PDA

View Full Version : What is gravity?



joetommasi
2004-Jan-02, 02:04 PM
If at the subatomic level, space is a froth where subatomic particles appear and disappear virtually instantly, then it would make sense that the froth is made up of "something" from which these subatomic particles are made of.
Since planets can go through this "something" without encountering any resistance it means that there's no "attraction" between these "froth particles" and planets.
What if gravity is just this "froth particles" falling down toward the center of planets, stars, or even rocks? I mean, if you hold a rock up in the air and you release it, it will be stuck in the "froth particles" and as the "froth particles" move down toward the center of the earth, the rock has to go with it.

Prime
2004-Jan-02, 09:46 PM
Gravity, is point related; as you gaze ito the sky at all the "gravity " points;(planets stars,galaxies, etc, while it's polar opposite is Levity, the Plane related space between the points, often mistakenly called the cosmic background radiation, at 2.8K and 10 Hz.in erroneous big-bang theory.

Electricity and magnetism have the same opposite polarities, only they are well known.

This is just a short simple explanation, as volumes have been written on the subject.

With the proper configuration, levity can overcome gravity, and the 2.8K above ab.0 keeps the Universe from gravitationally collapsing upn itself, as everything is thermically related to this buffer zone, allowing for molecular motion, in general.

Prime

lazserus
2004-Jan-02, 11:15 PM
If you're referring to a particle interpretation of gravity, then you're speaking of the graviton, the hypothetical particle that carries the gravitational force. This is the missing link for a GUT, or grand unified theory. Gravitons are mentioned much in string theory and m-theory.

No such particle has been detected.

Matthew
2004-Jan-02, 11:22 PM
Gravity is the effect of an object with mass on the surrounding spacetime.


If at the subatomic level, space is a froth where subatomic particles appear and disappear virtually instantly, then it would make sense that the froth is made up of "something" from which these subatomic particles are made of.

The "something' might be gravitrons.

Victoria
2004-Jan-03, 02:40 AM
What is?...Space-time, low gravity? Actually, I recall the definition of space-time, though low gravity I&#39;m still a little unsure of... <_<

joetommasi
2004-Jan-03, 02:43 AM
I find gravitons to be very unappealing as a particle involved in transmitting gravity. If they can cause attraction between masses, why don&#39;t they just attract each other and form large clumps of god knows what?

joetommasi
2004-Jan-03, 02:47 AM
Victoria can you clarify your question?

Victoria
2004-Jan-03, 02:50 AM
Upon a little more research I&#39;ve found a quote from a former director of CERN "scientific knowledge is like an island in the ocean of the unknown." What about the proton-proton colloider?

joetommasi
2004-Jan-03, 02:52 AM
What about the proton0-proton collider? How does it relate to gravity?

Victoria
2004-Jan-03, 02:55 AM
Sure, sfter rwading up on alittle science and the future I&#39;ve come across a wide variety of truths that were "planned". Though, i wonder how much after 1988, when the "Russians" were so invovled and Mrs. Ride had so many ligitimate questions on where we would be 20 years from then. All is true. Except, the definition of gravity and where does mass evolve?

lazserus
2004-Jan-03, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by jtommasi@Jan 2 2004, 08:43 PM
I find gravitons to be very unappealing as a particle involved in transmitting gravity. If they can cause attraction between masses, why don&#39;t they just attract each other and form large clumps of god knows what?
Because they don&#39;t have mass. Bosons aren&#39;t mass carrying particles, the fermions are and mass is what cause gravity. I would assume that a graviton (hypothetically speaking, of course) would be generated in much similar way as photons are generated. Photons are the emission of energy from atoms when an electron hops orbit.

I, myself, don&#39;t feel the graviton is a very viable solution to gravity. It cause so many paradoxes. Unless, of course, it ends up being classified as a virtual particle - then it could exist with out causing problems. In theory, the effects of gravity are instantaneous. If gravity is interpreted with gravitons, that would mean they would have to travel faster than c, and that just puts a damper in our physics.

Victoria
2004-Jan-03, 02:59 AM
Well,then our curiosity of the infinitely large as well as the infinitely small may be answered.

joetommasi
2004-Jan-03, 03:04 AM
Gravitons need not have mass but they should still attract each other (if they had mass they would be sending out their own "baby gravitons" and we would be going in circles). Neutrinos have no detectable mass and yet they seem to affect galaxies.
Victoria, I&#39;m still having difficulties following your train of thoughts.

Victoria
2004-Jan-03, 03:05 AM
Oh wait, that&#39;s right, getting back to gravity...still, what is low gravity? If they can bore into these solids, why is Mars so popular and what about Venus or Mercury...or the moon? Bad question?

Prime
2004-Jan-03, 03:05 AM
http://community.webtv.net/WF11/ADynamicGeneral

Prime

Prime
2004-Jan-03, 03:07 AM
Levity & Gravity- More Detailed

http://community.webtv.net/WF11/ADynamicGeneral

Prime

joetommasi
2004-Jan-03, 03:15 AM
Prime I started going through the website you mailed me and it seems metaphysical. I&#39;ll take more time to go through it but there seems to be a something not kosher with it.
Victoria, your train of thought seems to be taking several rails simultanously. Hopefully you&#39;ll get to a destination. Any destination.

Victoria
2004-Jan-03, 03:21 AM
:D Thank you for the information&#33; Still, I am unsure of low gravity.

Victoria
2004-Jan-03, 03:24 AM
Thats what being + & - ...all about...I appreciate all the insight I recieve from this great forum and apologize for not being as intelklectual as the rest. Thank you for alll your patienxce&#33; :rolleyes:

Tinaa
2004-Jan-03, 03:29 AM
There was supposed to be a gravity probe launched to help prove/disprove Einstein&#39;s general theory of relativity. Something about frame dragging and something else. I can&#39;t remember. I don&#39;t know if it ever launched. They were having some problems.

Tinaa
2004-Jan-03, 03:34 AM
HERE (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/gravity_probe_b_031231.html) you can read all about it.

Victoria
2004-Jan-03, 03:34 AM
Due to environment? <oisture?

lazserus
2004-Jan-03, 03:56 AM
Neutrinos have no detectable mass and yet they seem to affect galaxies.

How&#39;s that? Are you meaning in the sense that a neutrino is classified as dark matter and good portions of galaxies are dark matter? I&#39;m not completely following you when you say neutrinos affect galaxies. Gravity affects neutrinos, which causes them to clump together with other matter. But gravity affects photons as well. Maybe I&#39;m just not clear.

Oh wait, that&#39;s right, getting back to gravity...still, what is low gravity? If they can bore into these solids, why is Mars so popular and what about Venus or Mercury...or the moon? Bad question?
It&#39;s not that the question is bad, it&#39;s just hard to understand exactly what you&#39;re asking. Fragments tend to be hard to decrypt. ;)

Gravity doesn&#39;t bore into solids. A graviton would be a energy/force carrying particle just like a photon. Low gravity is just relative to Earth&#39;s gravity. We consider any celestial object less massive than Earth one that would have a lower gravitation configuration, per se, than our own. Jupiter has a strong gravitational influence because of its mass. Did that answer your question?

Victoria
2004-Jan-03, 04:00 AM
:P Yes, thank you.

Victoria
2004-Jan-03, 04:10 AM
Yet, I have 1 more question. I keep referring back to "science and the Future" Britannica 1989, and every time I come across any of the topics related it brings me back to the same chapter. Circles of Stone. Upward and Downward motion due to thawing and freezing. When I read back into other topics, it comes full circle into this same location. Pattern. Maybe totally off subject, but while you&#39;re hear, any suggestion? ;)

lazserus
2004-Jan-03, 04:44 AM
I&#39;m not entirely sure what the question is. However, you&#39;re looking at data that&#39;s 15 years old. That may be problem #1. :P

Victoria
2004-Jan-03, 04:47 AM
oh....well then, whats the ? Just kiddin, thanks for all the input...

joetommasi
2004-Jan-03, 01:16 PM
The probe to test Einstein&#39;s view of gravity is still on the earth. Maybe it&#39;ll be sent up in 5-6 months.

lazserus
2004-Jan-03, 05:07 PM
They sent one up a few years ago that did more or less the same thing. The results were all positive.

lazserus
2004-Jan-03, 11:30 PM
I found this. It can be a bit confusing, but atleast it explains how gravity works within general relativity. Keep in mind, this article supports the idea that gravity is a consequence of a warped space-time, not a force.

What Causes Gravity (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/gravity.html)

Matthew
2004-Jan-05, 03:57 AM
I, myself, don&#39;t feel the graviton is a very viable solution to gravity. It cause so many paradoxes. Unless, of course, it ends up being classified as a virtual particle - then it could exist with out causing problems. In theory, the effects of gravity are instantaneous. If gravity is interpreted with gravitons, that would mean they would have to travel faster than c, and that just puts a damper in our physics.

No, gravity travels at c.

Victoria
2004-Jan-05, 04:35 AM
Very interesting;hence, positive=negative? Pushing up vs. forcing down.

damienpaul
2004-Jan-05, 11:45 AM
does that lead into parallel universes?

is it possible to have an anti-gravity virtual particle = antigravity?

lazserus
2004-Jan-05, 07:09 PM
No, gravity travels at c.
That isn&#39;t so. The effects of gravity are instantaneous. A graviton would have to be treated as a virtual particle.

damienpaul
2004-Jan-05, 11:38 PM
could there be an anti-graviton virtual particle?

TheThorn
2004-Jan-05, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by lazserus@Jan 5 2004, 07:09 PM

No, gravity travels at c.
That isn&#39;t so. The effects of gravity are instantaneous. A graviton would have to be treated as a virtual particle.
No, the effect of gravity travels at c. Or at least, our best measurements of it to date indicate that it travels at c +/- 20%.

Speed of Gravity (http://www.nature.com/nsu/030106/030106-8.html)

It just feels instantaneous because c is so damn fast. ;)

damienpaul
2004-Jan-05, 11:56 PM
would it be at all possible to measure the difference?

lazserus
2004-Jan-06, 12:28 AM
The speed of gravity is the same as that of light, say two physicists.
The underlined is the key phrase here. In order to measure gravity you have to have a gravitational entity. This measurement of gravity with Einstein&#39;s equations is in compliance with the GUT, which doesn&#39;t exist. At the same time, this article states that these two physicists extended Einstein&#39;s work to explain that gravity distorts light and radio waves. This is redundant, since radio waves are just low frequency light waves. Einstein declared this in 1915 - there was never the need to extend his equations to state what they already stated. This isn&#39;t any different than the two physicists that claimed that black holes don&#39;t exist, but gravistars exist instead. It&#39;s a flaw in understanding relativity and it&#39;s also a flaw in the media&#39;s interpretation of what the scientists are actually doing.

damienpaul
2004-Jan-06, 12:56 AM
i see your point....interesting thought though, ummm what in the blazing supernova is a &#39;gravistar&#39;?

lazserus
2004-Jan-06, 02:38 AM
A gravistar is a weak theoretical star that is so massive that it acts as what we call a black hole. Because of its mass, the Swarzchild radius is so large and the gravity is so intenst that light can&#39;t escape past its "event horizon". It&#39;s utterly ridiculous.

Victoria
2004-Jan-06, 02:49 AM
Who named Swarzchild...? And wher can I find "event horizon"? And if so utterly ridiculous then why mention? What I wanna know is when would speed contrast with light? And if mass was so dense how would speed or light break thru? :rolleyes:

joetommasi
2004-Jan-06, 02:51 AM
To go back to my problem about gravity, I did a little experiment. I set up a balance where one end had a mass (nonmagnetic) and that mass was inside a small chamber. I charged the chamber and the balance became "unbalanced" with the chambered mass side going up. I repeated it several times (I&#39;m a high school physics teacher and that experiment lasted a month with my students) and every time the mass seemed to lose weight. I set a compass and an electroscope near the chamber to check for variables but as I said, the mass inside the chamber was not magnetic, it was a regular rock although I tried different objects with the same results.

Victoria
2004-Jan-06, 02:53 AM
Inside this compartment would magnativity mattered?

Victoria
2004-Jan-06, 02:54 AM
How?

joetommasi
2004-Jan-06, 03:13 AM
Any object you throw up in the air will slow down and be pulled back by gravity. If you shine a light upwards, gravity pulls on that light and slows it down although the speed of light is so fast that it&#39;s almost impossible to measure by how much it is slowed down. If the earth was more massive, gravity would pull the light a lot harder and we could theoretically measure by how much the light is slowed down. If the earth was much more massive, a point would be reached where gravity would be so strong that not even light could possibly escape and from the outside the earth would be equivalent to a "black hole" since no light could possibly escape from it and any light heading toward the earth would be sucked in and never reflect which would make the earth black (meaning no light bounces off it and enters your eyes).
Black holes cannot be seen and if you were to look at a black hole that was in front of you, you would see the stars behind the black hole. A black hole behaves as a converging lens and the light that would come close to a black hole but not fall into it would be bent and you would see a distorted view of the stars behind the black hole.
If you happen to be looking at a star when it&#39;s turning to a black hole you would see the star disappear and for a split second the stars behind it would appear to move and then stop.
The movies showing a black tornado spinning and pulling you in are pure fiction. The black hole is totally invisible and only gravity survives.

joetommasi
2004-Jan-06, 03:15 AM
What is magnetivity?

Victoria
2004-Jan-06, 03:18 AM
Reality in some ways or forma seem un real. Volume, pressure what are we measuring exactly?

joetommasi
2004-Jan-06, 03:25 AM
It&#39;s the uncola effect

Victoria
2004-Jan-06, 03:27 AM
Is that a 2004 definition?

damienpaul
2004-Jan-06, 03:57 AM
what is the uncola effect??? pepsi??

joetommasi
2004-Jan-06, 03:02 PM
7-up is the uncola. Sorry for the bad joke. Had to be there. :D

damienpaul
2004-Jan-06, 03:08 PM
:lol: :wacko: ummmm yes i see....

Manchurian Taikonaut
2004-Mar-20, 06:49 AM
What are gravitions, is anti-gravity causing the universe to expand, would this explain some of the physics behind dark matter, can we measure a gravity wave? Some day these questions might be answered but right now we don&#39;t understand enough.
http://www.esa.int/images/GOCE_S_C2_goce_L.jpg
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Gravity_20Waves
http://www.esa.int/images/GOCE_S_C2_geoid_bg_L.jpg
http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/qu...uantumgrav.html (http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/quantumgrav.html)

Faulkner
2004-Mar-20, 02:42 PM
So people, what is gravity?

Is it curvature of spacetime or is it an exchange of gravitons between material objects???

GOURDHEAD
2004-Mar-20, 03:43 PM
What are gravitions, is anti-gravity causing the universe to expand, would this explain some of the physics behind dark matter, can we measure a gravity wave?

:ph34r: I assume the universe is not only expanding but also the rate of expansion is increasing as concluded in a number of articles on the subject. If it were only continuing to expand at a constant rate with a decrease in expansion rate below our ability to detect, the expansion could be attributed to momentum established by the original big bang and subsequent inflation hence no anti-gravity force nor concept need be introduced and Occam&#39;s razor escapes unnecessary additional dulling. However, if the rate of expansion is actually increasing, some force or process is required to supply the necessary energy to oppose universal gravitation which is acting to collapse the universe or at least tending to compact it until opposed by thermodynamics.

Should we be careful about what we call anti-gravity? A car traveling uphill, an airplane taking off, a volcano ejecting material, and a star going nova or supernova are each opposing gravity and since we think we know how these processes work, they are not commonly thought of as anti-gravity processes. The point being a process does not have to be anti-gravitational to oppose gravity. So how shall we include precision in our definition of anti-gravity?

If gravity is geometry as posited by Albert Einstein then is a graviton ought but some modulation to a small (surface?) chunk of some gravitational well&#39;s influence on its neighbors over an extremely large range of space-time (geometry?)? Would this complicate the detection of gravitational waves (or gravitons) because of the ways in which these modulations of geometry proceed through various attenuating interference patterns including the inverse square law attenuations?

If one were to assume that vacuum energy from the virtual particle behavior is a manifestation of something akin to resonant ringing of the space-time fabric due to the the risidual energy left over from the big bang + inflation events representing a non-zero energy state of geometry, it seems a small step to guess that the current expansion is propelled by release of energy in an attempt of the geometry to achieve its zero energy state i.e., flat geometry and an omega equal to one. Bear with me Occam. :unsure:

Hear Oh Israel&#33; the Lord our God is ONE. Is it really oneness that is to be worshipped? Note how many dimensions of our culture are permeated by an adoration of unity (oneness) as in one TOE. :ph34r:

Powerman 5000
2004-Mar-22, 01:20 AM
GourdHead i think your a little nutz. Who ever said antimatter repels we still have not seen it in motion so keep reading your comic book and update us on Israel oh intelligent one one :lol: :lol: :lol:

GOURDHEAD
2004-Mar-22, 01:59 PM
Who ever said antimatter repels we still have not seen it in motion so keep reading your comic book and update us on Israel oh intelligent one

I was attempting to address anti-gravity not anti-matter which led me to comment on our cultural fascination with oneness...at-one-ment.....atonement...omega = 1. I also pointed out that more care should be taken to put limits on what we call anti-gravity. I have assumed that in each usage some opposition to gravity is intended. If not, then it is even more important that we constrain the meaning of anti-gravity.

Some have posited that dark energy is the cause of the accelerated expansion of the universe discovered in recent years. If there is actual expansion acceleration, energy to accomplish it seems to be required. I was offering a wild guess at what it might be.

In a different thread in this forum I offered a different wild guess at a source for the "space-time stretch energy". The inflation epoch lasted only from BB + 10^-43 seconds to BB + 10^-35 seconds during which the expansion of space allegedly outsped light and after which this expansion allegedly continued at a speed slower than that of light...much, much, slower. During this very short interval and for a much longer duration and immediately thereafter, most (90%?) of the energy of the universe is believed to have been photonic rather than baryonic. As these photons crashed and banged into each other the pressure would have caused many of them to "impinge" upon the "horizon" of the universe which at that time would have been a surface no larger than that of a volume of a sphere of one light year radius (regardless of its shape). If we assume some sort of equipartition of kinetic energy, where applicable, amongst the baryons and fermions, and consider the relative masses, it is easy to imagine a configuration with baryons in the center surrounded by a cloud of electrons encased in a photonic envelope of a hard to imagine density with the photons ricocheting between the horizon and the electron cloud with the qualifying ones decaying into pair formation. Somehow it doesn&#39;t seem to be much of a stretch of the imagination to see this pressure as a source for the expansion of the universe.

joetommasi
2004-Mar-22, 07:34 PM
Somewhere in may, my students will be taking the AP physics test. Weather permitting, soon after I will restart my original experiment and report on this string. I already checked for magnetic and electrostatic interference and there doesn&#39;t seem to be any. It may be interesting.

Faulkner
2004-Mar-23, 05:00 AM
GourdHead i think your a little nutz. Who ever said antimatter repels we still have not seen it in motion so keep reading your comic book and update us on Israel oh intelligent one one

Ha ha, funny comment, but I like Gourdhead&#39;s idea that spacetime is still "ringing" from the Big Bang, thus we detect quantum fluctuations from the vacuum. Somehow it makes perfect sense. I wonder if the amount of quantum fluctuations has decreased over the "billennia"?? I would imagine so.

Also, Gourdhead never mentioned "anti-matter", Powerman 5000&#33; :lol:

One thing, Gourdhead, I&#39;m not sure I understand what you mean by "photons acquiring density"??? Aren&#39;t photons massless? And always moving (at the speed of light)?

But hang on, haven&#39;t they "frozen" a photon in the lab? Oh oh.....

damienpaul
2004-Mar-23, 10:30 AM
Frozen a photon??? When in the name of Red Rooster did they do that?, more to the point, how the odd socks does one freeze a photon?

Faulkner
2004-Mar-23, 02:01 PM
Hmm, actually they froze a "pulse" of light (not actually a photon) - here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3308109.stm).

My mind boggles&#33; :wacko:

GOURDHEAD
2004-Mar-23, 02:13 PM
One thing, Gourdhead, I&#39;m not sure I understand what you mean by "photons acquiring density"??? Aren&#39;t photons massless? And always moving (at the speed of light)?

I didn&#39;t mean to imply that photons "acquired" density and am using "density" in a broad sense of items (of anything) per unit volume. I admit that I am uncertain about the mass-like properties of photons--they don&#39;t have any while playing photon but those of sufficient energy can decay into particle/anti-particle pairs. Perhaps a better way of saying it would have been the energy density due to photons. I am still struggling to avoid accepting the big bang as an actual event but am being drowned in observational evidence so I try to imagine extrapolations of big bang details to help me understand or reject the big bang and its consequences. Also, it is mind bending to think of oneself as a set of permutations and combinations of the time rate of change of the characteristics of geometry.

It seems natural to expect that back when the universe was no larger than a sphere of one light year radius (donning my big bang hat), fairly homogeneous, and reasonably isotropic that the equipartition of kinetic energy commensurate with the extant temperature amongst the protons, neutrons (or hadrons) and electrons would cause the differentiation of the particles that I described in the previous entry. Since the photons were busy making sure that neutral atoms did not form and could move much faster than the electrons which could move faster than the protons or neutrons, one of the more probable configurations is a "cloud" of mostly neutrons and protons (or hadrons) forming the neucleus surrounded by a cloud of electrons (and maybe lotsa positrons) with a buffer of photonic energy between the electron cloud and the horizon until sufficient time lapsed for the particle types to reach the horizon and establish radial homogeniety. What I don&#39;t know how to guess at is the effect of the intense gravitational field which should be dominating the spacetimescape during this period and should be overwhelming all other forces as well as dilating time. Time dilation may have caused seconds to last a very long time by today&#39;s standards but how would we ever know; all those clocks would have agreed?

Better speculations are eagerly sought as is the falsifying of this one. :unsure:

Chook
2004-Mar-24, 11:30 PM
Help Damo, Faulkner .... I&#39;m TRYING to follow ... :blink: :blink: :blink:

Faulkner
2004-Mar-25, 01:18 PM
I&#39;ll explain.

The nucleus of an atom is a bunch of protons & neutrons glued together with gluons. If you can separate the protons from the neutrons, then smash the proton (or neutron) to bits, you get a bunch of quarks. Apparently you can&#39;t smash quarks apart&#33; They are "indivisible"&#33;

Now, what do you suppose separates one quark from another? (Let&#39;s remember that NO quark has been detected by itself, they ALWAYS come in pairs or triplets&#33;&#33;&#33;).

Well a physicist will say that "FORCE" separates them...(and these desperate physicists will make up more particles to fit the bill)...(eg "gluons")...

Have they ever detected a "gluon"? No.

So what is "gravity"?

Something they haven&#39;t detected yet&#33; :P

Personally, I don&#39;t think it&#39;s even connected to SPACETIME&#33;&#33;&#33;?

errorist
2004-Mar-25, 02:12 PM
What ever they are they have mass,energy,momentum, & kinetic energy, because they take up space.

topohill
2004-Mar-28, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Victoria@Jan 3 2004, 02:55 AM
Sure, sfter rwading up on alittle science and the future I&#39;ve come across a wide variety of truths that were "planned". Though, i wonder how much after 1988, when the "Russians" were so invovled and Mrs. Ride had so many ligitimate questions on where we would be 20 years from then. All is true. Except, the definition of gravity and where does mass evolve?
Victoria, Having read this thread, I have gained nothing in the knowledge of where mass is evolved, how gravity affects anything, where the gravity points really are, but one thing for sure, I know where a lot of ** can be found. ONlY KIDDING&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :blink:

David S
2004-Apr-10, 08:58 PM
Quite an original idea, gourhead&#33; The idea of photonic preasure causing the acceleration of the universe is an intresting one. One thing that I&#39;m not sure it explains is how the universe went from decelerating to accelerating? The expansion of the universe was slowing up until about 5 billion years ago, and then the expansion began accelerating. How would photon preasure cause this? Whether it&#39;s dark energy or photonic preasure that is causing the acceleration of the universe, in the earlier universe it would have to have been weaker the the overall gravity of the universe, and as the universe expanded gravity got weaker and this other force got stronger. It seems to me that photonic preasure would have decreased as the universe expanded as well.

Could you explain a little furthur?

GOURDHEAD
2004-Apr-14, 03:02 AM
Quite an original idea, gourhead&#33; The idea of photonic pressure causing the acceleration of the universe is an intresting one. One thing that I&#39;m not sure it explains is how the universe went from decelerating to accelerating? The expansion of the universe was slowing up until about 5 billion years ago, and then the expansion began accelerating. How would photon pressure cause this?

Obviously I don&#39;t know, but I do like to guess. It&#39;s possible that star formation peaked and remained high about 5 billion years ago adding more photons to the mix. This coupled with the lessening of the intensity of the cosmological gravitational field and the geometry of space seeking its zero energy level by unwarping may have come up with the right mix of net expansion forces. Also, electric and magnetic field forces may play roles that we have yet to discover. The photon pressure coupled with the repulsion of the constituents of the primoidal electron and proton clouds probably had more to do with inflation than ordinary expansion.

Relative to each location in the universe there are an indeterminate number of galaxies beyond the limits of observation that have relativistic velocities with respect to each such location creating a stretching force which is additionally strengthened by the relativistic masses gravitational contributions. Even though the ones physically beyond the observation limits will have no gravitational connection with the location, those beyond the instrumental limits of observation will and there will be locations affected by this effect that are gravitationally connected to the location of interest. It seems likely that this distance function of the relativistic component of gravitational fields and the associated forces acting on each location will contribute to the unwarping of local spacetime and allow it to assume its zero energy state or attempt to do so. My reach just exceeded my grasp&#33;&#33; Don&#39;t tell Occam I wrote this.

zephyr46
2004-Apr-14, 05:25 AM
I thought gravity was equal to mass, and Gluons held quarks together to form protons and neutrons.

http://zephyr46.tripod.com//sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/jiggle[1].gif

A difficulty with gravity is explaining it&#39;s properties, an apples drops, by extension, the same force must hold the universe together??

Gravity bends light, gravitional lensing. So Photons have mass.

Are we in a tangle? Are seismic waves gravity wave?

Back to Gluons, they sound like a feild, the carrier of the electro strong force?

Is gravity a wave or particle or a feild?

Where does gravity exist without matter? Is magnatism a symtom of gravity? The earth, the milky way both have magnetic feilds. The Earths feilds are a result of the motion of magma throught the core of the earth, the galaxies, from the paths of millions of stars. Is Magnetism a shifted force of gravity?

Magnetism is the closest expirience we have to gravity, the attraction of two or more objects against forces of intertia and the pervasive gravity.

When we add magnetic feilds to each other, do they magnify?

Disjointed, I know, but I have no idea how to collate the evidence cept for a train of thought (sorry experts).

The other peice is the mass of the electron, which does have an anti partical, the positron. A neutron has the mass of a proton and an electron. The neutron is the closest purveyor of mass, therefore gravity. Stack up isotopes and you get more or less mass add protons or electrons and you get magnetism.

I don&#39;t know, but I love this thread :)

imported_James
2004-May-13, 08:08 PM
jtommasi:

It seems that you started an interesting forum topic. Unfortunately, confusion reigns.

SPACE:

I ran across a quote attributed to Niels Bohr, which I have been unable to confirm. He was supposed to have stated that as the structure of matter was known to a finer detail, for example a molecule is composed of atoms and atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Finer still the components of atoms are quarks and quarks are strange elements as they change even as we attempt to observe them. Yet quarks are composed of energy which comes from a vast reservoir of energy that is known of as spiritual energy. It is from this spiritual energy that all things are made.

I admit the quote is not exact as I was unable to find the original source, but I believe the gist of it is intact.

I can not help but wonder about the texture of this spiritual energy. That it has texture is known from its ability to bend and stretch as it&#39;s substance is twisted into super strings (the basic constituent of mass). Einstein&#39;s best guess is that the bend and stretch (warp) of spacetime is the cause of the effect known as "gravity".

GRAVITY:

Gravity, as demonstrated by Galileo, is counterintuitive. It does not react as expected. Galileo&#39;s famous experiment was to simultaneously drop two aerodynamically similar objects of different mass.

Galileo expected the more massive object to hit the ground first because it was heavier (required more force to keep it from falling). In my opinion the test results blow the graviton theory out of contention. Take two spheres of equal size, one of denatured uranium and the other of aluminum, and drop them. The graviton density should be roughly equal so the spheres should accelerate at a rate inversely proportional to their mass. So much for the graviton.

Only one theory explains what really happens. The mass follows the curve of bent space (remember that mass is actually composed of twisted spacetime so the "fabric" of spacetime is pulled out of shape). That this curve intersects the center of our planet is why things fall down. I always wondered what kept things up so I started with a model of the earth and found the mass of which the earth is composed is holding up that which is above it, all the way to the surface and everything supported by the surface. The weight you feel is the surface of the planet pushing you away from where the curve of spacetime would put you if there were a hole under your feet clear through the earth.

This is sort of like Xeno&#39;s "half way there" paradox. Shoot an arrow at a target and it will go half the way there. It will then go half of the half way there. This continues until the distance is almost, but not quite, zero. The truth is that the arrow will continue through the center of the earth unless it is stopped by something, like the target. Since the target is such a small percentage of the distance to half the way to the center of the earth, the paradox is moot because the arrow is stopped before it can reach the half way point.

But I digress.

MAGNETISM:

A bit out of place here, but all it takes to generate a magnetic field is to move a charge. Electromagnets are easy to explain as the charges are electrons being pushed through a wire, usually coiled around a soft iron core to focus the effect. The energy for an electromagnet is either from a battery or generator (which uses magnetic fields to cause a charge to move).

Permanent magnets have yet to be explained to me. There was one person, a physicist, that said the magnetic field around a permanent magnet was created by the spin of an unpaired electron. That makes sense except there was no explanation of where the energy comes from. Permanent magnets do not exhibit endothermic behavior so it is not thermal energy. Yet there must be some source of energy that is perpetuating this effect. What is it? That is still a mystery to me.

PHOTON:

Photons do not have mass. That photons follow the curve of space as if it were going in a straight line is a matter of perspective. The photon does think that it is going in an absolutely straight line as it does not feel any forces acting upon it. Yet, an outside observer will see the photon turning and twisting as it follows the curves of spacetime.

May the future be kind to you
Boycott SPAM

---===---

GOURDHEAD
2004-May-18, 01:54 PM
Only one theory explains what really happens. The mass follows the curve of bent space (remember that mass is actually composed of twisted spacetime so the "fabric" of spacetime is pulled out of shape).

Tsk&#33; Tsk&#33; By epiphanic intuition I, perhaps only I, can see it is not spacetime that is warped but the Riemannian geometry of the Higgs field which permeates a flat (Euclidean ) space geometry of boundless volume which persists in and affects the measurement of time...but only the measurement. The Higgs field is busy seeking its zero energy state which erases each transitory artifact of the Higgs warpage such as mass, charge, gravity, and the measurement of time. Then a miracle happens and it all starts over again with perhaps a Higgs field with different characteristics. My&#33; Occam&#33; what a long beard you have. Is your razor broken&#33;

apathy
2004-May-19, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Victoria@Jan 3 2004, 03:05 AM
Oh wait, that&#39;s right, getting back to gravity...still, what is low gravity? If they can bore into these solids, why is Mars so popular and what about Venus or Mercury...or the moon? Bad question?
Victoria, are you trying to write in english and having a tough time of it??

apathy
2004-May-19, 11:08 PM
James,

"Permanent magnets have yet to be explained to me. There was one person, a physicist, that said the magnetic field around a permanent magnet was created by the spin of an unpaired electron. That makes sense except there was no explanation of where the energy comes from. Permanent magnets do not exhibit endothermic behavior so it is not thermal energy. Yet there must be some source of energy that is perpetuating this effect. What is it? That is still a mystery to me."


OK, so iron has an electron configuration of ...hmm can&#39;t type it right..
well it has an electron configuration with 4 unpaired electrons per atom, by unpaired I mean that they all are in seperate suborbitals without a partner to cancel out their spin angular momentum. This is a higher energy state than would exist if the electrons could pair up with electrons of opposite spin, thus there is potential to acheive a lower energy state. This "potential energy" is what is attracting other unpaired electrons. IF they could possibly pair up, say by forming a covalent compound, then their free energy decreases. The effect in iron is strong and directional because their are large domains within the bulk of the material where the electron spins are "aligned" so to speak. This is called ferromagnetism.

When there are unpaired electrons but no large aligned domains then it&#39;s called paramagnetism. Substances that are paramagnetic are pulled into a magnetic field. The electrons "want" to pair up with those other moving electrons in the electromagnet so they can lower their free energy.

If a substance is diamagnetic, having no unpaired electrons, then it will be repelled by a magnetic field. It would cost the electrons free energy if more electrons tried to fill in any empty orbitals.

I know this description of the effect is not 100% accurate but I think it tries to explain the effect in simple terms. There is energy involved but in the case of two magnets clinging to each other, its mostly potential energy. Some might think that the magnets will stick forever. Maybe they&#39;d stick together for a REALLY long time, but entropy will eventually catch up to it and disperse the energy somehow.

BAMBI
2004-May-26, 03:52 PM
Does anyone know of any possible methods of reversing gravity? It could be quite fun&#33; :D

ohmy
2004-Jun-08, 07:55 AM
bambi,

the sun reverses gravity.

Gravity is magnetism, both positive and negative. It spins our planet, makes us orbit, because the sun is an opposite magnet repelling us.

Atoms bind, atoms dont bind, based on their "valence" or magnetism. (+/-)

I like the FINAL THEORY, I will buy it.

:)

All this gobbledeegook about gravitons is one big tall tale.

ohmy
2004-Jun-08, 07:57 AM
That makes sense except there was no explanation of where the energy comes from>>>>>

When a tale, or a science, dont make logical sense....

They are WRONG.

Everything in our world has logic, science included. Fancy that&#33; Do you like the emperors clothes today? I hear he&#39;s wearing nothing and talking fancy.

John L
2004-Jun-08, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by ohmy@Jun 8 2004, 02:57 AM
That makes sense except there was no explanation of where the energy comes from>>>>>

When a tale, or a science, dont make logical sense....

They are WRONG.

Everything in our world has logic, science included. Fancy that&#33; Do you like the emperors clothes today? I hear he&#39;s wearing nothing and talking fancy.
Deductive reasoning is not science. Not everything makes logical sense. I think it was Fenyman who said that if you&#39;re not confused by Quantum Mechanics then you don&#39;t understand it. Quantum Mechanics does not follow common sense logic because our common sense is based on the macroscopic world. You would logically deny, based on common sense, that your body is both particle and wave, but scientific experiment has proven this to be the case. There are many things in this universe, alien to our every day life, that seem at first glance to defy logic. But, as Feyman said, that is only because you don&#39;t really understand it yet.

Oh My and Bambi,

There aren&#39;t any ways to reverse gravity that we know of. The Dark Energy, which some speculate to be an effect of the vacuum of space and the utilization of vacuum energy in the creation and destruction of virtual particles, is a repulsive force, but not necessarily anti-gravity.

bob338
2004-Jun-11, 12:33 PM
Hello John L

I have 3 ideas about what you said, and this thread.

First, I would never doubt Im both particle and wave. I would call the wave electricity. Every living thing has electricity, yet matter particles just like an inert stone. Our bodyheat is very obviously a wave, and our chemical processes are very obviously producing electricity.

2) Quantum mechanics has no reason and is illogical from what we know about it. But that doesnt mean its completely illogical. It only means we dont understand the logic behind it yet because we are going with observatory ideas and noting them. Perhaps speed of light and time factors being mixed into quantum mechanics (if they are) are what causes that nonsensical appearance. Chinese medicine is illogical from the viewpoint that they observed what plants work on the body, thru a hit or miss fashion, without having the logic clear at the time. But the plant&#39;s effects do have logic when you study what the chemicals do - this logic was hidden from the chinese observers, yet still is so, recognized or not at the time. So to the chinese, their herbal medicine was a kind of illogical science, yet it was true from observation only, and that was all that mattered to utilize it.

3) If we can freeze a pulse of light then it could very well be that all of space&#39;s starlight is perpetually frozen at those low low temps. This would imply that speed of light is a myth, and that speed has nothing to do with space or energy. I dont believe Time has any place in science either as Lorenz first put it 1900 era (that time is a manmade invention). I believe that is correct. I think all the space/time stuff is pure myth driven to make an endless study in favor of perpetual grant money.

:)
Cheers
PS - I do believe that there may be a reverse form of gravity. And that humankind hasnt perceived it because it doesnt exist on our planet as such. If we expect outer space to be guided by the rules of physics on earth, we might be very much mistaken.

John L
2004-Jun-11, 07:46 PM
Bob33,

1. No. Each of the individual atoms that make up your body - every single one of them - is both a physical particle and a wave. On the macroscopic scale you are a solid body, but that doesn&#39;t stop the individual atoms from being waves, too. Electricity is an effect of the Electromagnetic Force, which is present in living and non-living matter. Body heat is electromagnetism, too.

2. I was speaking relative to our macroscopic world&#39;s common sense. Yes, Quantum Mechanics makes perfect sense on the atomic scale, proven out by the advanced technology we&#39;ve derrived from its rules (computers, lasers, etc), but compared to what happens on macroscopic scales it is an odd sounding system to the lay person.

Chinese and native medicines are all based on the same principles that I think we&#39;ve lost. Most medicines in the world were first discovered as a compound in a plant or animal. What we forget is that although that one compound is good at fighting a disease, it often has side-effects. The value of ancient Chinese and native medicines is that they know this, and either leave the original source of the compound in tact because it also has other compound that counteract the side-effects, or they mix it with plants or animal bits that counter-act the side-effects.

3. I&#39;m not sure what you&#39;re talking about here, but I disagree with your ideas about time. Einstein, Lorrentz, Schwartschild, and that generation of physicists have been proven right repeatedly by experiment. Find me ONE example where Einstein Relativity has been proven wrong and chances are the experiment was poorly performed.

StarLab
2004-Jun-11, 11:09 PM
bambi,

the sun reverses gravity.

Gravity is magnetism, both positive and negative. It spins our planet, makes us orbit, because the sun is an opposite magnet repelling us.

Atoms bind, atoms dont bind, based on their "valence" or magnetism. (+/-)

I like the FINAL THEORY, I will buy it.



All this gobbledeegook about gravitons is one big tall tale.
I&#39;m sure gravity and electromagnetism could be related in terms of the similar forces they exert on surrounding celestial bodies, but all the same I cannot see magnetism and gravity as being the same thing. From the start of reading the FINALTHEORY webpage, I was disgusted with the author, because he was trying to discredit everyone since Newton. This stems, probably, from disbelief on his part of Maxwell, who combined and unified electricity with magnetism. All work done since then in physics and cosmology has been based, stemmed and rooted in the works of Maxwell and Planck. In my opinion, the author is just trying to pull an Einstein by claiming magnetism and gravity as one and the same (just as Einstein declared gravity and acceleration one and the same). If the author is trying to disunite electromagnetism, however, and since you believe him, what do you think electricity should be equivalent to?

zephyr46
2004-Jun-12, 04:13 AM
I have read a few people taking pot shots at the standard model today, here and the higgs boson thread.

At the atomic level, we have E- and positrons, we have Protons and Neutrons. The mass of a Neutron is the same as a Proton and Electron. All have Mass, which means either they are succeptable to gravity or are the carriers of gravity. Starlab went so far to say;


gravity is a geometric function rather than a function of energy

I think that is right in relitivity, Space-Time. But Gravity is spoken about in terms like waves, and feilds I think. Ohmy, where did you get the &#39;sun reverses gravity&#39; from? My understanding was that we are gravitationally bound to the sun.

The &#39;gravity as magnetism&#39; is interesting to me. If we speak in electrical terms electric current comes in two forms, AC and DC. Every atom has protons and electrons, is gravity a DC magnetism? The combined feild of + and - force? It would exlain why gravity waves are usally postioned way down the Electro-magnetic spectrum under sound and seismic waves (http://altair.org/specmap.html).

StarLab
2004-Jun-12, 06:03 AM
Gravity is usually the stronger object pulling in on the other, not two falling together...actually, I could be wrong with the obvious exceptions of black holes. Hmm...

StarLab
2004-Jun-12, 03:10 PM
But, to imply a correlation between magnetism and gravity is to suggest the presence of energetic forces rather than the simple, well-understood geometric gravity-acceleration equivalence. I doubt that objects in space can be labeled with pluses and minuses.

rahuldandekar
2004-Jun-14, 01:12 PM
I think that gravity is just a product of mass. Gravitational potential energy is negative, so gravity carries negative energy. Mass caries postive ernrgy. Both balance each other. So, in a universe created out of nothing, gravity is required to balance the postive energy and mass.

I think that the partcles with negative energy that Hawking talks about in &#39;Breif History..,&#39; might antigravitate.

StarLab
2004-Jun-14, 03:41 PM
I think that gravity is just a product of mass. Gravitational potential energy is negative, so gravity carries negative energy. Mass caries postive ernrgy. Both balance each other. So, in a universe created out of nothing, gravity is required to balance the postive energy and mass.

I think that the partcles with negative energy that Hawking talks about in &#39;Breif History..,&#39; might antigravitate.
You&#39;re right - gravity and mass are related, but in a different way than you&#39;d think...gravity, in the universe, is only truly present and felt around a significant amount of mass. That is why heavier stars of matter have greater gravitational pull. Their weight, or mass, is heavier, so spacetime curves much more around them.
Gravitational potential energy, just to clarify a bit, is not a measure of gravity...&#39;tis a measure of Work or Energy, rather. Neither mass nor energy can be &#39;negative.&#39; There&#39;s no way, as far as I can tell, that gravity and mass balance each other...they seem much more supplementary than they are complementary.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Jun-14, 03:41 PM
This may be a good time to review my inputs on pages 4 and 5 of this topic and tear it to pieces if you can.

StarLab
2004-Jun-14, 03:55 PM
I&#39;ll get cracking down on it...you have some awesomely long posts&#33; :rolleyes: :P ;) :blink: