A comment about the physics of free falling bodies

Exactly because vacuum energy evidently does not have the resiliency (or inertia) of, say, a warped rubber sheet with distorted Cartesian lines drawn on it, the way GR has been largely represented since Einstein's death in 1955. Those are simply representations of gravitational potential wells attached to masses at the center of the dimples. You might as well be modeling the universe with so many sliding boards. I don't think it is constructive to think of gravitation or inertia that way any more.

But thank you, OnlyMe. Now I understand why the first internet depictions of the Higgs field I saw were lattice-like; another throwback to absolute space and time.

We also need to give up on mathematical descriptions of things like frame dragging as moving dimples on a fixed rubber sheet. The rubber sheet itself or a portion thereof would need to move independently of itself in order for that to happen anyway. All analogies break down at some point. This one is long overdue; about 50 years.

If you remove some or all of the bindings of the physical universe from the supporting math, what you have left is free to live on as fiction, with supporting math. This was the principle problem with consulting Minkowski about how good a math student Einstein was. He couldn't possibly have been a worse physics student than someone like Minkowski. Which one gave us E = mc^2?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You seem to be devolving into a rambling emotionally based rant.

The fact that theoretically, it is the curvature of spacetime that results in how the orientation of the GP-B gyroscopes are affected, does suggest that the curvature of spacetime, has an interial affect on those gyroscopes. Think about it...

And in that first paragraph above you seem to be intermixing aspects of GR and QM that have not yet been fully reconciled by those who really do work on this stuff day in and day out. When you say, "because vacuum energy evidently does not have the resiliency (or inertia)", you are overlooking some of the basic work of Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff, who do.., using SED explain inertia as an interaction between vacuum energy and charged particles...

From there you jump into the rubber sheet analogy??? For anyone who understands the underlying physics the ball and rubber sheet analogy, is just that an analogy. An imperfect oversimplified conceptual depiction of spacetime curvature, intended for a lay audience and children.

And then you draw in the Higgs mechanism??? Again, you do understand that the Higgs mechanism is a standard model mechanism intended to explain the mass of fundamental particles.., like quarks.., a very small fraction of the mass of matter. It does not explain the mass of even protons, let alone atoms and baseballs.... Right? I mean you don't really think it was or is intended to explain the whole of what we experience as inertia.., do you?

And then you seem to rinse and repeat, starting back on objections about rubber sheets, but adding some apparent problem with the math, most of the involved theoretical physics is based on. It is obvious to most everyone round here, that I seldom if ever include even the simplest math in my posts, but that does not mean I don't respect it. You may disagree with interpretations. There are many published disagreements on how best the math should be applied and interpreted, but your last paragraph above seems to begin with a direct attack on the math and then, as earlier devolve into a rant about Einstein and Minkowski, neither of which are around to set you straight.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Certainly makes perfect sense to me.

I also see the other "gravity" thread has been locked, which could have been predicted.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I did say in that thread that space and spacetime have no real conceivable difference.
You mention space, then correct yourself with "spacetime".........

Didn't Hermann Minkowski say in a famous address to his peers,
"Space and time by themselves, are doomed to fade away into oblivion, and only a union of the two will describe an actual independent reality"... or words to that effect.

Minkowski obviously believed that with the introduction and discovery of SR/GR and there effects on said spacetime, that our Universe is 4D.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Make sense or move on.

 

Some fun stuff from GR

The following is the energy equation, energy per unit mass, for the Schwarzschild coordinates. It's a constant of geodesic motion.

E/m = (1-2M/r)dt/dTau = 1

Rewrite for dTau

dTau = (1-2M/r) dt_bkkpr

The following is an equation of motion for remote Schwarzschild bookkeeper coordinates which solves to 0 at r=2M.

dr/dt_bkkpr = -(1-2M/r)(2M/r)^1/2

Rewrite for dr

dr = -(1-2M/r)(2M/r)^1/2 dt_bkkpr

Here we can solve for dr/dTau which becomes a transformation from the Schwarzschild remote bookkeeper coordinates to local proper frame rain coordinates.

(dr/dTau)_rain = -(1-2M/r)(2M/r)^1/2 dt_bkkpr / (1-2M/r) dt_bkkpr = -(2M/r)^1/2

Now we have an equation of motion that is 'good' over the entire spacetime geometry from boundary to the limit r=0.

(dr/dTau)_rain = -(2M/r)^1/2

Rewrite for dTau_rain

dTau_rain = -(dr/(2M/r)^1/2 = -(r^1/2 dr/(2M)^1/2

Integrate over the geodesic path

dTau_rain = - int (r^1/2 dr/(2M)^1/2

= 1/3(2/M)^1/2 r^3/2
From this you can build a formula to evaluate dTau_rain between different r along the radial geodesic path.

Tau_2 - Tau_1 = 1/3(2/M)^1/2 (r^3/2_1 - r^3/2_2)

Starting with the equation of motion dr/dTau_rain take the derivative with respect to Tau to find the acceleration of the free falling rain observer in the mixed coordinates r and Tau to get

g_rain = (1/2)(2M^1/2/r^3/2)dr/dTau = M/r^2

Take the derivative of g_rain with respect r and solve for dg_rain

dg_rain/dr = 2Mr/r^4 = 2M/r^3

dg_rain =2Mdr/r^3

Solve for r_ouch the radius where the free falling observer might notice the tidal acceleration over the distance dr and for Tau_ouch the proper time over the path between r_ouch and r=0.

r_ouch = (2Mdr/dg_rain)^1/3

And for Tau_ouch

Tau_rain = (1/3)(2M)^1/2 r^3/2

Tau_ouch = (1/3)(2M)^1/2 r^3/2_ouch [substitute the value of r_ouch for r]

= (2/3)(dr/dg_rain)^1/2 [note Tau_ouch does not rely on black hole mass]

You can make dr the length of the free falling observer and dg_rain could be something like g_earth in geometric units 1.09E-16m^-1 [1g across the observers length]. Or you could pick a large diameter star for dr and a value for dg_rain you think might put the star at the r_ouch coordinate. Think I might try to do that analysis.

 

The following is a very informative analysis of an event captured by the HST? The event of a star being torn apart by tidal forces in the vicinity of the supermassive black hole at the center of the Galaxy.

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1205.0252

This is the NASA page.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/18feb_mayhem/

Messed up. It's not the HST it's Chandra and the ESA Newton observatories.

 

Messed up again. This is the page associated with the discovery.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2012/ps1/

 

A thought experiment originally proposed (but not explained in sufficient detail) by John Wheeler explains exactly how Higgs indirect gravitation works:

A spaceship originally at rest with respect to a planet it blasts off from or accelerates so that its inertial reference frame is relativistic (not really necessary for this experiment; just to make it conform to Wheeler's specification).

The engines are cut off and a laser beam is bounced from plane mirrors on opposite sides of the inside of the fuselage. We know from Wheeler's analysis that the occupants of the spacecraft cannot perform any experiment inside the spacecraft that will determine any absolute velocity with respect to the planet they blasted off from, or any other inertial or non-inertial reference frame. Why is this, in detail?

The free electrons responsible for absorbing and reflecting the photons of the laser beam share the motion of the spaceship, and so cannot possibly reflect a photon without imparting a nudge that keeps the photon centered on the spot on the wall that is in the middle of the mirror on the opposite side. From the frame of reference of the planet the rocket blasted off from, this laser is not traveling in a straight line now, but follows the inertial trajectory of the rocket.

The same result works if the photon is reflected from the floor and ceiling of the spacecraft. Although the photon is Doppler shifted slightly red from the mirror on the ceiling, this effect is not noticed by the one on the floor, which if it could measure the beam energy, would blue shift it so that the spectrum of the beam would not appear shifted at all.

Here is what we have demonstrated:

Bosons including photons and Higgs can have inertia when they are in a bound state. The particulars of the bound states do not matter very much; whether the photon is bound in the energy of an electron cloud of the outer shell of an atom, or if it is bouncing between two mirrors, the effect is the same: bound energy may have inertia, just like matter, whenever and wherever it is, however briefly, bound.

The Higgs mechanism imparts inertial masses to electrons, W and Z bosons, quarks, and all of their antiparticles; basically everything in the atomic structure of matter except gluons (carrier of the strong nuclear force) and color charge. The Higgs boson slows down all of these particles, re-absorbing the energy of their respective motions into the energy of the Higgs field in the vacuum.

While the Higgs mechanism is occurring to these select particles of matter, the Higgs boson (NOT a 'virtual' particle) is BOUND. Just like the photon reflecting between two mirrors, it stays bound for as long as it is interacting with matter. In other words, energy is imparted from the matter subject to the Higgs mechanism and transferred to the vacuum itself. But the Higgs mechanism is a continuous one. As long as matter (ANY matter) is in the vicinity of the vacuum that has just interacted with mass, the nature of the bound energy transferred in this process assures that the next interaction will transfer energy from whatever inertial state the last interaction occurred to the state of motion of succeeding Higgs mechanism interactions with matter. The effect is the same as if everything were falling toward the geometric center of the gravitating mass.

It's not magic, but one of the things this does is to assure that every stone dropped in the vicinity of a large inertial mass will find its way to the exact geometric center of that mass without instruments, compass or protractor, or a mathematician's keen observation of the meanings of "round" or "geometric center".

That's EXACTLY the way gravity works. There is no question about it. Now get busy with the math and make some more predictions, only don't rely so heavily on geometry this time. God may love geometry, but your average stone knows nothing about it when choosing the direction it will fall. The Higgs field by itself has no inertia of any kind, even if the stone and the planet do. Only the interaction of Higgs bosons with matter can produce an effect that assures that gravitational and inertial masses are equivalent.

This is not a complete theory of gravitation, but unlike those of Newton and Einstein, or geometers like Minkowski, it is something that can be analyzed and built upon. No more "spooky" action at a distance, if you please. No more compasses or straight edges used by falling stones to determine which direction they should fall. A complete scientific theory doesn't need such things, and a complete mathematical theory (what we have now for gravitation, even for GR) couldn't care less about any bindings to reality. Geometry works just fine in solid matter with inertia, but this is not where gravity or inertia originates. The foundational particle of the Standard Model finally discovered in 2012 is only one example of math associated with physics run amok.

 

The reason the speed of light does not change, and is the same in all references, is the "medium" that propagates light within space, exists within a speed of light reference. It is that simple. The reason it gets hard is we tend to make the earth the universal reference and then try to visualize from there, instead of use the speed of light as the zero point.

If you look at a photon, it moves at the speed of light. It also has wavelength and frequency. The wavelength and frequency can change with reference, but the speed of light does not change with reference. We can get red shift and blue shift to the waves, but the speed of light is the same. There are two distinct things going on. One connected to inertial reference (<C) and the other connected to the speed of light reference (=C).

The easiest way to model this, is to assume there is a speed of light continuum within empty space. This is the propagation medium, that exist apart from all inertial references, so the speed leg does not change. The medium is like the basketball player leg that remains planted when he stops to shoot. Only the other leg able to pivot and change properties; wavelength. The wavelength and frequency leg is part of inertial reference and this will vary based on velocity (SR) and gravity (GR) (leg that can move). If you make C the ground state the plant leg is easier to see.

In matter, the speed of sound is dependent on the propagation medium with sound moving faster in solids, than in liquid than in gases. Once the medium is set (water at 25C and 1 atmosphere pressure) it does not matter where the sound comes from, the medium will define a consistent speed at which all the sound waves propagate. The speed of light medium has specific properties that does not change from gas to liquid to solid to get multiple speeds of light. Although maybe this may be done artificially.

This all suggests that in the beginning, there was only the C leg. Empty space, although a vacuum, still contains potential. Since mass and inertial can't move at the speed of light, the universe needed to slow from the single speed of light reference medium, so inertial cold appear; second leg appears as wavelength and frequency; waves and matter; E=MC2. The goal is to return to C.

 

This is the crucial difference between light and sound. Since sound is dependent on the medium the relative speed of sound varies with the speed of the source or receiver. Since light propagates without a medium (vacuum) the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source or the receiver.

The rest of your post is just your musing and is not supported by science.

 

You and your two blog buddies haven't demonstrated anything. You have to use the scientific method to demonstrate predictions for the natural phenomena and to make empirical measurements if possible. Demonstrate this: using your theories equation of motion derive the natural precession of orbiting bodies. Demonstrate you're not just running your mouth about what I predict is complete nonsense.

 

Dude, you've posted this formula way too many times.

 

Some people do need to be reminded of reality whenever needed.

 

How much is to many dude? My guess would be a few more times and you might get what it means?