bringing in parallax confuses things and as such I recommend not using it in this sense.

Quote from: jeffreyH
Gravitation and momentum cannot be separated so these effects are important in understanding these forces.
Why are you now bringing momentum into this? And why would you make such a statement as this? What does it have to do with the present subject? And momentum is not a force either.

Some of the stuff you say is really confusing Jeff.
« Last Edit: 22/10/2013 01:30:03 by Pete »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Think of the parallax effects of frame dragging. This is a similar situation. This is the reason c^2 is related to mass-energy and not any other value. The effects at light speed and under gravitation have intimate links.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
Think of the parallax effects of frame dragging.
Since parallax has nothing to do with frame dragging I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry.

Quote from: jeffreyH
This is a similar situation. This is the reason c^2 is related to mass-energy and not any other value.
The reason c2 relates mass to energy is due to its presence in the Lorentz trasformation. How you connect it otherwise is beyond. How did you come to such a conclusion?

Quote from: jeffreyH
The effects at light speed and under gravitation have intimate links.
"Under" gravitation? Is that an error? In any case you once more lost me.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
Think of the parallax effects of frame dragging.
Since parallax has nothing to do with frame dragging I have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry.

Quote from: jeffreyH
This is a similar situation. This is the reason c^2 is related to mass-energy and not any other value.
The reason c2 relates mass to energy is due to its presence in the Lorentz trasformation. How you connect it otherwise is beyond. How did you come to such a conclusion?

Quote from: jeffreyH
The effects at light speed and under gravitation have intimate links.
"Under" gravitation? Is that an error? In any case you once more lost me.

Under the influence of gravitation.

Think of mass for a moment. What property of mass produces gravitation? If we take a number of spheres 1 meter in diameter made of iron. If these spheres were contained within a mesh to produce a spherical shape we could produce something that looks like a planet. If the mass of the spheres plus the mesh was the same of the mass of the earth then what would the combined gravity be when placed in the same orbit as the earth? Each sphere has its own gravitation which drops in an inverse square relationship and individually are much weaker than that of the earth. A very pertinent point is whether the gravitation would accumulate under these conditions. Would we reproduce the field strength of the earth? Before I can elaborate on other ideas this point needs to a answered conclusively.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
Think of mass for a moment. What property of mass produces gravitation?
Mass doesn't have any properties. Mass is a property. Therefore your question is meaningless.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
Think of mass for a moment. What property of mass produces gravitation?
Mass doesn't have any properties. Mass is a property. Therefore your question is meaningless.

The properties of mass are surely gas, liquid, solid, plasma etc. Or if you prefer, states.
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
The properties of mass are surely gas, liquid, solid, plasma etc. Or if you prefer, states.
Sorry but that's not going to work either my friend. :) Those are the properties of things that have mass, not the properties of mass.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
The properties of mass are surely gas, liquid, solid, plasma etc. Or if you prefer, states.
Sorry but that's not going to work either my friend. :) Those are the properties of things that have mass, not the properties of mass.

Yes mass is a property of matter but properties can themselves have properties. Colour, for instance, has the properties of luminescence and brightness. I specifically did not relate the properties to matter as I believe it is the mass that is the defining factor with relation to gravitation. An atom will have less gravitation than a molecule, which in turn has less gravitation than a solid made up from molecules.
« Last Edit: 13/11/2013 19:00:21 by jeffreyH »
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Jeff - This is getting way off subject and I'm not interested in this side track. What exactly is it you wish to discuss or ask me about? Thanks! - Pete

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Jeff - This is getting way off subject and I'm not interested in this side track. What exactly is it you wish to discuss or ask me about? Thanks! - Pete

Well I suppose what I want to discuss is this.

http://burro.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/LifeCycle/jeans.html

The Jeans criteria for gas collapse under gravitation. What does this process tell us about gravity?
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Jeff - This is getting way off subject and I'm not interested in this side track. What exactly is it you wish to discuss or ask me about? Thanks! - Pete

Well I suppose what I want to discuss is this.

http://burro.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/LifeCycle/jeans.html

The Jeans criteria for gas collapse under gravitation. What does this process tell us about gravity?
I don't know. That's astrophysics and in astrophysics I'm a layman, just like you. :)

*

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3366
    • View Profile
The Jeans criterion seems to be fairly straightforward from that link.  Basically,  a bunch of particles of gas in space will tend to attract each other and coalesce to form a star.  However, in actuality, gas particles move about due to the temperature of a gas and this motion can keep them from clumping together (if they get too close, they'll bump into each other and fly apart again).  Basically, if there's enough mass in a cloud of gas compared to the temperature of that gas, it will coalesce into a star.  If the temperature is too high compared to the mass, it will stay a cloud of gas and not form into a star.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
The Jeans criterion seems to be fairly straightforward from that link.  Basically,  a bunch of particles of gas in space will tend to attract each other and coalesce to form a star.  However, in actuality, gas particles move about due to the temperature of a gas and this motion can keep them from clumping together (if they get too close, they'll bump into each other and fly apart again).  Basically, if there's enough mass in a cloud of gas compared to the temperature of that gas, it will coalesce into a star.  If the temperature is too high compared to the mass, it will stay a cloud of gas and not form into a star.

Interesting. So then a fall in kinetic energy should initiate gravitational collapse for a mass of sufficient density. This appears to show that gravitation tends to aid in the solidification of matter somehow. Does this also suggest that spin 2 particles operate to initially reduce kinetic energy for matter moving away from the source of gravitation? What better way to add matter to a mass than hurling it inwards.
« Last Edit: 17/11/2013 23:22:06 by jeffreyH »
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4194
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
This train of thought got me thinking about singularities with regard to the mass-energy density topic. If increase in gravitation reduces kinetic energy and the reduction in kinetic energy leads to time dilation (rate of atomic change slows down) then the singularity is an inevitable consequence of gravity and the ideal equalibrium for such a force. A question of interest would be this. What would an observer outside the earth determine would be the speed of an object falling to earth under gravitation? How many metres per second of acceleration would they record as compared to an earth bound observer?

P.S. Does this imply zero kinetic energy at the singularity? Could frame dragging occur because it is moving around a time-free zone and is forced to do so because of the consequences of the lack of kinetic energy at the singularity?
« Last Edit: 18/11/2013 18:52:34 by jeffreyH »
Fixation on the Einstein papers is a good definition of OCD.