I just read this again, and it seems like you have no idea about how forces in general work. Forces cause an acceleration, not a velocity. And gravity is in NO WAY constant. There is a constant of proportionality, but the force of gravity is directly proportional to the two masses involved and inversely to the square of the distance between their centers of gravity. This is just the Newtonian theory, but that's enough to get to this point.
I read recently that a research team had experimentally found that gravity does interact at the speed of light. Sorry, I can't reference it but I remember it was an acknowledged and well funded team and the experimental procedure was accepted in general by the science community.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Mick.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Mick.
Until you consider the fact that if gravity interacted at the speed of light, the size of the earth's orbit would double every 6,000 years or something. (I don't have the exact source for this, so I can't track it down, and I may be totally off on that number, but the size MUST increase, since there will be an extra push tangent to the earth's orbit exerted by the sun's gravity.)
There was only a single experiment that claimed that gravity interacts somewhere around the speed of light, and that was using a new, unverified method of measurement. Experiments using methods that have been perfected for 1000s of years indicate that the speed of gravity must be greater than 10^10 c.
One of the first calculations I did in introductory physics would prove the above incorrect.
Given two spheres, both of mass 100,000 kg. Object 1 is 2 cm in diameter. Obect 2 is 1000 m in diameter.
Given Newton's equation, F = G * m1 * m2 * r ^ -2 for the magnitude of gravitational force.
Given that both objects are spheres, gravitational force is measured radially from the center of each sphere.
Due to gravitational influences changing due to shape of sphere, introduce calculus. Equation becomes dF = dG...
Oh, forget it. Hard to illustrate.
See this
I don't see your theory proven correct with black holes. In fact, I see the opposite.
Black holes are created when a mass is compressed into a size smaller than what is called the Shwarzchild radius. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to have something as massive as the sun compressed into a ping pong ball and still emit an equally strong gravitational field.
The thing, and this is probably where we're having trouble, is that at close range, the field is obviously much different. The field changes much more rapidly around the ping pong ball than the sun. However, if you were somehow able to enclose both the ping pong ball and the sun in an instrument capable of measuring entire gravitational strength, you would find that both fields are equally strong.
Or, if you're lazy, just measure the field from a really far distance and find that it's well within the error given by your instruments.
Well, I'm sorry to say that 'R' is already taken. It's used for the gas constant, I believe, as well as just about any calculation involving radii.
The idea of mass using energy is a new one to me. The closest I've ever come to that is when I came up with the idea that mass is a measure of the velocity of time or something like that. However, not all ideas bear fruit, and when you mentioned that your theory "always emerges stronger, rather than being completely disproved", I have only to say that it smacks of fanaticism. I hope you realize that not a single theory in physics has not been proven incorrect at one point or another. That's why we have so many; because no single theory holds up in every situation.
And, yes, 'real' physics is only theory and observation. Engineers are the ones taking that theory and putting it into practice.
I = Engineer + Proud_of_it;
The tangental forces will cancel each other out when the orbit advances 180 degrees.
That would explain why that portion of the linked article is confusing- it's fallacious.
But the angular momentum will keep increasing, pushing the orbit farther and farther out. The linear momentum won't change because the integral around the circle will be constant... actually it will be smaller and smaller.... hmmm... But the tangential component will keep pushing in the same angular direction.
It's not that intuitive, but the article is right.
The tangential acceleration would always be in the direction the Earth is moving, due to gravitational force direction lagging behind the current position. This means it would keep making the Earth move faster. Orbital acceleration = v^2/r is then increasing, without gravity increasing to compensate, so the Earth would move to a higher orbit. As it moves to the higher orbit, gravitational pull decreases, etc., causing the Earth to spiral outward from the sun rather than orbit.
Originally posted by: Sahakiel
Ok - I understand the point you are making - and on the surface it would appear to be correct for 'most' situations - essentially it's another application of E=E... BUT for black holes there's a complication... For most objects, there's enough space 'within' the object for the density to not make much of a difference to the overall gravitational field - which is why even the ratio of the rate will be roughly the same for two objects of the same mass vs distance/area... (As according to the equation above). BUT this changes when dealing with an object which does not have ANY area ('space') within it that the energy it needs can be drawn from - which is why it draws it from itself - which is why the rate suddenly increases a LOT more... I'm interested in finding out just how far the 'event horizon' is - i.e. the point at which gravity>c, from the centre of a black hole, because that would pretty much prove how different the situations are... (In no other yet detected object does gravity exceed c anyway - precisely because it isn't as dense, and each 'part' of the object has 'space' to draw the energy from). Guess we'll have a long time to wait to find out though...:-/
So thats the technical term for what I just described... Thanks...
