Hi,
I'd like to put an interesting thought into your mind. People try to draw similarities between space-time curvature and a dent in a peice of rubber or just like a pit.

My question is: if gravity makes a dent in space-time, what force is there that pulls the objects down the pit?

Because if you had this peice of rubber in near-0 gravity, a ball bearing or something would not roll down it. It is only BECAUSE of gravity that the ball would roll down into the curved pit.

It is my understanding that gravity is like any other force (well it is like the magnetic force), the closer you get to the source, the stronger the force is acted on you. So it makes a great graph that gravity is shaped like a curved pit, but in reality it is nothing more than a force.

I'm pretty convinced im right, but whats other people's ideas on this, no bashing please just give me proof.

Frencheneesz

Frencheneesz

What if space was actually composed of four spatial dimensions instead of three spatial dimensions on one time dimension? Then the force of gravity could be define as the tangential forces associated with the curvature in the fourth spatial dimension with respect to three dimensional space. If you are interested in discussing the concepts of a universe consisting of four spatial dimensions and how it is related to the force of gravity and magnetism please visit Shadows < http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm > It redefines the force of gravity and magnetism in terms of four spatial dimensions.

Jeff

wow, i dont have time for that right now, but let me get this straight.

Are you saying that matter makes a dent in space time, and then the (or probably more exactly, a) fourth dimension has a force that always pulls us toward it and the closer we are to it (the bigger the dent is, the "closer" to the force we are) and thus the force gets stronger?

Am i confusing you with my round about talk or do you get what i am saying. Further more, is this what you're saying?

This would be plausible, before this i was kinda thinking that the force of gravity made the dent, and there was another force that pulled us into it, but i just wasn't thinking.

But why is this a better theory then the theory that gravity acts as a force and nothing more? This view of a force would be quite hard indeed to fit more than one force into... which is not a good thing.

If you wanted to explain electromagnetism in this way, could that be done?

By the way, I have my phisics concepts down, just don't talk to me in math. Besides why does time have to be the fourth dimension?

Frencheneesz

“If you wanted to explain electromagnetism in this way, could that be done?”

Frencheneesz

Yes it is possible to define and explain the geometry associated with Maxwell’s equations in terms of a physical mechanism with respect to four spatial dimensions.

Please visit http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter25.htm .

Jeff

My question is: if gravity makes a dent in space-time, what force is there that pulls the objects down the pit?
It's only a model

(just like castle Camalot)

Well Merlijn, model or not, if it doesn't make sence its out of here.

And Jeffocal? I tried to read some of that stuff, but it is a bit hard to read. Did you write those chapters all yourself?

I would definately appreciate a short explanation about it.

And Jeffocal? I tried to read some of that stuff, but it is a bit hard to read. Did you write those chapters all yourself?

Jeff has been trying hard to introduce his theories on various message boards. They are however, riddled with flaws. Jeff is adamant his theories are correct. He is well on his way to becoming a fully bonified crackpot. Stay tuned.

“And Jeffocal? I tried to read some of that stuff, but it is a bit hard to read. Did you write those chapters all yourself?”

Yes I wrote all of the chapters however I like to think of it as a team effort. I have received considerable help in clarifying and in some case correcting the concepts they present. Discussions such as these have point out areas that need work or correction, which were incorporated in the shadows paper. Recently I have been very fortunate to meet two physicists and mathematicians Christian and Juan and who volunteered their time to develop the mathematics behind several of the Chapters. In fact, Christian derived some of the mathematics that appears in chapter 3 http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter3.htm

The basic postulate of Shadows is rather simple. Space is composed of four spatial dimensions and the alignment of the dimensional axis is responsible for all of the observed forces in nature. This is similar to how the orientation of the four axis of space-time in relativity is responsible for the force of gravity. However, shadows defines all forces in including electrical and magnetic forces in terms of the orientation of the axis of four spatial. Additionally shadows defines the quantum nature of space in terms of the resonate properties of mass and energy predicted by the relativistic relationship E=mc^2.

Part of the difficulty in understanding the concepts is probably due to the way they are presented

If you would like to help Please email the_imagineers@yahoo.com

Jeff

Q, I'd like to hear his "crackpot" ideas. Even if they ARE wrong, it would still give out interesting ideas. Why can't you take things seriously?

But to state it bluntly i agree with Q that the shadows stuff is a bit strange and definitely hard to read.

I would like an explanation that is written in this forum so that it can be discussed without having to read 25 pages of stuff.

Frencheneesz

It would be helpful to me if you could explain how the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force opperates in your theory. Please no citations, just an explanation.

I did try to read some to find the gravitational and electromagnetic force, but I couldn't get the right stuff out of it.

If you would explain it to me here maybe i could help you out a bit with your theory.

hey by the way, help me with my theory, its a ton less complicated but i want to put it to the test. Just ask me to explain a concept with my theory and ill try it although it might sound a LOT like the current theories.

ok? Frencheneesz

French

Q, I'd like to hear his "crackpot" ideas. Even if they ARE wrong, it would still give out interesting ideas.

Crackpot theories are far from interesting, humorous yes, but certainly not interesting.

Why can't you take things seriously?

As opposed to a serious crackpot ?

jeff

In fact, Christian derived some of the mathematics that appears in chapter 3

Back to the classroom for Christian.

“It would be helpful to me if you could explain how the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force operates in your theory. Please no citations, just an explanation.”

The force of magnetism is the result of a torque generated by the energy vortex Shadows associate with electromagnet energy, which causes a “tilting” of the W axis of the fourth spatial dimensions.

Electrical forces associated with electromagnetic energy are a result of forces directed parallel to the surface of three-dimensional space. These forces are generated by the rotational energy of the energy vortexes Shadows assoicates with electromagnetic energy that is parallel to the W axis of the four spatial dimension

Gravitational forces are the result of perpendicular forces on the surface of three-dimensional space, which causes the depression in the surface of three dimensional space shadows associates with a gravitational field.

That’s it in a nut shell. All of the rest of the shadows paper is devoted to explaining how these three concepts relate to the physical universe.

I would like to simplify the shadow model but I don’t really know how. I suffered a neurology injury that makes mathematics extremely difficult. Therefore, I tried to define the forces in terms of the geometry of four spatial dimensions instead of mathematics involved. This presents problems because is not a linear theory in that one conclusion leads to another. Most of the conclusions revolve around and support one central postulate that space is composed of four spatial dimensions. For example, the spokes of a wheel not only support the rim but also support the hub. This is why I felt it necessary to internally interconnect and constantly refer to other sections of the paper to support the arguments which may be one of the reasons why it is a "difficult read"

It may be difficultly for us to discuss these ideas in this forum because of the interruption of a few very rude people who seem to be bent on preventing us and others from continuing. However if they become to annoying I can be reached at the_imagineers@yahoo.com I can put a block on the email address if they bother us their

Jeff

jeff

It may be difficultly for us to discuss these ideas in this forum because of the interruption of a few very rude people who seem to be bent on preventing us from continuing.

If we don't agree with your theories, we are considered rude. Classical crackpot response.

However if they become to annoying I can be reached at ... I can put a block on the email address if they bother us their.

I have decided to become too annoying. :D

Frencheneesz:

if gravity makes a dent in space-time, what force is there that pulls the objects down the pit?

Excellent question methinks. I’ve had the same question. Eventually I found a book (Relativity Visualized) that said (paraphrasing) “the rubber sheet model is misleading, so strike it from your mind!”

What the rubber sheet is really trying to convey is that spacetime warps in the presence of mass, such that the diameter of a star, say, will be greater than “expected” given the star’s circumference. For example, the circumference of a circle is pi times its diameter. Given a star with a diameter of pi, the “expected” diameter is 1. But general relativity theory says that the diameter of the star will be measured as greater than 1, perhaps far greater. The theory calls this discrepancy an “excess radius.”

What you should strike from your mind is the idea that objects fall into the pit because of the pit. The rubber sheet model is just as valid if you turn it upside down to make a hat shape. And if you picture the rubber sheet as instead silk, lain as flat as possible onto a table, you can picture the pit as wrinkled material rather than a smooth bowl, and that is also a valid model. So the rubber sheet isn’t meant to convey what pulls objects down into the pit, but rather just the excess radius.

In my opinion (I'm not a physicist), the closest the theory comes to saying or implying how gravity pulls an object into the pit, without gravity being a force, is that the surface of the mass effectively accelerates outward to move closer to the object, rather than pulling the object toward itself. I say “effectively” because the earth for instance is not enlarging itself, near as we can tell.

The theory seems to backtrack when it (or books that describe it) mentions the undiscovered graviton particle as the agent of gravity. Again in my opinion, gravity is best described like this: the surface of a body accelerates outward in such a way that, rather than the body enlarging itself, space moves toward the body, including any objects within the space. In this way a “falling” object feels no acceleration, as it is stationary relative to its surrounding space. (The object may however experience a tidal “force,” which is a tangential issue.)

For example, a free falling parachutist feels the air rushing by, but does not feel an acceleration. The air rushes by because the earth including its atmosphere is effectively rising in an accelerating manner to meet the parachutist.

It is my understanding that gravity is like any other force (well it is like the magnetic force), the closer you get to the source, the stronger the force is acted on you.

With the viewpoint given above, gravity need not be a force. General relativity describes how gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration in small regions. This principle of equivalence is saying that gravity and acceleration are two aspects of the same thing. As you sit in your chair, you are accelerating, which indirectly causes you to feel your weight. When you drop an object to the floor, does the object accelerate or does the floor? All signs point to the floor. The object does not feel the “force” getting stronger the closer it gets to the floor and indeed it feels no force at all. When you hold an object in your hand, you feel its weight because your hand is accelerating the object upwards (you being attached to the floor that is likewise accelerating) and so the object, having inertia that resists the acceleration, pushes against your hand.

Incidentally, no one has figured out the mechanism that accelerates the surface of a body to cause gravity. I think the graviton is ruled out, unless gravitons are created when you accelerate in your car. The book I mention above says that gravity is caused by the spacetime curvature, but I see that as an effect rather than a cause, and I’ve seen no other book declare that or another plausible cause for gravity.

Just ask me to explain a concept with my theory and ill try it although it might sound a LOT like the current theories.

