Why two mass attracts each other?

[Markus Hanke]

So, from mathematics you can not conclude a hypothetical evidence.

I am not trying to conclude any evidence; all I am doing is to show that the field equations contain self-interaction by providing one example of a solution which exhibits this phenomenan very clearly.

Do you think GR has only attractive effect?

For the thousandth time : GR is neither attractive nor repulsive. It is purely geometry, and contains no a-priori forces.

I have only said "force" and not "force based model".

Then your statement is meaningless, because GR contains no forces.

 

[hdmovies]

well done AlphaNumeric you post wonderful post.. i like it.

 

[AlexG]

Two posts in a row of complete gibberish.

-- Agreed. The posts have been moved to Alternative Theories: [thread=135057]Supermass[/thread], and [thread=135056]Gravity is compressed compression pressure density[/thread]. - Pete

 

[Farsight]

...This topological construct is formed and held together purely by its own self-interaction, which is the fascinating part.

That's what happens in gamma-gamma pair production. The typical QED given explanation is tautological. See for example Two-photon physics on Wikipedia:

"From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple".

That's essentially saying pair production occurs because pair production occurs. Photons do not spend their time spontaneously transforming into electron-positron pairs. Which then magically transform back into a single photon. Which nevertheless somehow manages to keep on propagating at c.

 

[hansda]

Like I said, you do not understand what you are reading. There is nothing about a "repulsive force of the Sun".

Now, you understand that perihelion advance of planet Mercury is due to "central perturbing repulsive force" as per the paper i linked earlier.

This perihelion advance of planet Mercury can also be explained well by GR.

That means GR also has some repulsive effect which is causing perihelion advance of planet Mercury.

 

[Tach]

Now, you understand that perihelion advance of planet Mercury is due to "central perturbing repulsive force" as per the paper i linked earlier.

This perihelion advance of planet Mercury can also be explained well by GR.

That means GR also has some repulsive effect which is causing perihelion advance of planet Mercury.

This is not what the paper says and this is not what GR says. Since you don't understand what the paper says and since you have no clue what GR says, you keep repeating the same nonsense.

 

[PhysBang]

That's what happens in gamma-gamma pair production. The typical QED given explanation is tautological. See for example Two-photon physics on Wikipedia:

"From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple".

That's essentially saying pair production occurs because pair production occurs. Photons do not spend their time spontaneously transforming into electron-positron pairs. Which then magically transform back into a single photon. Which nevertheless somehow manages to keep on propagating at c.

This is pure fantasy. Hanke has demonstrated a mathematical way to describe this self-interaction. Nobody has shown any way to consistently describe this fantasy self-interaction of photons.

Unless you are able to support your religious claims with an actual physical description, your religious fantasy has no place here.

 

[hansda]

For the thousandth time : GR is neither attractive nor repulsive. It is purely geometry, and contains no a-priori forces.

I don't know why you are having such a strong apathy to the term "force". I don't know if you have skipped Newtonian Physics. To me, there is practically no difference between "force" and "curvature of space-time" as per their effect on a mass is concerned; because both tell mass/matter 'how to move'.

Then your statement is meaningless, because GR contains no forces.

The "physical event" corresponding to "force" in "Newtonian Physics" remains the very same in GR also, though their pov are different.

 

[hansda]

Now, you understand that perihelion advance of planet Mercury is due to "central perturbing repulsive force" as per the paper i linked earlier.

This perihelion advance of planet Mercury can also be explained well by GR.

That means GR also has some repulsive effect which is causing perihelion advance of planet Mercury.

This is not what the paper says and this is not what GR says. Since you don't understand what the paper says and since you have no clue what GR says, you keep repeating the same nonsense.

My first statement in the post #845 is a conclusion from the paper i linked. Here is the quote from the paper:

The general question of whether a given perturbation will cause the perihelion to advance or regress is shown to have the following answer: if a perturbing force is central and repulsive and also becomes stronger as the distance from the force center increases, the perihelion will advance. If the central perturbing force is attractive and also becomes stronger as the distance from the force center increases, the perihelion will regress.

My second statement in the post #845 is a well known fact of GR. It is also a test of GR.

My third statement in the post #845 is my conclusion based on the first and second statements of post #845.

 

[Tach]

My first statement in the post #845 is a conclusion from the paper i linked. Here is the quote from the paper:

My second statement in the post #845 is a well known fact of GR. It is also a test of GR.

My third statement in the post #845 is my conclusion based on the first and second statements of post #845.

Citing your own misconceptions is not science.

 

[OnlyMe]

I don't know why you are having such a strong apathy to the term "force". I don't know if you have skipped Newtonian Physics. To me, there is practically no difference between "force" and "curvature of space-time" as per their effect on a mass is concerned; because both tell mass/matter 'how to move'.



The "physical event" corresponding to "force" in "Newtonian Physics" remains the very same in GR also, though their pov are different.

Hansda, GR is a description of how things interact. It is a four dimensional piece of graph paper. The paper does not say why they interact the way they do. It does help predict how they will interact. When it is said that an object or photon follows the curvature of spacetime, it sounds like spacetime is making the object take a certain path. That is not what is happening. Spacetime and GR only describe the path the object will follow, now why.

Newton, never defined the mechanism either. He just called it an action at a distance... Though he did think of gravity as a force.

Even today gravity can be thought of as a force, but that is not part of what GR describes. A couple of times you have rejected the idea of looking at what is happening through quantum mechanics. Yet that is where one would have to go to start looking for the force, you seek.

You can plot the two dimensional path a rocket or bullet, will take on a piece of graph paper. That does not mean the paper makes the rocket or bullet take that path.

Even things like frame-dragging and perihelion advancement, described within the context of GR, does not explain why it happens. The why of these things is something still being searched for... And as best as I know mostly confined to one or another area of QM.

 

[BdS]

For the thousandth time : GR is neither attractive nor repulsive. It is purely geometry, and contains no a-priori forces.

In GR there is no force being applied to the object, the object is being potential influenced in the curved space-time geometry. The curves are supplying potential energy (not force) or influencing the objects motion into orbit by the curved space-time environment.

Just a layman trying to understand this... did I get GR gravity correct?

A major problem I've got understanding what I said.

lets compare curve space-time to a ball on a hill, the ball rolls down the hill if theres no obstruction... the hills geometry released the potential energy of the ball gradually depending on the hills slope angle, right? But, if there was no gravitational force the ball would not roll down the hill! GR curves in space-time cant supply any energy/motion to anything without there still being a gravitational force. Experiment: Lets go to a region of space where there is no gravity, we place a wooden plank there at the angle of the slope of the hill, we put the ball on the plank, what do you think will happen? I think nothing will happen! the ball wont roll down the plank, because there is no gravity to force it down the plank...

The GR space-time curved geometry wont work without there still being a gravitational force to force the objects down the space-time curves. Without there being a gravitational force the object would just sit on the curve and not move.

I just dont understand GR gravity, probably because of something Im misunderstanding... where am I going wrong?

 

[Pete]

This is pure fantasy. Hanke has demonstrated a mathematical way to describe this self-interaction. Nobody has shown any way to consistently describe this fantasy self-interaction of photons.

Unless you are able to support your religious claims with an actual physical description, your religious fantasy has no place here.

Keep it civil and coherent please people.

 

[arfa brane]

I just dont understand GR gravity, probably because of something Im misunderstanding... where am I going wrong?

Perhaps you're having the same problem a few others might be. One of the concepts I believe is part of this problem, is the different ways mass is treated, in the Newtonian sense mass is 'rigid' and independent of velocity; in SR you need to use a relation between mass and energy; in GR mass is a different thing again.

Mass is just something we can call 'a density'. But it's also a source of gravity, and gravity is self-interacting. This explains (partly) why GR predicts the existence of objects whose matter-field has been compressed to a limit of density: infalling matter is able to accelerate beyond c, because as its velocity increases so does its 'mass-energy'. As mass increases, so does its acceleration in a gravitational field.

You really have to move beyond a strictly Newtonian concept of mass, and in some sense beyond a relativistic concept of mass.

 

[AlexG]

whose matter-field has been compressed to a limit of density:

That would be a Black Hole?

infalling matter is able to accelerate beyond c,

No Arf, nothing accelerates beyond c, massive or massless.

 

[arfa brane]

No Arf, nothing accelerates beyond c, massive or massless.

I think that is one of the reasons Einstein didn't believe black holes were possible.

 

[AlexG]

I think that is one of the reasons Einstein didn't believe black holes were possible.

Ironic, since GR predicts Black Holes. But then, it also predicted a dynamic universe, and Einstein didn't want to accept that either.

 

[Tach]

This explains (partly) why GR predicts the existence of objects whose matter-field has been compressed to a limit of density: infalling matter is able to accelerate beyond c, because as its velocity increases so does its 'mass-energy'.

GR predicts no such thing.

 

[Farsight]

OnlyMe: Newton said this in a letter to Dr Richard Bentley on 25 February 1692:

“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it”

He was no fan of action-at-a-distance. In Opticks, queries 20 and 21 he said this:

"Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?"

I believe one can see similar reasoning in Einstein's writings, but others dispute that.

 

[arfa brane]

GR predicts no such thing.

Except that you don't inderstand GR so you can't say why, right?

Conversely, since it is true that mass increases as velocity does, and since matter, to create a black hole, must accelerate towards a cxommon centre. why doesn't the matter accelerate past c?
I bet you have no idea, none at all.