Where is most "gravity", inside or out?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by nebel, Feb 29, 2016.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    river:

    I think your post, along with a lot of the rest of this thread, would score pretty high on the crackpot index.

    Tell me why you think a field needs an energy source to maintain it. Consider a bar magnet, for instance. It is surrounded by a magnetic field. Do you think it needs constant energy input from somewhere to maintain that field? If so, tell me where you think the bar magnet gets its constant energy from.

    I don't even know what "BB is incomplete" is supposed to mean. In what sense do you think the "big bang" is incomplete? Explain.

    What leads to nothing?

    Do you think "nothing is not something" is a deep statement? Doesn't it just follow automatically from the definitions of those words?

    There's no connection to any physics in your description.

    What is this "superfluid"?
    How is its "extreme cold" temperature determined?
    What does "extreme cold" mean in this context?
    What is this plasma you're talking about?
    How is its "extreme high heat" determined?
    How does the "cycle" you refer to occur? What sustains it? What makes it cycle?
    What does this plasma/superfluid cycle do, in practical terms, to the universe? How is this measured?
    Why does the cycle have "no particular order"? What does that mean?

    What is this "quantum" you're referring to?
    What is "the quantum in space"?
    Why does this "quantum in space" need to get energy?
    How can a "supercold" thing be a good energy source for this "quantum in space"?
    How are we to detect this "quantum" residing in "super cold space"?

    ----
    I think you're just stringing together nonsense. Why waste everybody's time with your nonsense?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,413
    The notion of spacetime having chemical properties is completely insane, I agree.

    The vacuum does seem to have certain - very limited - physical properties however, in that the electric permittivity and magnetic permeability of free space have particular finite values. Hence the value for the speed of light in a vacuum. Somewhat mysteriously this extends to a finite rate of transmission of information.

    On one point (only!) I am sympathetic to Write4U, viz. that virtual particles are not particles. They are, I gather, disturbances in the relevant field that are modelled in some respects like particles. More here: https://profmattstrassler.com/artic...ysics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
     
    Write4U likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,043
    If virtual particles are not physical, can one represent them as "mathematical values" rather than as particles?
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2019
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,413
    Why not think before you write? A "mathematical value" is just a number.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,043
    First, IMO, "a mathematical value" is a redundancy. A value is by definition mathematical in essence.
    I have thought about it and researched the generic meaning of the term "value" which is a variable non-trivial common inherent potential of all things.
    IMO, a value is much more than a number, it is the defining functional characteristic of all physical and metaphysical objects including patterns. Some values cannot be expressed with fixed numbers.
    1. OTOH, A universal constant value is a fixed human assigned number to describe a recurring fixed non-trivial natural phenomenon.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/ethans...they-still-dont-give-everything/#55afbee84b86

    Gravity is a universal potential value derived from a combination of other related universal values. No numbers are necesseary, those are only for humans...we want to understand the logic, so we quantify the values with numbers....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2019
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,413
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    The numerical values of the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum amount to choices of electromagnetic units. That is, they have one value if you use metres and amperes and seconds and so on, and a different value if you use different choices of base units. A "simple" choice is so-called "natural" units, where both the permittivity and permeability have the numerical value 1.

    Similarly, the speed of light in a vacuum has the value it has due to our choice of units. In the SI system, we use metres and seconds, but the definitions of both of those are arbitrary. Again, using "natural" units, the numerical value of the speed of light is 1. (For example, the speed of light is 1 light-year per year.)

    The finite rate of transmission of information is a side-effect of the way that spacetime works, and it is, of course, a real, measurable effect. It's legitimate to wonder why it isn't faster or slower than it is, and whether it could be different either elsewhere in the universe or perhaps in some other universe.

    Victor Stenger, and no doubt others, argued at one stage that the really "important" or "fundamental" constants of nature are all ratios. For example, we might ask why a proton has 1836 times the mass of an electron - i.e. why 1836, rather than some other multiplier/ratio?
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,413
    Oh I agree of course about the units. As you say, one can devise a system in which some of them are set to unity in vacuo and then those that are not become ratios. What I meant was that these values are specific and finite in a vacuum. So empty space has properties, to some degree.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,043
    Question: Is it possible that in vacuo processing may not necessarily depend on the transmission medium, but on the ability of the object to physically regenerate itself?

    Even a fundamental quantum event requires time, regardless of the medium. If I understand correctly, a quantum event happens at a fixed spacetime coordinate. If this process takes any amount of time, would that not affect the speed limit of all information transmission and set the absolute limit at the object's ability to become expressed in reality, regardless of density of the transmission medium?
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2019
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,043
    https://www.researchgate.net/post/W...in_the_framework_of_general_relativity_theory
    apps.acsa-arch.org/resources/proceedings/uploads/streamfile.aspx?path=ACSA...
    I don't claim spacetime having chemical properties. I claim spacetime to have fluid-like properties....difference.
     
  14. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    I have come to understand the problem with my question, that the term "gravity" inside or out is too general.
    I might be true, that at the center of the Earth, or any hollow sphere, there is no gravity felt, because surrounding mass/ distance cancel out. but
    so is the floating feeling on the International space station. yet, where there is still ~88% of Earth gravity "pull" present, cancelled by the other acceleration of orbital movement at 400 km above the globe's surface, where G is highest.
    Just because you cant detect gravity does not mean there is not any.
    P.S. yet for structures where there is no clearly defined surface, inside or outside, results are surprising, seeing high speeds at distances, low near the center.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2019
  15. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,883
    See! Was that so hard, it only took like 2.5 years for you to understand that.
     
  16. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Yeah, here a reminder of how you contributed, and I was not the only one that learned. A thought on that interior slope.
    There is a difference between zero gravity in orbit, where the acceleration of gravity is cancelled by the "centrifugal" force of the forward free fall. The gravity is there, weather the space station is there or not. Not so
    In the interior, were one pull of the matter on one side is truly cancelled, equalized by the equal pull from the other side's mass.
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    From where does the magnetic field come from ?

    A physical object .

    Polar Rotation .
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2019
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,914
    You didn't answer his question. A bar magnet does not need an energy source.
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    But what made the bar ; magnetic ; in the first place ?
     
  20. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    it is the same with the gravitational field, tensioning of space/time. Once in place it works on its own, no more tinkering required, Sir I. Newtons'a ideas notwithstanding
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Explain with more through depth of thought .

    Tensioning of space/time . Explain what you mean here .
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    That's irrelevant to the question of whether anything is needed to "maintain it". In particular, you were told that bar magnets do not require a constant input of energy to remain magnetised. How to magnetise them in the first place is a different question.

    But I already told you most of this back in post #541, almost 6 months ago now. Why did you ignore that previous response?
     
  23. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    Will read again .
     

Share This Page