Sure, I’ll try. How does your theory [“that gravity is like any other force”?] explain that a falling object feels no force, whereas a person on the surface does (indirectly via the electromagnetic force) feel an accelerating force called gravity? If the person on the surface is accelerating in the direction of the object, why would the falling object need to be under the direct influence of a force?

Ok, thats the first question here, ill answer it. Just remember that the princibles of my idea are that there are forces not changes in geometry of space. Besides why is it so important to express forces as changes in geometry anyway?

"How does your theory [“that gravity is like any other force”?] explain that a falling object feels no force, whereas a person on the surface does (indirectly via the electromagnetic force) feel an accelerating force called gravity?"

Well, we have to take a look at how someone feels something. Obviously we won't see it, or hear it, or taste or smell it, but we might be able to feel it with touch indirectly. Our sence of touch can only sence pressure, but sences it with enough presision to feel whether something is rough or smooth.
If you are in free fall in an atmosphere-less planet (given that you don't die) you can not feel any force because there is nothing to push on your skin (ie particles).
Yet a person standing on the surface can indirectly perceive that he is being acted on by a force because he can feel the pressure of his own weight. There is the ground to push up on him (using the electromagnetic force) that makes the skin sence the pressure. The interesting thing is, while the man in free fall can not preceive that he is accelerating, the man on the ground can and does preceive that he is accelerating when he is actually stationary (with respect to the planet).

An accelerometer works by something like a lopsided seesaw. When you accelerate in one direction, the seesaw stays in the same spot yet gets pushed by the moving case of the accelerometer. It creates a pressure that can be infered as acceleration. But with gravity the same thing happens when you are NOT accelerating. Gravity tries to accelerate you but only succeeds in making you heavy. The seesawcreates pressure on the case because it is being forced down by gravity while the case is being forced up by the electromagnetic force of the ground.

Ill leave THAT at that.

"If the person on the surface is accelerating in the direction of the object, why would the falling object need to be under the direct influence of a force?"

Im sorry but i don't understand the question. The only thing i can say is that the person standing on the surface of the planet is not accelerating compared to the planet (given that he isn't moving relative to the planet, he can't be accelerating) (except the infintesimal residual bouncing up and down created by the electromagnetic ground.

Ill also decide to answer you this sentence that can be turned into a question:

I think the graviton is ruled out, unless gravitons are created when you accelerate in your car.

First of all, which do you think is more plausable: that when you accelerate the car, the whole universe moves but not the car, or that the car is the only thing (mostly) involved in the motion. Im sure you can agree it would take quite some car to move the entire universe.
A car's acceleration is completely derived out of the electromagnetic effect. You can visualize that the pistons move the wheels so it is only for me to explain the pistons. Actually lets go with an electric car, much simpler:
The moter in an electric car spins the little moter axel using electricity. The moter spins and is connected to the wheels making them spin. The wheels spin up against the ground and force the wheels in the opposite direction that they are spinning against the ground. The ground's electrons repel the wheels electrons and the car moves forward.
I don't see any reason that gravity would be involved in this process. Just because there is no sence that can sence gravity or acceleration means that we have to infer it. And just because there is no way to infer a measurement of pressure to either be related to gravity or acceleration does not mean that they are the same thing.
Lets just say all we had was a scale (effectively just an other pressure sensor) and we tried to use it to distinguish a ton of feathers and a ton of bricks. Just because there would be no way to tell the difference does not mean they are the same thing... Do you get it? Im not saying your wrong im just saying i think im right.

So whats your idea on all of this?

Frencheneesz:

As far as I can tell you are giving the same explanation, of gravity as a force, as is given by classical physics. There may be nothing wrong with that interpretation. When applied within a formula, it may give the right answer. But I think that that interpretation may block new insight into gravity, as it might have done for Einstein before he adopted the principle of equivalence.

You are correct when you say “Just because there would be no way to tell the difference does not mean they are the same thing.” Yet Einstein’s philosophy was: if you can’t tell the difference, then assume they are the same thing and deduce from that. He deduced, for example, that since moving clocks are observed by stationary observers to run slow, then of two clocks, the one closer to the ground (the one accelerating at a higher rate) should run slower. This was a deduction based on an assumption, but later experiments proved him right, and showed the power of Ockham's Razor (roughly, “simpler is better.”)

The principle of equivalence tells me that gravity is not a force like the electromagnetic force, where an agent particle has been found that interacts between two objects. It is simpler for me to see that I am merely accelerating towards a “falling” object. Rather than have to explain the physical interaction between myself and a galaxy a billion light years away, I need only see that I am effectively accelerating toward the galaxy, and vice versa. No agent particle is needed. No force is needed.

Besides why is it so important to express forces as changes in geometry anyway?

If we didn't, we couldn't explain how a perfectly spherical star's circumference is less than pi times its diameter. We also couldn't fully explain the precession of mercury's perihelion.

Im sorry but i don't understand the question [If the person on the surface is accelerating in the direction of the object, why would the falling object need to be under the direct influence of a force?].

For example, if I am accelerating toward the moon thanks to gravity, then why must the moon be under the direct influence of a force of gravity? In other words, why must there be a physical interaction (such as gravitons) between myself and the moon? After all, the Apollo astronauts closed the gap between themselves and the moon just by accelerating towards it.

First of all, which do you think is more plausable: that when you accelerate the car, the whole universe moves but not the car, or that the car is the only thing (mostly) involved in the motion. Im sure you can agree it would take quite some car to move the entire universe.

Not at all. I am quite stationary relative to my car when I'm driving it. So it seems the car is moving the entire universe along my axis of motion. Either viewpoint is just as plausible. Classical physics agrees, in that a piece of space dust a billion light years away from earth does pull us, along with our entire galaxy, toward it. (Newton’s third law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.)

Jeffocal:

In “Shadows Chapter 23 Experimental Verification of Shadows” it says “Similarly, the inertial properties of the mass component of space would provide resistance to a space probes movement causing it to slow or decelerate.” How then, in laymen’s terms please, does Shadows explain that the planets are not slowed in their orbits?

“In “Shadows Chapter 23 Experimental Verification of Shadows” it says “Similarly, the inertial properties of the mass component of space would provide resistance to a space probes movement causing it to slow or decelerate.” How then, in laymen’s terms please, does Shadows explain that the planets are not slowed in their orbits?”

zanket

If the shadows concepts are correct, planets are also being slowed by the inertial properties of the mass component of space. This resistance and slowing effect shadows associates with the mass component of space predicts the perihelion advances of Mercury. Please remember that relativity also predicts the perihelion advances of Mercury. This is one indication that Shadows and relativity are identical with the exception of the units used to derive the forces of nature. Shadows concepts do not conflict with relativity they support it.

Jeff

<a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter23.htm> Chapter 23</a>

jeffocal:

Thanks for the explanation. On the face of it, it seems that mercury's perihelion advance is tiny relative to Voyager's discrepancy of 0.003% in just 30 years or so. If the planets are decelerating in their orbits at anything close to that rate, wouldn't they have long ago fallen into the sun? Also as I understand it, mercury's perihelion advance represents a boost rather than a (opposite) deceleration. In other words, it is an advance not a decline. Can you comment?

I don’t believe that the slowing effect of the inertial properties of the mass component of space is large enough to cause planetary orbits to decay enough to fall into the sun. Remember the mass component of space is extremely small and therefore would provide considerable less resistance to the movement of planets than the interplanetary dust particles would. However, the only way we can be sure it to mathematically quantify the resistive forces associated with the mass component of space that are acting on the voyage space probe and then extrapolate them to the planetary orbits and see if we can them use that value to make accurate predictions of the planetary orbits.

Juan is presently attempting to do this. We will announce our findings as soon as they are available.

No I believe that mercury's perihelion advance represents a decline not a boost based on the geometry defined by shadows that would governor planetary orbits.

Jeff

zanket

Just a quick observation. I believe the Voyager's discrepancy of 0.003 percent you mentioned in your article refers to the discrepancy between the value of “deceleration” predicted by relativity and the observed value. It does not mean that the probe lost 0.003% of it total velocity in the thirty years time that has past. Shadows predicts that this additional .003 percent deceleration over and above what relativity predicts is due to the inertial properties of the mass component of space. This represents an extremely small quantity of mass. According to the calculations that Christian provided in chapter three http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter3.htm the total quantity of mass contained in each mattercule or quantum unit of space should be numerically equivalent to Planck’s constant or 6.547 X 10^-27 grams.

Jeff

Sorry, i told you my explanation might sound like that, but my idea focuses only on the forces instead of using all but unscientific theories such as entropy, which states that "things tend to get less oraganized". That means almost nothing in science, given that organization is all in opinion.

I can't exactly say that a philosophy proves much, but i see where you are going. I can see that both of our theories can coexist since neither of us have any observational evidence that one is a better model than the other.

The thing missing from your acceleration point of view is that both your gravitic captor and yourself would be accelerating towards eachother. Effectively both of you are exerting the same force on eachother, but the more massive galaxy needs much much more force to push than your puny body.

But i must disagree with you when you say no force is needed. Some force must be responsible for this acceleration. You can't move without a force being acted on you...

"If we didn't, we couldn't explain how a perfectly spherical star's circumference is less than pi times its diameter. We also couldn't fully explain the precession of mercury's perihelion."
First of all, how is the diameter of a star derived (PS nothing is perfectly spherical), it is measured from the light emitted from it, right? But then how is the circumference measured? It could be measured using the same light, right?
Tell me how they got that the circumference was smaller than the diameter. Given that it is impossible to draw a perfect circle with those properties, sounds quite strange to me.

"For example, if I am accelerating toward the moon thanks to gravity, then why must the moon be under the direct influence of a force of gravity? In other words, why must there be a physical interaction (such as gravitons) between myself and the moon? After all, the Apollo astronauts closed the gap between themselves and the moon just by accelerating towards it."

Well, I CAN say that there must be a phisical link (direct or indirect) between the moon. In einsteins model, you would be pulled into the moons pit, but in your idea, there must be some sort of force or interaction that makes you accelerate toward the moon FASTER when you get CLOSER to it.

"So it seems the car is moving the entire universe along my axis of motion."
So it seems, well not everything is as it seems. In all seriousness, the relativistic frame of reference idea was to explain that you can not have an absolute speed and that if two cars going along the highway at the same speed hit, it would be just as if they hit when they werent moving forward.
The universe is not connected in any special fasion, If you accelerate in your spaceship by flinging fast moving particles in the other direction, it hardly matters weather there is a universe or not. There is a clear relationship between mass and the amount of work it takes to move that mass. If we were to move all the universe, we would have to do a bunch of pushing, not to mention getting a hold on all the rest of the universe.
I can give a very easy explanation of how a car can move itself (and i did), but I would like to see you try to explain how a car can move the universe.

I can see only one more thing that might convince you, gravity is supposed to be projected at the speed of light right? If it is, then your idea cannot be true because it is quite clear that acceleration have instantaneous effects, in other words it does not take 8 minutes for the sun to BE closer to you if you accelerate toward it. You effectively are instantaniously are where you are, period.
If something were to be moving at faster than the speed of light, You would see it come only after it had arrived, It could touch you (proably taking a chunk of you off at that speed) as a testiment to him being there before you saw his light come rushing in.

I would be able to explain mercuries perihelion effect, except that it is a completely mathmatical issue, as i see it. How did einstein "correct" for this effect?
?
Frencheneesz

Hi Frenceneesz,

"...but my idea focuses only on the forces instead of using all but unscientific theories such as entropy, which states that "things tend to get less oraganized". That means almost nothing in science, given that organization is all in opinion."

Just for the record I'd like to state that the concept of entropy is alot more than a way of indicating "the amount of organisation" or "disorder". I suggest you grab a good introductory book on thermodynamics before making such claims. But this is not relevant for the discussion, please carry on as you were ... :)

Bye!

Crisp

jeffocal

The discrepancy is the difference between what classical physics says about how far away from Earth the Voyager is expected to be, and where it actually is. The Voyager is closer to Earth by 0.003% of the expected distance. I’m no expert on the subject but I’ve read that the planets do not exhibit the same discrepancy.

Frencheneesz

The thing missing from your acceleration point of view is that both your gravitic captor and yourself would be accelerating towards eachother. Effectively both of you are exerting the same force on eachother, but the more massive galaxy needs much much more force to push than your puny body.

I don’t see what is missing. The Sun accelerates outward in such a way that space comes to it rather than it enlarging itself. (How it manages that is a mystery.) Because the Sun is effectively accelerating towards everything in the universe, it may measurably move closer to a massive galaxy. No pushing or pulling need be involved between the Sun and the galaxy.

But i must disagree with you when you say no force is needed. Some force must be responsible for this acceleration. You can't move without a force being acted on you...

Agreed. When books say “gravity is not a force” I take that to mean that there is no pulling between bodies. But there is still a force within each body that accelerates the surface.

First of all, how is the diameter of a star derived (PS nothing is perfectly spherical), it is measured from the light emitted from it, right? But then how is the circumference measured? It could be measured using the same light, right?
Tell me how they got that the circumference was smaller than the diameter. Given that it is impossible to draw a perfect circle with those properties, sounds quite strange to me.

I won’t be able to explain this properly here. I suggest you get the book Relativity Visualized. Hardly any math in it. You can grasp all the concepts in a few days.

Well, I CAN say that there must be a phisical link (direct or indirect) between the moon. In einsteins model, you would be pulled into the moons pit, but in your idea, there must be some sort of force or interaction that makes you accelerate toward the moon FASTER when you get CLOSER to it.

Einstein’s model is the one I’m describing. There is no pulling in his model. You may read in descriptions of the rubber sheet example that objects “fall” into the pit under the influence of gravity, but that is misleading. In Einstein’s model, when you drop a ball, the ball has no force acting on it. It is not falling per se. The floor effectively comes up to meet the ball. The floor, with you attached, accelerates up, so the ball appears to fall faster and faster. It is only when you hold the ball in your hand or when it meets the floor that a force acts upon it, the force that is accelerating the Earth’s surface.

I added to my description of Einstein’s model that, in my opinion, if the floor accelerates up in such a way that the Earth does not enlarge itself, then it is just as valid to say that the Earth accelerates space toward itself, in which case no physical link need exist between two bodies, such as gravitons.

I can give a very easy explanation of how a car can move itself (and i did), but I would like to see you try to explain how a car can move the universe.

I explain it using your explanation, with the addition that when I remove my foot from the gas pedal and coast, there is no way I can tell whether I’m moving or the universe is. Since I can’t tell, it is just as valid for me to say that I moved the universe during my acceleration as vice versa. Better is to accept that who is moving is irrelevant and instead just focus on relative movement.

I can see only one more thing that might convince you, gravity is supposed to be projected at the speed of light right? If it is, then your idea cannot be true because it is quite clear that acceleration have instantaneous effects, in other words it does not take 8 minutes for the sun to BE closer to you if you accelerate toward it.

There is no incompatibility. The latest information we have about the Sun is 8 minutes old. When we accelerate toward the Sun, the Sun that we measure ourselves moving closer to is the 8-minute-ago Sun not the Current Sun.

"But there is still a force within each body that accelerates the surface"

Surface of what?

"I won’t be able to explain this properly here (Tell me how they got that the circumference was smaller than the diameter)"

I know that relativity says that space-time is bent in a gravitational field, so the circumference would be normal, but the diameter would be measured along the curve.
A good picture of this is at http://plus.maths.org/issue18/features/thorne/
I can understand the concept, but it is beyond me how they could come to the conclusion that the diameter is so long....

Do you have any evidence that the diameter is so long? measurements?

"The floor, with you attached, accelerates up, so the ball appears to fall faster and faster. It is only when you hold the ball in your hand or when it meets the floor that a force acts upon it, the force that is accelerating the Earth’s surface."

Relativity in no way mentions that gravity has direct connections to acceleration, only that you could not tell the difference. The relativistic gravity model doesn't say anything about acceleration as far as i know.
It is scientific fact that when gravity is in action between a planet and a person, BOTH the planet AND the person are pulled toward a vector point in the center of them that is proportional to the difference in mass.
Non only that, but there MUST be some sort of interaction between the ball and the planet, otherwise how would the planet know to accelerate toward it in the first place.
And if the planet accelerates toward the ball, why can't we feel it (if we were standing on the planet)?

Well, more importantly, what proof is there that this happens? I have proof that an interactive force happens between to objects, i do not have proof of gravitons.

"Since I can’t tell, it is just as valid for me to say that I moved the universe during my acceleration as vice versa. "

Im sorry, but i must disagree. There is a direct relationship to how much energy it takes to move an object, and the objects mass. How do you explain the fact that it takes more energy to move a car two feet than it takes to move a pencil two feet?


Frencheneesz

Oh yeah, crisp.

what are your ideas on this acceleration/gravity stuff?

I realize that thermodynamics states that all conversions of energy creates loss of energy, but what is "energy". Also, loss of energy can not happen according to the first law of thermodynamics. I know what they MEAN by loss is that it can't be 100% efficient. But Im saying that these laws are very much based on opinion. Obviously the universe doesn't have a specific job for the conversions of energy, so the losses or gains have completely no meaning. How do you proove weather some thing is a loss or a gain, good or bad. It kinda enters the relm of religion...

oh yeah what are your ideas on this acceleration/gravity stuff?

Frencheneesz

Frencheneesz

Surface of what?

The surface of the body, like the Earth or Sun.

Do you have any evidence that the diameter is so long? measurements?

There are the experimental confirmations of general relativity, such as the observed advance of Mercury’s perihelion, the full explanation of which requires an excess diameter. If you read the (excellent, super simple) book I mentioned, it will make sense. There is nothing magical about the longer diameter; it is a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light, combined with the equivalency of gravity and acceleration. But it takes a good teacher to explain.

The relativistic gravity model doesn't say anything about acceleration as far as i know.

A book I have about the special and general theory, written by Einstein for laymen, has a chapter on how gravity and acceleration are indistinguishable for an observer in a closed box. As I understand it, this equivalence of gravity and acceleration is the cornerstone of the general theory. One site I found says “The Einstein equivalence principle is the heart and soul of gravitational theory.” Conveniently, Einstein’s book is online. Here is the chapter:

The Equality of Inertial and Gravitational Mass (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ch20.htm)

It is scientific fact that when gravity is in action between a planet and a person, BOTH the planet AND the person are pulled toward a vector point in the center of them that is proportional to the difference in mass.

It may be a fact that they move toward a vector point. But nothing has proven that they are pulled there. Neither feels a force pulling on them.

Non only that, but there MUST be some sort of interaction between the ball and the planet, otherwise how would the planet know to accelerate toward it in the first place.

The planet doesn’t have to know about the ball. It just accelerates outward, toward everything outward. Rather than the planet enlarging itself, it brings the space to itself. Anything in that space appears to accelerate toward the planet. The planet is always accelerating.

And if the planet accelerates toward the ball, why can't we feel it (if we were standing on the planet)?

You can. Isn’t your butt pressed into your chair right now? That’s because the planet is accelerating your chair against your butt. Or better put (since the planet does not enlarge itself) the planet accelerates the space you reside in against your chair.

Well, more importantly, what proof is there that this happens? I have proof that an interactive force happens between to objects, i do not have proof of gravitons.

All anybody has done is describe gravity. Nobody has proof of its mechanism, or proof that it is an interactive force. Yet Einstein’s description of gravity explains more of what we observe than yours does (I’m assuming yours is the Newtonian description).

In my opinion, the main indication that Einstein’s model is more correct is the experimental confirmation of the principle of equivalence, to something like 10 decimal points. Here is some more background:

What is the difference between the inertial and gravitational mass? (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae305.cfm)

It would be remarkable if two sources led to the exact same result. Einstein noted (in the chapter linked to above) that if the two cannot be distinguished by any experiment, then they must be considered equivalent. If equivalent, then when you accelerate in your car you are creating a gravitational field that pushes your back against your seat. Or when you sit in your chair, you are accelerating upwards. Either is a valid viewpoint (although the latter is far more intuitive to me).

There is a direct relationship to how much energy it takes to move an object, and the objects mass. How do you explain the fact that it takes more energy to move a car two feet than it takes to move a pencil two feet?

Agreed. You raise a good issue, and I was going to take back what I said and agree that when you accelerate in your car, it is valid to say that the car is moving and not the universe. But then in the chapter linked to above I read this: “We have thus good grounds for extending the principle of relativity to include bodies of reference which are accelerated with respect to each other” which means that when you accelerate the car, you can’t tell who is accelerating, you & the universe or the car. But other than giving this reference I can’t better explain it, so you have given me something to think about.

It seems your point was this: “I don't see any reason that gravity would be involved in this process [acceleration].” And you pointed out that “A car's acceleration is completely derived out of the electromagnetic effect.” But who’s to say that gravity isn’t also derived out of the electromagnetic effect? Especially since no experiment can discern the difference between gravity and acceleration, and because there is a numerically constant relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic force.

Hi Frencheneesz,

"what are your ideas on this acceleration/gravity stuff?"

Unfortunately I know too little about General Relativity to talk about it in a sensible manner.

"I realize that thermodynamics states that all conversions of energy creates loss of energy, but what is "energy". Also, loss of energy can not happen according to the first law of thermodynamics. I know what they MEAN by loss is that it can't be 100% efficient. But Im saying that these laws are very much based on opinion. Obviously the universe doesn't have a specific job for the conversions of energy, so the losses or gains have completely no meaning. How do you proove weather some thing is a loss or a gain, good or bad. It kinda enters the relm of religion... "

Thermodynamics defines energy using a mathematical relation with entropy. (In fact, there is no uniform definition of energy, it varies between most physical theories). Thermodynamical laws are backed up by calculations (who on their turn are backed up by the three postulates of thermodynamics), so it is not quite based on opinion :) ... The only thing that can vary is how you define positive energyflow, and this in turn has effects on how the concept of work is defined. Both are mathematically consistent, it is just a matter of definition.

This ofcourse does not prove anything about "loss" or "gain" (the two terms are dependent on the definition of energyflow). What you refer to as "religious aspect" is in fact the philosophical aspect, in the sense that you can question whether a theory that allows different interpretations of "loss" or "gain" can really describe nature (or our feeling about what a "loss" or "gain" could be). This has been discussed quite a lot before on the forums here (especially in relativity threads ;)) so I won't go into it deeper here... This message is already off-topic enough :)

Bye!

Crisp

Ok, Zanket,

I can get the concept of this accelerating outward thing. If something COULD accelerate outward in all directions, then it would make sence, almost. This would mean that there is no gravitational wave or any gravitational force.
I suppose gravity could be derived from the mechanics of electro-magnetism, although it is completely incomprehensible.

The only problem is that, the idea breaks the speed of light limit (which i, for one, dont think makes sence). If a body accelerates outward, then eventually it will reach light-speed and beyond. So if you take relativity for truth, this blows it all away.

Apologies if this has already been said, but I'd like to answer Frencheneesz's original question regarding the rubber sheet analogy in general relativity.

What you have to realise is that the rubber sheet analogy is just that - a story used to try to describe what GR says about gravity in easy-to-understand terms. The analogy, like all good analogies, is useful up to a point, but at some stage you have to get real and look at the actual thing the analogy relates to.

This particular analogy breaks down when we realise that a force is needed to pull a ball into a pit in the rubber sheet. In GR, the curvature of spacetime <b>is</b> gravity, and there is no "extra" force required. The analogy is ok provided that you accept that objects have a tendency to move towards the low points in the sheet regardless of any "extra" force acting.

James R,

This particular analogy breaks down when we realise that a force is needed to pull a ball into a pit in the rubber sheet. In GR, the curvature of spacetime is gravity, and there is no "extra" force required. The analogy is ok provided that you accept that objects have a tendency to move towards the low points in the sheet regardless of any "extra" force acting.

Frencheneesz has a point. Let's say that your God and you can bend and curve space anyway you see fit. Let's also say that you can compress or expand one or multiple dimensions to get the geometry you desire. There is no reason why an object would move towards your curved, compressed, or uncompressed space rather than just remaining in the same location. Are you claiming that curved space produces some kind of potential difference??

I can understand how a moving object's path would be influenced by the space curvature, but I don't understand how a stationairy object would be moved by this curvature.

Tom

Tom,

<i>There is no reason why an object would move towards your curved, compressed, or uncompressed space rather than just remaining in the same location.</i>

I could use the same argument to say that there is no reason why any object should ever move rather than staying where it is. Why does a force make something move? Who knows? That question is unanswerable. Why do objects move along geodesics in spacetime? Who knows? They just do. Science tells us how things move, not the ultimate "why".

<i>Are you claiming that curved space produces some kind of potential difference??</i>

No. That's a Newtonian idea, actually, which is applicable to gravitational fields (which do not exist in general relativity). On the other hand, there are terms in various GR equations which are vaguely like potential energy terms.

<i>I can understand how a moving object's path would be influenced by the space curvature, but I don't understand how a stationairy object would be moved by this curvature.</i>

It's <b>spacetime</b> curvature, not just space curvature.

Frencheneesz:

If something COULD accelerate outward in all directions, then it would make sence, almost. This would mean that there is no gravitational wave...

Very astute. That’s what so great about this forum. In answering your post I realized for the first time how (intuitively) gravitational waves could exist. Before answering your question, I thought they couldn’t. In combination with answering your post and something I read yesterday about the tidal force, it clicked.

Although objects feel no gravitational forces, they may feel tidal forces where “force” is a misnomer. This “force” is the squeezing and stretching that an object undergoes as it falls into the pit or revolves around a circumference of the pit, to use the rubber sheet example. For example, as the Earth rotates as it revolves around a circumference of the Moon’s pit, the Earth is squeezed perpendicular to the radius of the pit and stretched parallel to the radius. It is squeezed and stretched to match the curved geometry of the pit as it rotates. These tidal forces cause the tides, as Einstein postulated.

As I understand, Einstein believed in a “fabric” of spacetime. Mass defines the curvature of the fabric. The fabric may ripple to create detectable gravitational waves. The fabric is only a paradigm, a way of looking at things. An equivalent paradigm is that mass defines how space accelerates toward it. But in either paradigm there is spacetime curvature (the pit) that has a curved geometry, and when the mass changes, the geometry of the pit changes, which causes a change in tidal forces that may be detected as gravitational waves.

In other words, if, for example, two black holes are revolving around each other somewhere in our galaxy, they are continuously varying the geometry of their pit in which the Earth resides. With sufficiently precise equipment, we should be able to detect this as the Earth is alternately (and very slightly) stretched and squeezed.

I suppose gravity could be derived from the mechanics of electro-magnetism, although it is completely incomprehensible.

Not only to you, but also to every physicist, even as they see a connection! Einstein spent decades on this topic, to no avail.

The only problem is that, the idea breaks the speed of light limit (which i, for one, dont think makes sence). If a body accelerates outward, then eventually it will reach light-speed and beyond. So if you take relativity for truth, this blows it all away.

The body will never reach light speed, because the speed of light is a limit in the calculus sense, not the highway sense. In a spaceship, you may approach but can never reach the limit. Yet nothing stops you from accelerating as much as you like.

For example, suppose the accelerator in your ship was a rotating dial. The more you rotate the dial, the higher the velocity (relative to your starting point) that you attain. Suppose 1 rotation brought you to 0.9c, 90% of the speed of light. What speed would you attain if you rotated the dial twice? It would be less than 1c. Even if you rotated the dial at 1000 revolutions per minute for years, you would never reach 1c. Yet if you were moving toward a destination, you would reach that destination faster and faster just like you’d expect. For instance, if you rotated the dial twice, you’d reach your destination twice as fast than if you rotated it only once. To make this happen, rather than you breaching the speed “limit,” space and time flex. This is what Einstein postulated: the speed of light is a constant, but space and time are variable. If you don’t “get” that, then again I recommend a good teacher, such as the author of the book Relativity Visualized.

So the accelerating-outward planet will never reach light speed. Not in a billion years, not in a billion trillion years. Also note that, unlike the spaceship, the planet is effectively accelerating in all directions (that is, spherically), so it accelerates (brings space to itself) according to the inverse square law (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html). Whereas objects drop next to us at 10 meters per second-squared, the Moon drops toward the Earth at only a few millimeters per second-squared.

Note as well that Einstein's root model requires that the universe be contracting or expanding. The thinking goes, if all the masses are accelerating towards one another, then what is keeping them apart? Einstein kept them apart by including a "cosmological constant," a made-up value that perfectly counteracts gravity to ensure that the universe does not collapse under the influence of gravity. Later, when it was discovered that the galaxies are expanding away from each other, Einstein called his cosmological constant his "greatest blunder." The expansion removed the need for an arbitrary fix, the cosmological constant. Einstein thought he blundered because he could have postulated--ahead of observations--that the universe must be expanding or contracting.

Prosoothus:

I can understand how a moving object's path would be influenced by the space curvature, but I don't understand how a stationairy object would be moved by this curvature.

I gave an explanation previously in this thread.

"Why does a force make something move?" James R

Well, a force is defined as something that makes an object move. So Why does something that makes something move make something move? Its the identity property, like in math.

Science is all about telling the "why" of the universe. What does happen is the first discovery, how it happens is the second giving a law for predictions, and why it happens is the law for the universe.

My point was that a force DOES need to act on an object to move it, period. Even if we dont know WHY, we do Know how and if gravity is not a force or have a force mechanism, it can't move something, period. This is just like a hand is not a force, but it uses the electromagnetism in the atoms of the skin to repel something it is trying to push.

"It's spacetime curvature, not just space curvature."

Sorry if im hypocritical, but i wouldn't try to be so picky. It could get us into a stupid argument.
Besides this forum is to discuss new ideas, not repeat old ones like einsteins theories and take them for fact. We can take nothing for fact. Everything is wrong except the observations. We need better theories and thats what we are here for, to better Einstein.



Zanket, I read your post, but um.... I kinda couldn't remeber all that. Could you put your point into a couple sentences?

One thing I could catch is that the speed of light is constant and spacetime is the variable. I might have already hinted that i don't believe in the theory that light is going the same speed for all frames of refferences. If you are going the speed of light toward the light, relativity says that the light would be going 2 times the speed of light toward you and vice versa. But then it contradicts itself with this constant speed of light crap.

Seriously, i am interested in trying to put observations into MY theory to prove it wrong. In this way I can better my understanding of phisics. If you don't know what my theory is (maybe i shouldn't call it a theory, more like an idea), then ill explain it, is simple:

My -Idea- is that the universe works only with particles that produce a force of some sort. Thats it. It takes in no wacky space time curvature stuff or entropy generalizations, unless someone can prove that my theory needs it.

My current worst enemy is the fact that when you look a couple light-years away, you see things pretty much happening as they were a couple years ago, or so we think. If there was a super-nova, some light would be going faster toward us than other light and therefore arrive earlier. But, the people that observe this say that that does not happen. I have to believe them because I do not have the opbservational experience.

This would mean that there is an intrincic maximum speed limit of the universe, which is rapidly becoming proven inaccurate.

More problems sunt: what is light made of, how is it created, and what are photons?

A lot about light, my theory does not know. But I can explain most other phenomenon, which is good for a theory. The only thing is my theory is in no way a model for how forces work, it just assumes they work and thats that.


ANYWAY, I can think of another problem with the accelerating outward thing. If all the particles in the earth are acclerating outward, they would be all accelerating with the same rate (if the particles had equivelent mass, which we can assume, since things with more mass are probably just more particles), and that would mean the earth would have as much "acceleration" as a single particle.

If more than one particle is to create a larger "accleration" there has to be some sort of mechanism to have the accelerations add up. If you have two cars, bumper to bumper, and you accelerate them at the exact same rate, they will not collide. But if one is to help the other accelerate, they must collide or in another way interact.

But despite all my disproofs, I have something that provides evidence for the connection between gravity and acceleration. If you drop two objects of diferent mass in a vaccum, they fall at the same rate, despite the heavier one having greater gravity.

This means that the thing that is holding the more massive (greater gravitation force) object back is its momentum, in effect its mass. Its mass makes it have greater pull, but its mass also makes the thing less easy to move. Its QUITE a conincedence that the extra pull COMPLETELY cancels out the momentum resistence of the extra mass.

This experiment has been taken for fact and is nice support for the idea that gravity and acceleration are directly related.

Ill stop talking now

Frencheneesz,

<i>Well, a force is defined as something that makes an object move. So Why does something that makes something move make something move? Its the identity property, like in math.</i>

According to general relativity, a geodesic is the path that a particle in gravitational free-fall will automatically follow - no force required. So, why does something that makes particles follow it make particles follow it? It's the identity property, like in math. :)

<i>My point was that a force DOES need to act on an object to move it, period.</i>

How do you reach that conclusion? What about Newton's first law?

<i>Even if we dont know WHY, we do Know how and if gravity is not a force or have a force mechanism, it can't move something, period.</i>

Why not?

I said: "It's spacetime curvature, not just space curvature."

You said: <i>Sorry if im hypocritical, but i wouldn't try to be so picky. It could get us into a stupid argument.</i>

It may just be the stupid argument we have to have to get you studied-up on general relativity.

<i>Besides this forum is to discuss new ideas, not repeat old ones like einsteins theories and take them for fact.</i>

Oh? I thought this was the "Physics & Math" forum, not the "Free thoughts" forum or the "Pseudoscience" forum.

<i>We need better theories and thats what we are here for, to better Einstein.</i>

A worthy aim indeed. Could you please tell me briefly what you think is wrong with Einstein's theories which means they need to be replaced? What experimental observations disagree with Einstein's theories, for example?

<i>I might have already hinted that i don't believe in the theory that light is going the same speed for all frames of refferences.</i>

It doesn't matter what you believe. That is what is observed.

<i>If you are going the speed of light toward the light, relativity says that the light would be going 2 times the speed of light toward you and vice versa.</i>

Better pull out that relativity text and reread it. That's not what relativity says.

<i>Seriously, i am interested in trying to put observations into MY theory to prove it wrong.</i>

Sounds good. That's a scientific approach. Could you please briefly any quantitative predictions your theory makes which differ from the predictions of relativity?

<i>My -Idea- is that the universe works only with particles that produce a force of some sort. Thats it. It takes in no wacky space time curvature stuff or entropy generalizations, unless someone can prove that my theory needs it.</i>

Show me some quantitative predictions of your theory and I'll take a look.

<i>This would mean that there is an intrincic maximum speed limit of the universe, which is rapidly becoming proven inaccurate.</i>

Really? Who has proven it inaccurate? How?

<i>More problems sunt: what is light made of, how is it created, and what are photons?</i>

Standard quantum mechanics has a very good model of light. The term "photon" is entirely a quantum beast.

<i>But despite all my disproofs, I have something that provides evidence for the connection between gravity and acceleration. If you drop two objects of diferent mass in a vaccum, they fall at the same rate, despite the heavier one having greater gravity.</i>

That doesn't provide a connection between gravity and acceleration. It provides a connection between inertia and gravitational mass. That particular connection was unexplained until relativity came along; relativity explains it very elegantly.

James R:

That doesn't provide a connection between gravity and acceleration. It provides a connection between inertia and gravitational mass.

Of my small library of relativity books, almost all of them refer to the equality of gravitational and inertial mass interchangeably with the equality of gravity and acceleration. Einstein’s thought experiment (linked to previously in this thread) to show the equality between gravitational and inertial mass is an example of gravity being indiscernible from acceleration. So I fail to see the distinction. Maybe you can enlighten me?

Frencheneesz:

Zanket, I read your post, but um.... I kinda couldn't remeber all that. Could you put your point into a couple sentences?

OK. This is a side issue and a subtle point, so if you don’t see it and are still interested, hit the books or search online. But here goes: With outward-accelerating masses as a description for gravity, gravitational waves can still exist. Gravitational waves are changing tidal forces. Tidal forces are caused by the fact that, for example, the side of the Earth that is closest to the Moon is accelerating toward the Moon faster than is the opposite side of the Earth (inverse square law). All parts of the Earth are accelerating roughly toward the center of the Moon; that is, towards a point. So the Earth is squeezed into a slightly pie-shaped wedge. As the Earth rotates to present a new face to the Moon, the formerly squeezed part of the Earth stretches back into shape.

I might have already hinted that i don't believe in the theory that light is going the same speed for all frames of refferences.

While it’s okay to disbelieve, beware that probably hundreds of experiments have borne this out. Despite the observations, the absolute speed of light was widely disbelieved for nearly two decades (too weird to believe!) until Einstein postulated that it was true and made bold predictions thereupon, which have also been confirmed experimentally.

If you are going the speed of light toward the light, relativity says that the light would be going 2 times the speed of light toward you and vice versa.

Like James R said, relativity doesn’t say that. It says that, regardless of your speed towards the light’s source, the light would be going exactly the speed of light toward you. In relativity the speed of light is always the same.

Seriously, i am interested in trying to put observations into MY theory to prove it wrong.

Good. That’s what we’re here for. If your theory is too wacky, I move on. So far, I’m interested. ;)

My -Idea- is that the universe works only with particles that produce a force of some sort. Thats it.

OK, here’s a question: With your idea, wouldn’t every Moon dust particle, at least those on the surface, need to be continuously receiving at least one gravity-force particle to be continuously pulled toward the center of the Moon? What if some Moon particles were occasionally missed? Wouldn’t they fling out of the Moon’s orbit by their own inertia? And if this were happening often enough, wouldn’t the Moon have an atmosphere of dust?

Also: how do you explain that the force of gravity has been shown experimentally to be continuous; that is, gravity doesn’t seem to come in discrete packets that would be imparted by a gravity-force particle.

(I can think of answers within the realm of your theory but I'd like to hear yours.)

This would mean that there is an intrincic maximum speed limit of the universe, which is rapidly becoming proven inaccurate.

My understanding is that these experiments are measuring the speed of light through various mediums other than a vacuum. Relativity says the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, not necessarily in any other medium. But the main thing to realize is that the speed of light is not a maximum speed limit on how fast you can go; that is, how fast you can attain a destination. Rather, it is a limit on how fast you can be observed to go. Until you grasp the difference, it may seem to be “constant speed of light crap.” After you grasp the difference, it may seem elegant.

If more than one particle is to create a larger "accleration" there has to be some sort of mechanism to have the accelerations add up. If you have two cars, bumper to bumper, and you accelerate them at the exact same rate, they will not collide. But if one is to help the other accelerate, they must collide or in another way interact.

Well put. I’ve thought about this before. The difference is, unlike the car, the particles accelerate in all directions and in a way that brings space to them. Whatever is in the space is brought to the particle, regardless of its size (although the larger particle will appear to dominate). Imagine twin particles A and B. Particle A is accelerating towards itself all its surrounding space, which includes particle B. Particle B is doing likewise. As long as these particles are negligibly distant from each other as observed by a particle C, not necessarily touching, the A-B system will draw particle C at twice the rate of either A or B by themselves. Many particles in close proximity will bring space to themselves as the product of their respective masses, with the caveat that the inward velocity may only approach the speed of light, not attain it.

You could say that particles A and B are interacting. Or you could say that a particle defines its surrounding space and how it draws that space, including any objects within the space, toward itself. The latter is closest to what general relativity advocates.

If you drop two objects of diferent mass in a vaccum, they fall at the same rate, despite the heavier one having greater gravity. ... Its QUITE a conincedence that the extra pull COMPLETELY cancels out the momentum resistence of the extra mass.

Now you’re getting it! However, Galileo noted that this is no great coincidence if you simply imagine the heavier mass as broken into many pieces each matching the mass of the smaller mass, then drop the many pieces as a group. For example, rather than drop a sand particle alongside a closed box full of sand, drop a sand particle alongside all the sand particles dumped out of the box. Naturally, all the sand particles will fall at the same rate!

What is more a coincidence is this: When the inertial mass of a standard kilogram (as weighed on the ground) is measured on the orbiting space shuttle, where ground-type weigh scales don’t work, the mass is found to be exactly 1 kilogram.

zanket,

I agree with your description of gravitational force vs. acceleration.

James R., Picky, picky. I have to choose my words carfully around you!

-My point was that a force DOES need to act on an object to move it, period. -

"How do you reach that conclusion? What about Newton's first law? "

I think when I said "move" I meant accelerate or change the motion of an object. That is Newtons law, I think your just trying to make me look bad.

-Even if we dont know WHY, we do Know how and if gravity is not a force or have a force mechanism, it can't move something, period.-

"Why not?"

Oh come on, This is one of newtons laws. An object's motion stays stagnent unless an outside force is applied. So if there is no force that at least is vaugely associated with gravity. There is no force to change an obects motion, or accelerate it.

"Oh? I thought this was the "Physics & Math" forum, not the "Free thoughts" forum or the "Pseudoscience" forum."

I would be very accepting of facts (ie direct observations), but a theory is a theory and is not a prooven fact. I see the advantages of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, but you just can't take them for granted. I have to see for myself that the theory works, im not going to take your word for it. That would be unscientific wouldn't it?

"Could you please tell me briefly what you think is wrong with Einstein's theories which means they need to be replaced?"

Im sure there are many reasons, otherwise quantum and string theories would not have been sought.

-I might have already hinted that i don't believe in the theory that light is going the same speed for all frames of refferences. -

"It doesn't matter what you believe. That is what is observed. "

I can see your point when you say it doesn't matter what i believe, but i can disagree with your other statement. Light is not observed to travel the same speed in all frames of reference, but deduced from other observations. One really annoying one (for me) is if you look at a picture of a supernova, the super novae expulsions would be throwing newtonion light particles at all different speeds meaning they would come to earth at different times, which seems not to happen.
That is an observations, and it does not proove that the light wont come at a different time, but it is pretty good evidence for relativity. What are some of the "observations" that you were talking about?

"Could you please briefly any quantitative predictions your theory makes which differ from the predictions of relativity?"

Sadly, I don't have a supercomputer handy. Mind lending me one? But seriously, my simple theory would be the basis for deducing complicated theories on everything. But to measure all the precise interactions of the forces and particles would be amazingly hard with a 4 year old computer. I would have to write a program and buy millions of dollers worth of hardware before I could give any quantatative predictions.
I can give you qualitative explanations for anything that you can think of that doesn't have to do with light. It might be misleading to say that it is a theory, because it is pretty much just a way of simplifying science to make understanding it simpler. I would rather know one equation for math that is a little hard every time to do than have to memorize 20 different equations for 20 similar problems.

-If you are going the speed of light toward the light, relativity says that the light would be going 2 times the speed of light toward you and vice versa. -

"Better pull out that relativity text and reread it. That's not what relativity says. "

OK, ok. I should have said particle relativity says etc. What I mean is that if two spaceships were traveling at the speed of light toward eachother at the speed of light (compared to each's "stop" position) then they would would be closing the distance between them at 2 times the speed of light. This contradicts the way it says light moves, at a constant speed no matter what speed you are going relative to its source.

-This would mean that there is an intrincic maximum speed limit of the universe, which is rapidly becoming proven inaccurate. -

"Really? Who has proven it inaccurate? How? "

OK, you got me. I shouldn't have said that. I could say it is rapidly being debated. You haven't heard of the teleportation experiments? Well, its proof of nothing, but you should see what i mean.

-More problems sunt: what is light made of, how is it created, and what are photons? -

"Standard quantum mechanics has a very good model of light. The term "photon" is entirely a quantum beast. "

Right, i am not a complete idiot. That relativity text needs no opening, but I do want the observations that led to some of relativities insights, like that the speed limit of the universe is lightspeed...
Also I would like those questions answered: "what is light made of, how is it created, and what are photons? "
Im sure your expertise would be adequit to answer these. And when I ask what are photons, I mean what composes them. I definately have never heard a "good" model of light, so enlighten me.

Also, quantum theory has the annoying aspect of probability. Probablity is something we use when we don't have otherwise sufficient tools to evaluate what is actually going to happen. I think if a theory incorperates probability, it is pretty much saying it doesn't know something for certain. For example, the electron "cloud" model is probablity based. I for one think that just because the electrons are going to fast to be measured NOW, doesn't mean it is imposible to measure them in the future. Probability is just nonsence for an incomplete theory.

"That doesn't provide a connection between gravity and acceleration. It provides a connection between inertia and gravitational mass. That particular connection was unexplained until relativity came along; relativity explains it very elegantly."

Given that inertia resists acceleration, inertia and acceleration are related. And if you can draw parallels between gravity and inertia, there is a parrallel between acceleration and gravity.

-end-

Are you folks familiar with the flowing
space (subtance) theory? No Einstein required.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hlindner1/

French

OK, ok. I should have said particle relativity says etc. What I mean is that if two spaceships were traveling at the speed of light toward eachother at the speed of light (compared to each's "stop" position) then they would would be closing the distance between them at 2 times the speed of light.

Wrong again. Relativity does not have a 'clause' labeled "Particle Relativity." Two spaceships traveling NEAR the speed of light (they cannot travel AT the speed of light) towards one another will not attain speeds (2) times the speed of light. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light. Their combined speeds will still be less than c.

At high velocities, the Relativistic Addition of Velocities formula is used, note that whatever V1 and V2 may be, V is always less than (1).

http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/relativity/lorentz/lorentz4.jpg

This contradicts the way it says light moves, at a constant speed no matter what speed you are going relative to its source.

I fail to see a contradiction, please explain.

what is light made of....

'Light' is comprised of electric and magnetic fields oscillating transversely in the direction of travel; electromagnetic field (EM field).

what are photons? "
Im sure your expertise would be adequit to answer these. And when I ask what are photons, I mean what composes them. I definately have never heard a "good" model of light, so enlighten me.

Photons are the quanta of electromagnetic fields. They are packets of energy with zero mass. Their energy is related to their momentum. However, for a further explanation, see chapter (4):

http://www.pact.cpes.sussex.ac.uk/users/markh/RQF1/rqf1.pdf

"Despite the observations, the absolute speed of light was widely disbelieved for nearly two decades "

Those observations have escaped me. Do you know what they are? Im sure they are there, but i'd like to see for myself weather i think they are valid to prove it.

"With your idea, wouldn’t every Moon dust particle, at least those on the surface, need to be continuously receiving at least one gravity-force particle to be continuously pulled toward the center of the Moon?"

Well, my "theory" won't go into forces, because i simply do not have enough information (nor does anyone i think) to speculated well enough. My theory just accepts that they are forces, but the needed information is what particles create the force (like electrons create electric charge). So far, I think it is beyond science to discover how particle A flung from particle B could pull particle C towards particle B.
But if there was a graviton, every moon dust particle would presumably be made out of some tinier peices which would all emit gravitons. If the gravitons are emited fast enough then an illusion of continuity would be created. I don't have a good graviton particle theory so I can see flaws in anything i try to come up with. I would suppose that if a graviton did miss, the next graviton that hit it would hit it in such short nitice that it would be pulled back down without jumping very high.
Again I can see that if a particle could miss then some particles could hit one more than another, but then I could say that the mean of the hits is about equal.

"how do you explain that the force of gravity has been shown experimentally to be continuous; that is, gravity doesn’t seem to come in discrete packets that would be imparted by a gravity-force particle. "

I think that was covered in the moon one, but i think that the gravitons would come so frequently as to make an illusion of continuity.

"Rather, it is a limit on how fast you can be observed to go."

I think that needs some explaining... for me at least

"When the inertial mass of a standard kilogram (as weighed on the ground) is measured on the orbiting space shuttle, where ground-type weigh scales don’t work, the mass is found to be exactly 1 kilogram."

I would say the inertial mass-o-meter is made to calculate it. But I don't exactly know what your talking about. You would have to describe the process of measuring inertial mass. I suppose it would be easy to accelerate an object with a machine at some standard acceleration and then just see how much pressure is with the object.

Q:

"Wrong again. Relativity does not have a 'clause' labeled "Particle Relativity.""

God.. (grggrrr), Ok the idea of relativity is that things move realitive to eachother, so if one object is moving east relative to the earth, and one object was moving west, then their veloceties relative to eachother would be the sum of their velocities relative to the earth. Im not saying this is what it turns out to say, but it is the idea that got it started. You do get that concept right? If you get this concept then you can see the contradiction.

"At high velocities, the Relativistic Addition of Velocities formula is used, note that whatever V1 and V2 may be, V is always less than (1). "

In my view it looks like that equation works at everything but high velocities. But i do understand what you are saying and this equation works amazingly well with the constant speed of light idea.
But, what does it mean for the relative velocities to eachother to be less than twice their relative velocities to an other object? I mean, how is it possible, and why is it not a contradiction? It seems to me that this equation contradicts the equation V=D/t or velocity = distance divided by time. Can you explain this?

"Photons are the quanta of electromagnetic fields. They are packets of energy with zero mass. Their energy is related to their momentum. However, for a further explanation, see chapter (4):"

I suppose I can accept this, but then you need to tell me what a quanta of electromagnetic fields is. I know a quanta is synonemous with photon, so I don't think it is very good if you include the word in the definition.
You need to define "packet of energy" and if I remeber right, something with no mass can't have momentum.
I can't look at that link because stupid XP doesn't have the right stuff for pdf files. I need to swith back to 98.

"Wrong again. Relativity does not have a 'clause' labeled "Particle Relativity.""

God. (grrgrr). OK, the idea of relativity has objects traveling at different speeds if they are compared to different objects. If a car's speed is compared to the earth than it might be moving, but if it is compared to other cars' on the same road then it might not be moving so quickly relative to the cars. Im not saying this is what relativity ended up saying, but this is the idea that got it started. You can understand this concept right? If you can, then you can see the contradiction I was talking about.

"At high velocities, the Relativistic Addition of Velocities formula is used."

This eqation looks like it works only at small speeds in my way of thinking. But I can understand the constant speed of light IDEA and this equation seems to work amazingly well for that.
But what does it mean for the velocities of two objects relative to eachother to be less then the sum of their velocities relative to an object C?
This equation seems to contradict the equation V=D/T or Velocity = Distance divided by Time. Why is there a contradiction here? Is the V=D/T equation wrong?

"Photons are the quanta of electromagnetic fields. They are packets of energy with zero mass. Their energy is related to their momentum. However, for a further explanation, see chapter (4)"

I can accept this answer, but as i understand it, quanta is synonemous with photon. It is never good to have the defining word be defined with itself in its definition.
Also you might want to define "packet of energy". I don't think it is possible for something without mass to have momentum.

I would look at that link, but stupid XP doesn't have the stuff to run pdf. I need to switch back to 98.

Sorry I have so many posts.

"Are you folks familiar with the flowing
space (subtance) theory? No Einstein required. " Fairfield

I read some of that link and I saw that it says gravity can not be accelerating you because otherwise you would feel it. This is very short sighted. If all the particles in your body were accelerated at the same rate at the same time (as with gravity) then none of the particles would be pressed against pressure registering cells. This would make it feel as if you are not accelerating at all.

The reason why we can feel acceleration in a car is because the car is pushing only a few cells in our body (maybe a couple million along your skin line) and those cells push the rest of the body. In gravity all these cells are accelerated instead of just a few so no feeling is created

Of course if you were big enough or if you got in a strong enough gravitational field you would feel pulling (not pushing as in a car) because part of your body would be in a stronger gravitational area than another, thus one would be accelerating faster than another. This happens in any gravitational field, but it is too small to notice usually.

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
I can't look at that link because stupid XP doesn't have the right stuff for pdf files. I need to swith back to 98.


Sorry to interrupt, but it's not your operating system, it's that you don't have the software. You need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader (it's free) from http://www.adobe.com.

Tom

Frencheneesz,

I don't mind you asking questions about relativity and quantum theory. That's a good way to learn something. But please don't start trying to criticise a theory you don't understand; it just makes you look like another nutter. You seem more intelligent than that.

<i>An object's motion stays stagnent unless an outside force is applied. So if there is no force that at least is vaugely associated with gravity. There is no force to change an obects motion, or accelerate it.</i>

That's fine. According to general relativity, motion under the sole influence of gravity is not accelerated motion, but inertial motion. So there's no conflict between GR and what you've said.

<i>I would be very accepting of facts (ie direct observations), but a theory is a theory and is not a prooven fact.</i>

I don't think any scientific theory of any value is a proven fact. But some theories (such as GR) have a mountain of evidence to back them up.

I said: <i>"Could you please tell me briefly what you think is wrong with Einstein's theories which means they need to be replaced?"</i>

You replied: <i>Im sure there are many reasons, otherwise quantum and string theories would not have been sought.</i>

String theories are an attempt to <b>merge</b> GR and quantum theory, not overturn GR. GR is incorporated into string theory. GR seems to be correct, but incomplete.

<i>What are some of the "observations" [which support relativity] that you were talking about?</i>

Try this for a start:

<a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html" target="_blank">Experimental basis of relativity</a>

<i>I would have to write a program and buy millions of dollers worth of hardware before I could give any quantatative predictions.</i>

Relativity can make quantitative predictions with a pencil and paper.

<i>What I mean is that if two spaceships were traveling at the speed of light toward eachother at the speed of light (compared to each's "stop" position) then they would would be closing the distance between them at 2 times the speed of light.</i>

As has been pointed out, this is not true when you do the calculation correctly with the relativistic velocity formula. The reason why it is not true is tied up with the length contraction and time dilation effects which your spaceships experience at high speeds.

<i>You haven't heard of the teleportation experiments? Well, its proof of nothing, but you should see what i mean.</i>

Heard of them? Hell! I've met some of the people who've carried out those experiments. They don't contradict relativity, in case you're wondering.

<i>Also I would like those questions answered: "what is light made of, how is it created, and what are photons? "</i>

It is made of photons, which are wavepackets of excitations of the electromagnetic field. They can be created in a number of ways. The most common is by de-excitation of an electron in an atom, in which the atom falls to a lower energy state.

A photon, like every other particle, is best described as a probability wavepacket which carries a particular amount of energy.

<i>Also, quantum theory has the annoying aspect of probability. Probablity is something we use when we don't have otherwise sufficient tools to evaluate what is actually going to happen. I think if a theory incorperates probability, it is pretty much saying it doesn't know something for certain.</i>

Yes, that's exactly what it is saying. And there are some rather nice proofs that we <b>cannot</b> know everything about a quantum particle. Have you heard of the uncertainty principle?

<i>I for one think that just because the electrons are going to fast to be measured NOW, doesn't mean it is imposible to measure them in the future.</i>

It's not a matter of them going too fast. It's that they cannot be said to have trajectories at all.

<i>Probability is just nonsence for an incomplete theory.</i>

Please make an effort to find out about what you're trying to criticise.

<i>Given that inertia resists acceleration, inertia and acceleration are related. And if you can draw parallels between gravity and inertia, there is a parrallel between acceleration and gravity.</i>

Yes. That point was covered by somebody else.

Frencheneesz:

Those observations have escaped me. Do you know what they are? Im sure they are there, but i'd like to see for myself weather i think they are valid to prove it.

Check out this link:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html

But if there was a graviton, every moon dust particle would presumably be made out of some tinier peices which would all emit gravitons. If the gravitons are emited fast enough then an illusion of continuity would be created.

Good point. That’s what I was thinking as well as a solution for your theory.

I think that needs some explaining... for me at least [My comment that the speed of light is a limit on how fast you can be observed to go, not how fast you can get somewhere.]

As much as I like explaining these concepts, you should get a book or two which can do better. My favorites are Relativity Visualized and Relativity Simply Explained. There is hardly any math in these, just the concepts intuitively laid out. I found them entertaining as well.

Check out the example I gave earlier in this thread, where the accelerator is a rotating dial. In a space ship, you can accelerate as much as you want. As you accelerate, you’ll get to your destination faster and faster. Hopping between galaxies in 1 second by your clock is not out of the question in principle. But you’ll never measure yourself passing the galaxies at faster than light speed, nor will anyone else so measure your velocity at faster than light speed. To fix the apparent contradiction, nature contracts the depth of the galaxies and the space between them along your axis of motion as you accelerate. If you are hopping between them in 1 second by your clock, then the galaxies will be razor thin as measured by you. Nature ensures that no one measures you moving faster than light speed by slowing down your clock relative to them. Other observers could measure you moving in slow motion within your ship. The books explain this much better.

I would say the inertial mass-o-meter is made to calculate it. But I don't exactly know what your talking about. You would have to describe the process of measuring inertial mass. I suppose it would be easy to accelerate an object with a machine at some standard acceleration and then just see how much pressure is with the object.

Yes, that is along the lines of how they measure inertial mass on the space shuttle, using a special chair and applying Newton’s f=ma formula. (The link I posted earlier about inertial versus gravitational mass mentions the chair.) The equality of inertial and gravitational mass suggests that gravity is caused by the Earth effectively pushing up on us, rather than using a force particle. But how it pushes up without expanding itself is a mystery, and perhaps a graviton is still required to do that.

<i>The equality of inertial and gravitational mass suggests that gravity is caused by the Earth effectively pushing up on us, rather than using a force particle. But how it pushes up without expanding itself is a mystery, and perhaps a graviton is still required to do that.</i>

That's not quite correct. It is our <b>perception of weight</b> which is caused by the Earth pushing up on us. The Earth pushing up on us has nothing to do with the gravitational curvature the Earth causes around itself. How it pushes up without expanding can be explained in terms of the spacetime curvature at the surface. The surface would "like" to fall to the centre of the Earth, but the electromagnetic resistance of the atoms in the ground prevents that from happening.

James R:

Hmmm. That's an interesting way to view it. That makes sense. I've read about the perception of weight concept but didn't really understand until your comment, thanks.

If I imagine that the surface would "like" to fall to the centre of the Earth, I imagine that the curvature squeezes the Earth toward a point, and the Earth is "rebelling" with electromagnetic resistance. And this resistance is perceived by us as an outward force, an acceleration. Like a tennis ball pushes against your hand when you squeeze it. No need to explain why the Earth doesn't expand. Cool. Please correct me if I'm off target.

So would the undiscovered graviton be just the agent of the curvature? That is, the particle that the mass "uses" to "tell" spacetime how to curve around the mass?

zanket,

<i>If I imagine that the surface would "like" to fall to the centre of the Earth, I imagine that the curvature squeezes the Earth toward a point, and the Earth is "rebelling" with electromagnetic resistance.</i>

Yep, that's pretty much it.

<i>So would the undiscovered graviton be just the agent of the curvature? That is, the particle that the mass "uses" to "tell" spacetime how to curve around the mass?</i>

Yes, I think so. Meshing quantum theory and GR is an unresolved problem at the moment - in four dimensions, anyway!

"Sorry to interrupt, but it's not your operating system, it's that you don't have the software. You need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader (it's free) from http://www.adobe.com. "

Yeah, yeah. Picky again huh? Well i put XP on my other hard drive and it fails to recognize the programs that arent in its registry. I could fix it, but I like 98 better anyway. XP goes on everytime I don't pay attention when it starts up. So I should say stupid me, why did I load XP?

Im sorry I don't have a more traditional understanding of relativity. What I know about it is from a couple books and self teaching. SO, although I suppose my knowlege of it is better than 95% of the population, it isn't nearly complete.
Ill look for more books, but I have to find time. I hope you don't get mad that im obstinate or anything... Maybe ill just ask questions instead of critisizing.

"According to general relativity, motion under the sole influence of gravity is not accelerated motion, but inertial motion."

Do you mind if i ask you what is inertial motion compared to accelerated motion?

"But some theories (such as GR) have a mountain of evidence to back them up."

Sure, but just becuase a theory has a ton of evidence doesn't mean that another theory couldn't explain them just as well in a different way.

"String theories are an attempt to merge GR and quantum theory, not overturn GR."

Huh, i didn't know that...

"Relativity can make quantitative predictions with a pencil and paper."

Well, how much paper? It is great to be able to do that, but that is the result of having a complicated theory, you can have many equations that describe how to make different predicitions. In my -idea- those are gone for the sole purpose of explaining qualatatively how the world works, rather than making predictions. Using my idea it might be quite possible to derive the same equations as in relativity (although relativity has special properties like time dialation and other stuff -you probably know more than me- that isn't exactly covered in my idea, so might not happen unless it is revised).

"The reason why it is not true is tied up with the length contraction and time dilation effects which your spaceships experience at high speeds."

Aren't contradictions bad in a theory? What is the length contradiction? And besides, if most things (besides light) are relative, then what would your spaceship be traveling at high speeds with the respect of?

Is the idea true that if you were to travel at close to the speed of light to anywhere like another solar system and back, you would get back and the earth would have aged much more than you?

"It is made of photons, which are wavepackets of excitations of the electromagnetic field. They can be created in a number of ways. The most common is by de-excitation of an electron in an atom, in which the atom falls to a lower energy state. "

Maybe its because I don't understand relativity, but there are a couple words in there that i need defined. I get the concept of light being made of photons, but what is a wavepacket? I might see a "wavepacket" as being a single unit of "wave" stuff. But how are those wavepackets put together to make what we see as light, and what kind of wave is it?
Ive heard all over that light is a sine wave (ok, i know that is not the technical term, but I can't remeber the other type of wave besides compression), and ive heard much less often that light is a compression wave, which would make more sense since a compression wave can be made of separate particles but a sine wave (sorry!) can only be made of a fluid of particles that interact with eachother to make the wave. But I think saying that light is a sine wave or a compression wave is over simplifying the matter.

Ive also heard that the amplitude of the light "wave" is a measure of the intensity of the light. This suggests that the "wave" is actually a graph of something that the light does, instead of being a visual representation of light. Do you know if it is a graph, and if it is what are the axises representing?

"described as a probability wavepacket which carries a particular amount of energy. "

Energy is a word that almost has no definition. Something cannot carry energy. Energy is the abililty to do work and that is vauge enough word that it shouldn't be used in science, yet it is all over. I suppose it is a good word to use since sometimes science is vauge and energy is the only way to understand it. Im sorry if im being critical, but science concepts such as potential energy are as vauge as you can get. A rock on a mountain? give me a break, you can put a rock on the ground then dig a hole near it. Potential energy is one of the things my idea tries to stay away from.
How does a lightwave carry this energy. It has different wavelengths, but where do those wavelengths' measurements come from?

I have head of the uncertainty principle. I believe it says that one cannot simultaniously know the exact velocity and position of an object. But to that i say that we cannot knokw the exact position OR velocity anytime. We could measure the velocity and position of anything small in the same way we measure cars speeds with radar, shoot a particle that is millions of times smaller than the object you are messureing and record the scatter. This would work with quantum particles as well if you could find an other particle that was millions of times smaller and lighter than it.
But maybe i shouldn't critisize something I don't understand. What was the proof of this that you were talking about? I can't think of anything that can proove that something can't be done.

"It's that they cannot be said to have trajectories at all."

Of course they have trajectories! Im sorry, but If they are particles they have trajectories. No matter what degrees or credentials you have, I can't just take what you say for granted. It seems to me that it is the speed of the electrons and the other electrons around them that determine the trajectories that they are in, if we try to measure those trajectories we will just bump an electron out, or miss entirely.

Sorry if I contradict you too much. I kinda like it if you would write out in your own words observations that support what your saying instead of giving me links, if thats not too much to ask.

Zanket:
Ill try to get those books, you should read hyperspace if you havent. Its by Makao Kaku or something.

"nor will anyone else so measure your velocity at faster than light speed. "

I can see how your clock would slow down and people would see an object near the speed of light, but what would you see? In that model you would see yourself going faster than the speed of light, but it would still hold with relativity because you are not actually going the speed of light.

The real contradtiction has to do with relativity. If your speed is relative to something else, then when you are going close to the speed of light, the thing you are relative to is also going that speed relative to you. So in that case, how do differentiate between the point of refference and you. As in who is actually going the speed of light, meaning which object do you apply the time dialation to the object or its refference?

James R:

I have a question for the curvature of space-time gravity model. If you have a planet and there was a hole through it, as you are sucked down the hole by gravity the particles behind you pull at you and slow your decent. In the curvature model, there is no way a particle could do that because all it would be doing is weiging down the hole.

Is this a stupid question?

Frencheneesz,

<i>Do you mind if i ask you what is inertial motion compared to accelerated motion?</i>

Inertial motion is motion such that the laws of physics take their usual forms. For example, if you're in a car travelling at constant speed in a straight line and you throw a tennis ball up inside the car, you will be able to use normal equations such as F=ma to predict its subsequent motion from inside the car. However, if you are in a car which is accelerating and you throw a ball up, the equation F=ma no longer holds unless you add in so-called "inertial" or "imaginary" forces which modify the equation.

If you're in free-fall in a gravitational field, all the equations of physics take the same form as they would were you floating freely in space far from a planet. In other words, free-fall motion is inertial - not like being in an accelerating car.

<i>Sure, but just becuase a theory has a ton of evidence doesn't mean that another theory couldn't explain them just as well in a different way.</i>

You're right.

<i>Using my idea it might be quite possible to derive the same equations as in relativity (although relativity has special properties like time dialation and other stuff -you probably know more than me- that isn't exactly covered in my idea, so might not happen unless it is revised).</i>

Maybe. Maybe not. The fact is, nobody will take you seriously unless you can show that you idea is some kind of improvement over GR, either because it allows simpler calculations, or because it explains the same things more simply. It must also have at least an equivalent amount of predictive power.

Me: "The reason why it is not true is tied up with the length contraction and time dilation effects which your spaceships experience at high speeds."

You: <i>Aren't contradictions bad in a theory? What is the length contradiction? And besides, if most things (besides light) are relative, then what would your spaceship be traveling at high speeds with the respect of?</i>

Read it again. The word was "contraction", not "contradiction".

The spaceship, in that example, is travelling at high speed with respect to the other spaceship.

<i>Is the idea true that if you were to travel at close to the speed of light to anywhere like another solar system and back, you would get back and the earth would have aged much more than you?</i>

Yes.

<i>I get the concept of light being made of photons, but what is a wavepacket? I might see a "wavepacket" as being a single unit of "wave" stuff. But how are those wavepackets put together to make what we see as light, and what kind of wave is it?</i>

There are two wave pictures of light. In the classical one the light consists of oscillating magnetic and electric fields. In the quantum one, the light is made up of photons, which are waves of probability.

<i>Ive also heard that the amplitude of the light "wave" is a measure of the intensity of the light.</i>

Actually, the intensity of any wave is proportional to the square of its amplitude.

<i>This suggests that the "wave" is actually a graph of something that the light does, instead of being a visual representation of light. Do you know if it is a graph, and if it is what are the axises representing?</i>

You're right, in a way. A wave can be represented on a graph, for example as a sine curve. On one axis is the amplitude of the electric or magnetic field. On the other axis is either distance or time, depending on what features of the wave you want to look at.

<i>Energy is a word that almost has no definition. Something cannot carry energy. Energy is the abililty to do work and that is vauge enough word that it shouldn't be used in science, yet it is all over. I suppose it is a good word to use since sometimes science is vauge and energy is the only way to understand it.</i>

That is completely incorrect. The word "energy" is defined very precisely in different contexts in science. The definition allows quantitative predictions of various phenomena to be made. Your home electricity bill is calculated precisely according to the amount of electrical energy your house uses. Your electricity meter records that energy usage. It is not vague. You wouldn't pay for something vague and unquantifiable, would you?

What is vague is the way New Age people and self-proclaimed psychics use the word "energy". Scientists mean something very specific when they use that word.

<i>Potential energy is one of the things my idea tries to stay away from.</i>

The fact that you personally do not understand a concept does not mean it is vague.

<i>How does a lightwave carry this energy. It has different wavelengths, but where do those wavelengths' measurements come from?</i>

A lightwave carries its energy in the electromagnetic field as it propagates through space. The wavelength of light is directly related to the energy of the light.

<i>I have head of the uncertainty principle. I believe it says that one cannot simultaniously know the exact velocity and position of an object. But to that i say that we cannot knokw the exact position OR velocity anytime. We could measure the velocity and position of anything small in the same way we measure cars speeds with radar, shoot a particle that is millions of times smaller than the object you are messureing and record the scatter. This would work with quantum particles as well if you could find an other particle that was millions of times smaller and lighter than it.</i>

Fundamentally, it would not. The uncertainty principle is not just a problem with the way we measure things - it is a fundamental limit on what can be known about things.

<i>I can't think of anything that can proove that something can't be done.</i>

There are many possible demonstrations of the uncertainty principle. They are a little long to show you here, though. Try a google search for "uncertainty principle" combined with "two-slit experiment" and you'll most likely find one explanation.

<i>Of course they have trajectories! Im sorry, but If they are particles they have trajectories.</i>

All particles are fundamentally quantum objects. In quantum mechanics, exact trajectories do not exist.

<i>No matter what degrees or credentials you have, I can't just take what you say for granted.</i>

Good! Now you're starting to think.

Don't take my word for it. Look at lots of different sources and decide for yourself. Make sure you choose reputable sources though - there is a lot of false information on the internet. I'd suggest you stick to .edu sites, especially ones put there by universities with good reputations. Books can be good too.

<i>I kinda like it if you would write out in your own words observations that support what your saying instead of giving me links, if thats not too much to ask.</i>

I'm sorry, but my time is limited. At some point you'll have to expand your learning by yourself. I, and some of the other people here, can point you in the right direction, but we can't do your thinking for you.

<i>I have a question for the curvature of space-time gravity model. If you have a planet and there was a hole through it, as you are sucked down the hole by gravity the particles behind you pull at you and slow your decent. In the curvature model, there is no way a particle could do that because all it would be doing is weiging down the hole.</i>

In the centre of the planet (middle of the hole) the spacetime curvature would go to zero. The curvature would decrease from the planet's surface to the centre.

Frencheneesz:

I’ve seen the Hyperspace book. A good one.

I can see how your clock would slow down and people would see an object near the speed of light, but what would you see? In that model you would see yourself going faster than the speed of light, but it would still hold with relativity because you are not actually going the speed of light.

You would see yourself going less than light speed, relative to the objects you are passing. These objects, and the space (distance) between them, would be contracted along your axis of motion. The contraction is how nature “fixes” things so you don’t observe yourself going faster than light speed.

Imagine the beach is 1 km from you and the speed limit is 1 km/hour. It will take you at least an hour to get to the beach, right? Not if you can contract the distance to the beach so it’s only 1 meter from you. Nature allows that. If the speed of light were only 1 km/hour, then as you approached that speed, your remaining distance to the beach would contract, lessening the distance in addition to any forward movement by you. If you think about it, you could then get to the beach in any timeframe (as measured by you) without breaking the speed limit.

The real contradtiction has to do with relativity. If your speed is relative to something else, then when you are going close to the speed of light, the thing you are relative to is also going that speed relative to you. So in that case, how do differentiate between the point of refference and you. As in who is actually going the speed of light, meaning which object do you apply the time dialation to the object or its refference?

You can’t differentiate. Both you and the thing are going close to the speed of light, relative to each other. Both of you view the other as contracted along the axis of motion. Both of you measure the other’s clock as running slow. This is true when the relative velocity is uniform (no acceleration); otherwise, it’s a little more involved and the books can speak to that.

zanket,

You would see yourself going less than light speed, relative to the objects you are passing. These objects, and the space (distance) between them, would be contracted