Actually - I'm willing to bet that if the smaller object is smaller than that Shwarzchild radius, it will be stronger than the other object - and measurably so too...
Like - DUH!!! Of course mass uses energy - EVERYTHING DOES...lol. (Again, re. definitions of energy and work). It's just that the way mass 'gets' it's energy that should be easily ascertained... It's just what it does with it and where it goes thats the real problem... Again, the ENTIRE universe consistes of energy - (even space - which again, gravity should really support - if it's drawing - (or even supplying) - energy to an area surrounding an object then there MUST be energy there - again, if gravity is supplying energy via gravity, then where is it getting the energy from?) - though most of it is too efficient for us to detect at this time... Like I'm trying to say - gravity will NOT use a particle, like the theorized 'graviton' - since particles by their very definition are too inefficient - (even the photon is inefficient to that degree) - but again, since we detect things by their inefficiency, it's not surprising that we detect particles before anything else... But because most of the Universe will be very efficient, using particles to try and explain everything will only take us so far...
Hmmm... That last line looks very familiar... I had a friend who was both a scientist AND an engineer - (and damn good at both) - but he got a job in the U.S. and haven't seen him in a couple of years... My apologies to everyone - (and him) if I seem to have forgotten that lesson...:-/
Keill Randor...
Ok - I understand the point you are making - and on the surface it would appear to be correct for 'most' situations - essentially it's another application of E=E... BUT for black holes there's a complication... For most objects, there's enough space 'within' the object for the density to not make much of a difference to the overall gravitational field - which is why even the ratio of the rate will be roughly the same for two objects of the same mass vs distance/area... (As according to the equation above). BUT this changes when dealing with an object which does not have ANY area ('space') within it that the energy it needs can be drawn from - which is why it draws it from itself - which is why the rate suddenly increases a LOT more... I'm interested in finding out just how far the 'event horizon' is - i.e. the point at which gravity>c, from the centre of a black hole, because that would pretty much prove how different the situations are... (In no other yet detected object does gravity exceed c anyway - precisely because it isn't as dense, and each 'part' of the object has 'space' to draw the energy from). Guess we'll have a long time to wait to find out though...:-/
So thats the technical term for what I just described... Thanks...
Actually - I'm willing to bet that if the smaller object is smaller than that Shwarzchild radius, it will be stronger than the other object - and measurably so too...
Like - DUH!!! Of course mass uses energy - EVERYTHING DOES...lol. (Again, re. definitions of energy and work). It's just that the way mass 'gets' it's energy that should be easily ascertained... It's just what it does with it and where it goes thats the real problem... Again, the ENTIRE universe consistes of energy - (even space - which again, gravity should really support - if it's drawing - (or even supplying) - energy to an area surrounding an object then there MUST be energy there - again, if gravity is supplying energy via gravity, then where is it getting the energy from?) - though most of it is too efficient for us to detect at this time... Like I'm trying to say - gravity will NOT use a particle, like the theorized 'graviton' - since particles by their very definition are too inefficient - (even the photon is inefficient to that degree) - but again, since we detect things by their inefficiency, it's not surprising that we detect particles before anything else... But because most of the Universe will be very efficient, using particles to try and explain everything will only take us so far...
Hmmm... That last line looks very familiar... I had a friend who was both a scientist AND an engineer - (and damn good at both) - but he got a job in the U.S. and haven't seen him in a couple of years... My apologies to everyone - (and him) if I seem to have forgotten that lesson...:-/
Keill Randor...
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
Um dude, black holes aren't infinitely small... the object does have a certain radius. It's not like once it becomes a black hole that it blinks to 0 radius.
How does mass use energy? If you have a 1 kg block of ass sitting in space doing nothing, how does it consume energy, and where does that energy go?
How does mass use energy? If you have a 1 kg block of ass sitting in space doing nothing, how does it consume energy, and where does that energy go?
Every form of energy that mass consists of is working - i.e. being transferred/moving etc.. For instance every particle in an atom is in motion, let alone at levels lower than that... So far we know of some of these forms, but not all - and the chances are that even these forms are made up of others... So, because everything is in motion, we have to ask where the energy is coming from in order to make them move, aswell as where it is going. My theory is that gravity is caused by an object drawing in energy to use from it's surrounding area... But gravity is just one part of an energy transfer cycle, and the other parts of the cycle are unknown atm. (Probably because they are too efficient for us to detect atm).
silverpig:
The block of ass evaporates.
The pressure in deep space is too low for most chemicals to exist as liquids, and the average ambient temperature isn't quite cold enough for it to remain solid at such low pressure either. Krandor:
It doesn't take energy to KEEP something moving. This is really basic physics.
P.S: A black hole doesn't really need much matter. It is possible to create a black hole out of a single proton if that proton is accelerated to within 3.6*10^-38 % of c. The relativistic mass of the proton at that speed is about 6.2 mg
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
Okay, granted, electrons orbit nuclei, but the EM field is conservative. Once you have a set energy, the motion of a particle in a closed loop requires no net work. Energy at A = Energy at A regardless of where the particle goes between those times. There is no energy used. It is just converted between kinetic and potential, and it is always internal. It's not like the electron sucks energy out of vacuum to "power" it's travels around the nucleus.
The energy is contained in the mass to begin with (potential + kinetic for subatomic motions, kinetic (thermal) for atomic motions, kinetic for massive motions). Once left alone the system just does its own thing. It doesn't require any input energy at all.
The energy is contained in the mass to begin with (potential + kinetic for subatomic motions, kinetic (thermal) for atomic motions, kinetic for massive motions). Once left alone the system just does its own thing. It doesn't require any input energy at all.
sao123
Lifer
- May 27, 2002
- 12,653
- 205
- 106
Just another thought.
If electrons orbit atoms at speeds ~~ to the speed of light. Wouldnt the Weak Nuclear Force have to act at much faster than the speed of light to catch, contain, bind the electrons to the atom?
If indeed this is true... I suspect this is true of all 4 of the fundamental forces we know of. (Being able to act @ greater than the speed of light.)
If electrons orbit atoms at speeds ~~ to the speed of light. Wouldnt the Weak Nuclear Force have to act at much faster than the speed of light to catch, contain, bind the electrons to the atom?
If indeed this is true... I suspect this is true of all 4 of the fundamental forces we know of. (Being able to act @ greater than the speed of light.)
Electrons orbit at about 600mph, or something... I don't remember exactly, but my site: http://library.advanced.org/10380 might have the number.
Normal particle interactions occur via virtual particles, which are always hovering around other particles, in accordance to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
Normal particle interactions occur via virtual particles, which are always hovering around other particles, in accordance to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
If you are referring to the Tom Van Flanden article, I can find only 3 experiment mentioned supporting his theory:
[*]...the solar eclipse experiment is sensitive to delays in the continual updating of the Earth's field...
[*]..experimental evidence from neutron interferometers that purports to demonstrate a failure of the...
[*]...binary pulsar experiment provides another, more direct demonstration that even changes in gravitational fields ...
Please reference the other 10+ experiments that you have knowledge of.
Not if the orbitting body was in a low enough orbit that it needed the tangental force to remain stable. (or, to put it differently, if the Earth wasn't moving fast enough to maintain its current orbit without constant acceleration)
That's not how orbiting works. It only occurs when an object is at a constant angular momentum, maintained by the centripetal acceleration towards the other object in the system. The variation of the earth's distance from the sun is rather small and this effect would dwarf that variation.
The Earth HAS near-constant acceleration - towards the sun.
If it wasn't moving fast enough to maintain it's current orbit with the given gravitational acceleration, it would fall INTO the sun and burn up.
Something just occured to me:
Atomic clocks are accurate enough to detect the time-distortion from gravity between the 1st floor of a building and the 2nd.
Are they accurate enough to measure the variation (if any) between the durations of each year? If gravity is non-instantaneous, the years should progressively be getting longer, and this could be used to calculate the propagation delay.
Atomic clocks are accurate enough to detect the time-distortion from gravity between the 1st floor of a building and the 2nd.
Are they accurate enough to measure the variation (if any) between the durations of each year? If gravity is non-instantaneous, the years should progressively be getting longer, and this could be used to calculate the propagation delay.
I think the variation between the lengths of a year are dependent on so many factors that we can't really distinguish this difference. For example, we have the pull from Jupiter, the Moon, and the asymmetry of the Earth to contend with. I doubt we'd be able to quantify the latter accurately enough to be able to see any statistically significant discrepancy.
Just that one paragraph is enough for me to realize that you don't understand.
Masses by themselves do not transfer energy willy-nilly. Law of inertia. If it's moving, it's moving, if it's still, it's still. Either way, it's not using energy until it's accelerating. Classical mechanics.
Objects cannot create something from nothing. Law of conservation. If your "object which does not have ANY area ('space') within it" decides to draw energy from itself, it must, at one point or another, return the same amount of energy to where it was drawn.
Just reading that gives me the impression that you're assuming gravity is an energy transfer from one object to another. We cannot have a discussion of that idea if you keep referring to it as a law.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter