Gravitational curve/field reconfiguration

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by BdS, Nov 8, 2015.

  1. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    Do moving gravitational fields transfer momentum to object located in their curves/fields. For example, the bowling ball on trampoline example, with a baseball in orbit around a bowling ball. If i push the bowling ball it transfers momentum to baseball via the trampoline surface reconfiguration. Do curves in spacetime when reconfiguring in real time also transfer momentum to object in their cuvres?

    It would also depend on which direction i push the bowling ball and where the baseball is located at that time. If the baseball is behind the bowling balls extra gained momentum, it will receive extra momentum from the bowling ball moving away from it. The baseball gains the momentum from the moving curves reconfiguration in the direction the bowling ball moved. Will spacetime curve reconfiguration force the baseball to gain new momentum? If the new momentum is toward the baseball the curve falls away from under the baseball and the baseball will move to a lower radius?

    Or maybe a better example, if I pick up the whole trampoline the baseball moves with the whole system? This example would be the equivalent of moving the sun and all the planets or system move with it, like particles in atoms do.

    Is gravitational curve/field reconfiguration instant?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    I really don't know what you are asking.
    A change in the gravitational field propagates at c.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    c or c + v?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    The gravitational field will propagate at c.
    There are no cases where the velocity of anything can be c + v.

    I think I understand what you were asking earlier. Let me know if this scenario is what you are talking about.
    Let us assume that our solar system encounters a 'rogue' planet. If the solar system encounters a rogue planet then a couple of things could happen, the planet could be captured by the solar system or the planet could pass by or through the solar system and not be captured. Either way both the speed and direction (velocity) of the rogue planet and the solar system will be changed. That of course means that the momentum of the solar system and the rogue planet will be changed and it will be due to the gravitational interactions of the rogue planet and the solar system.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2015
  8. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    light in a fiber optic cable?
     
  9. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    The velocity of light in a fiber optic cable is much less than c.
     
  10. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    and be left behind in space, propagating at c to where the object was located that created it? because the object is moving, so as it moves it leaves behind a ping propagating at c from every point in its trajectory? ummm...
     
  11. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    I think that is essentially correct. It would be the same as an glowing object moving. If the object is moving at high speed and is far from you would see the light from where the object was not where it is. So for instance if the sun dissapeared, in addition to ruining the entire afternoon, we would continue to see the light and feel the effects of gravity from the sun for about 8 1/2 minutes.
     
  12. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_year

    “The Solar System is traveling at an average speed of 828,000 km/h (230 km/s)”

    1 / 299792458m = 0.0000000033356 sec (time it takes light to travel 1 metre)
    230km * 1000 = 230000m (Solar System average speed around the galaxy in metres)
    230000m * 0.0000000033356 = 0.000767188m = 0.767188mm (distance Earth moved in orbit around the galaxy in the time it took light to travel 1 metre)

    If light travels at only c and not c + v (where v is the velocity of the emitter) then we should measure a drift of 0.767188mm over a 1 metre distance and a 230km drift over 299792458m.

    Take a mounted laser and shine it against the wall from a distance of 1 metre. Draw a dot on the wall where the laser light is and keep it on for a year. If light travels at only c then we should detect a drift of up to 0.767188mm from the dot we drew on the wall. The Earth is spinning and orbiting the sun so as it spins the drift will change direction depending on the direction we are facing relative to the galactic year orbit direction/speed of 230km/s. If the orbit speed is to our left we should detect a drift to the right of our dot and in 12 hours when the orbit speed is to our right the drift should be to the left of the dot.

    If we don’t detect a drift then light travels at c + v
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703

    If you can find an instrument to detect this drift than go ahead. In the meantime light travels by definition at one speed which we denote "c", irrespective of the motion of any emitter.
    This has been evidenced many times.
    http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm
     
  14. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    You think my experiment is invalid? how and where?
    I cant get nature to speak for itself? If you are correct that light travels at only c then we should detect the drift, do we agree on that? And there is no problem then.
    I need a instrument to to detect the drift? If I conduct the experiment over 10m then I should detect a drift of up to 0.767188mm * 10 = 7.6188mm more than enough to be detected by the naked eye.

    Over 100m 0.767188mm * 100 = 76.188mm
    Over 1000m 0.767188mm * 1000 = 761.88mm
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2015
  15. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Yes it is invalid. It is invalid because all you are doing is demonstrating a reference frame. Light in your reference frame will travel in a straight line at a speed of c. There will be no 'drift' and the light will be moving at c.
    Absolutely not. Light travels at c and there will be no drift.
    It does not matter how fast you are going or how long the distance is there will be no drift. You will measure the speed at c and someone outside of your reference frame would measure the speed of light from your experiment as c.
     
  16. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    But the reference frame is traveling at v so to an external observer the light travels at c + v. So, even in our reference frame light is traveling at c + v to a space coordinate system. Just like gravity probably does too. we've never detected gravity fields / curves, are you certain about your guess that gravity doesnt travel at c + v?

    Yawn, I used the optic cable in an earlier example, because I didnt want to go down this path, but you left me no choice.
     
  17. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Nope, that is not correct. An observer that was stationary compared to you reference frame would also measure the speed of your light at c.
    It is not a guess.
    What do you mean by that?
     
  18. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    in your moving frame you shining a laser light and its traveling at c + v thats why light travels in straight lines. If light didnt travel at c + v then we would detect a drift and light wouldnt travel in a straight line...
     
  19. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    If you are in a rocket that left earth traveling at 50% the speed of light and you turn on your headlights you would measure the speed of that light at c. So you might think that the speed of photons from your headlights is 'really' c + .5c, but it is not. Someone that was stationary to you would also measure the speed of the light from the headlights at c.

    So you would detect the light moving away from you at c. A stationary observer would see the distance between the light and the rocket increasing by .5c. So both of the observers would measure the speed of the light at c.
     
  20. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    I propose the same experiment, but mine you can test at home and you bring something from starwars... and you think mines invalid? Have you traveled at point .5c and conducted the experiment?
     
  21. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    No, your experiment is not the same, your experiment would only verify that you cannot determine absolute motion and all reference frames are equally valid.
    Yes, your experiment is invalid for the reasons I discussed.
    I was giving you a scenario to demonstrate the invariance in the speed of light that was easy to understand, I was not proposing an experiment. There have been thousand of experiments that have been performed that show the speed of light is invariant, which means you cannot add the speed of the source or receiver to the speed of light.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    We have irrefutable evidence that light/photons travel at a finite speed.
    We also have evidence that the speed of light "c" is a constant.
     
  23. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    It keeps getting funnier....
     

Share This Page