Member
There will be a little more tomorrow. I am writing a book about it. Actually I'm completing my thoughts about this, and I'm almost there. When I'm totally clear about it all, my posts will be more clear too, because I'm actually learning it at this very moment. But still they should be 'about' correct, only not clear enough I guess.Originally Posted by Sam5
Order of Kilopi
I guess “about correct” is just about anyone can hope for in the wacky world of theoretical physics.There will be a little more tomorrow. I am writing a book about it. Actually I'm completing my thoughts about this, and I'm almost there. When I'm totally clear about it all, my posts will be more clear too, because I'm actually learning it at this very moment. But still they should be 'about' correct, only not clear enough I guess.
Established Member
As I understand your theory, Sandor, no light can be emitted unless there's something to receive it. Am I correct?
However, there is a problem with this:
1) Thermodynamics is pretty clear on how much energy is emitted from a body with a given temperature through radiation - you can measure how the body cools down to determine the outward energy flux.
2) The radiated energy varies in direction only with the geometry and heat distribution throughout the body. A sphere will emit the same amount in all directions, for example.
3) For a body to obey your theory and thermodynamics as well, there has to be a recipient for the photons in all possible directions, or energy can't leave!
This leads to all kinds of strange side-effects. I won't go into detail, but among other things, you get relativity violations, a requirement that space is curved and whatnot. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but it certainly seems very strange. Can you think of an experiment to tell whether your theory is correct or not?
Member
Yes.
Right!
Maybe we take the same body heat example. There is always matter in all directions in universe. Since photons have light speed, they have no time. In their world, they're at source and receiver at the same time. So as the photons 'build up energy', they suck up space until they find matter in no time (not our time).
I explain more about it in my next post, although it may seem to get quite crazy.
Member
To continue the thriller...
About the train speeding around the earth: it has constant velocity at a certain period. This is why it is only behind (because of earlier acceleration), but not going slower. It is only going slower during acceleration (or deceleration). Now I told about moving along with the light clock, at near c. Time on the 2 systems would be the same. This is true, but it's complicated. Because when we would move along with near c, we would be like photons and the world around us would shrink to near 0, in the direction of the movement. But this is the same for the photons of the light clock, so time is the same. We would only say, from a third perspective, not being photons, that this is no time at all, because time stops for us at c. But in fact it is another time, and I will explain after the next 2 paragraphs.
The train and the light clock, moving with constant velocity, have clocks running at the same 'speed', only BEHIND 'our' time. But what happens if we would move along a planet, having the same speed and direction? There is no constant 'speed''there, because gravity is constant acceleration itself. So clocks on this planet will go constantly slower than ours (whatever we are, but with much less mass than the planet). This is logical, because we cannot move along a planet without being attracted to it, which forces us to resist or accelerate constantly, contrary to the train or light clock. Even if we're far away from the planet, getting signals from it (exchanging forces) will imply this acceleration.
Back to the train around/on the earth: when it gets near c, it will shrink near totally flat. What does this mean for the space it's 'in'? We know that a planet will shrink 'it's' space by gravity. A photon however, will shrink the distance from source to receiver by it's own stationary length, which we don't know. By this photon I mean one single smallest particle with one wave length, which is in fact undetectable for us (on it's own), so it's much smaller than what we call photon. The photon itself will experience the outside world from source to receiver as completely flat. I will be at both ends at the same time, which means that time stands still and there's no change on it's way. From our spacetime, we will see almost the same distance as usual(it's only 1 photon shorter), but it takes some time to travel. Officially we would see the photon as totally flat (or < 1 Planck length), but we eperience it, because of c, as one single wave from source to receiver.
But this is not only the smallest photon by means of one wave length, it's also the slowest photon. The wave length is as long as our 3-d universe and we cannot detect it anyway. It's velocity = c, which is the minimum speed in 2-d. When it goes faster in 2d, it has more energy, but since c is our max. speed in 3-d, we will see more photons which are more compressed. So these photons have their own time and velocity, but this is 2-d time. Now if the train would travel near c, we would have to ignore resistance by air and rails. Then the train would become a lot of photons eventually at c. But a train doesn't have to accelerate to c, because it already has a lot of energy (mass or inner velocity). It's like a distant planet which has always more speed relative to us than a close planet, because every force in between can be added. A train is about the same: a lot of matter with molecules colliding and atoms turning and electrons dancing. It doesn't matter in which direction they go, because they contribute to the total energy anyway. In fact a train has already shrunk a lot of space, like the sun only needs to be pushed into a ball of a few kilometers wide to become a black hole, while the earth needs to become a ping pong ball or so. The sun already has this velocity (gravity).
So the train doesn't need all the acceleration from 0 to c if you know what I mean, because it's already far above 0, even when stationary. Anyway, let's say the train becomes a sort of cloud, shrunk to flat, speeding at c around the globe. This is far more energy than 1 photon and it will shrink space on it's way, sucking up a lot of matter around it. Suppose the stationary train would be completely closed around the earth, head at tail, then it would shrink the earth in 2 halfs. It will cut the earth in 2, because the closed circle would become a 'flat' circle. So the train experiment is somewhat dangerous.
Established Member
(emphasis mine). I would say that this is a required postulate for your theory - it's neither self-evident nor proven. Remember, it's not simply a case of there being some sort of matter in that direction, it has to be there at the time the photon arrives, and it also has to be in a state where it's possible for the photon to interact with it.Right!
Maybe we take the same body heat example. There is always matter in all directions in universe. Since photons have light speed, they have no time. In their world, they're at source and receiver at the same time. So as the photons 'build up energy', they suck up space until they find matter in no time (not our time).
There are two ways to solve this dilemma. I'm biased here, but bear with me.
1) A photon is emitted in a more or less random direction, and its fate is left to chance. If your postulate is correct, sooner or later, it will encounter some matter and interact with it. If the postulate is incorrect, for example if space is flat and unbounded, it will continue forever outwards, "dissipating" some of the energy of the universe into the void.
2) At the moment of emission, the photon "knows" the state that every other electron will be in at the exact moment this photon might arrive to them. One particular electron is "selected", and the photon goes towards that one and no other. As I see it, this is a causality violation of gargantuan proportion - there's no way to guarantee this without transferring information 'instantly' about how this electron will be arranged when the photon arrives, which, frankly, requires that the universe is predetermined!
My criticism may be overly harsh - it wouldn't be the first time that quantum mechanics has come up with strange and counter-intuitive effects. However, I would recommend some thought on the subject. Sam5 might help you here - he seems to have read more about cosmology than I have.
Member
In fact that's another part of my theory that comes 'first', it's about universe being 'curved around' in a next dimension. But let's say that there is no matter everywhere and continue to your next thoughts.It's neither self-evident nor proven.
I agree.
Oh yeah I love criticism, I don't care how biased you are. Well, in fact I would like you not to believe any of it until you're out of arguments.
Dissipating is not possible, since the photon knows exactly where it goes. I'll explain better after the next quote.
Yes! Here we are, although it doesn't really make sense even if we 'know' that universe is predetermined in another dimension. If a god would exist to know everything, it would know the exact future, but it doesn't change anything to your 'freedom', although you might have second thought about what this freedom means.
It is exactly like you say: the photon knows instantly where it goes and how the exact situation is when it arrives. Let me explain once more. The photon is travelling at c, thus making the world around it 2-d, or flat, or timeless. This is a known principle in relativity. For a photon, NO time will pass between take off and arrival and nothing at all will change (in) it. It's like I said: the photon starts 'pushing' energy, which sucks up space 'until' it reaches matter, although this is timeless to us. When it finds matter to exchange energy with, it will do that instantly, or it already did. It's pure relativity theory, there's nothing new here, maybe except for my conclusion and my explicit notice of photons being 2-d, in a 2-d world as well as in our 3-d world. But it's just the name I give it I guess, because even this is not new.
But then it makes perfectly sense with one of the common rules about force exchange: you cannot put force on something when it doesn't resist with the same force at the same time! It's impossible! And now it really gets nice. Because what am I saying? I am saying this: the 2 electrons that exchange forces, are 'touching' each other. One of them is going 1 level down and the other is going 1 level up. In between they reach light speed, so they are not really 'electrons' then. By reaching c, space totally shrinks and they connect. This is also why you cannot see electrons between to rings: they're 2-d out there!
Member
Now I almost forgot about matter possibly not being everywhere. In that case, your body can get lost of it's heat by launching the same 1 billion photons in all directions BUT those without any matter. So it might have to throw a couple more in the same direction or so.
Member
It gets better: the energy receiving electron, which gets excited, literally pushes the other electron back to it's 'ground' state.
Question: why is an atom with an electron in a higher ring more energetic than an atom with an electron in a lower (closer) ring? I can understand the potential energy of that higher ring electron, like a rock on a mountain, but this potential energy is only called that because it seems easier to use, isn't it? When the rock has fallen down, total energy in the system will even be increased, because:
1. all matter is closer together, resulting in more gravity
2. more heat because of air and ground resistance while falling down
I know where this extra energy comes from: it's all the other matter in universe that pushes the rock to the planet's surface.
It will cost more energy to prevent an electron from collapsing into a proton when it's closer to that proton. In planet terms, it would have to go faster around the nucleus. So this ground state seems to be higher energetic than an excited state. We only have to get lost of the presumed idea that the excited state is caused by energy. Let's turn it around. What if all high energetic electrons in a ground state would like to get out(er) of their atom? They would have to wait until another electron gets out, so they can push it back in, by which they will get out.
I am not saying that positive and negative charges are in fact repelling each other, although I'm beginning to suspect this. It wouldn't be the first time that something turns out to be exactly the opposite. In fact, the more I get into relativity and stuff, the more everything seems to be exactly the opposite.
I admit that this last post of mine is very spontaneous and very questioning and not so well thought of, yet. But I like it.
Established Member
The potential energy of attractive forces is negative. "More gravity" as you put it, is actually less energy. That's where the energy that goes to heat, etc. comes from. It's harder to lift a rock from the bottom of the pit than it is from near the top - you have to add more energy.
Member
This is interesting stuff. Is gravity no energy? Let's be more specific.
Suppose the rock is down on the ground. There it feels more gravity attraction than on the mountain. It will be compressed and heated more. It will contribute to total earth gravity more than on a mountain, so the earth is attracting other matter in universe stronger. Only because total earth matter is more compressed, or in smaller space, or, in fact, it sucks up MORE space.
It's like as we compress total earth to be as big as a ping ping ball: then it becomes a black hole. It actually costs/delivers (just IS) extra energy to push the rock 'into' the earth. It doesn't matter if you see gravity as an attracting or a repelling force. Let's say it is attracting. Total energy of the earth gets bigger anyway. It's just a matter of perspective. That's why this is so difficult: all energy in universe always stays the same. You can never create a vacuum around a rock-mountain-earth or whatever.
When the earth is attracting all other matter in universe more, it all gets closer to each other, thus attracting more in total, one would think, but distances are getting shorter. In other words: spacetime is different, meaning force (acceleration) is different. From the big-bang, it's also evident that a greater distance between 'everything' is an expression of energy.
Sooo, back to the rock. Yes, it'll cost YOU energy to get in on the hill, but it'll cost something energy to get it down again. Where should we start to think? Total energy is always the same eventually. So we have 2 atoms, and distance in between. One has an electron in ground state and one has an excited electron. Then they 'switch', or exchange forces. Where does this start? Is the emitting source the one that you put current to, so it emits? Or is the other side pushing all the time and just waiting for you to put a current to 'your' atom, so your atom can 'receive' it's energy?
Which side is receiving most energy? I think there is no 'side' because we cannot put a vacuum around any system. It's all connected and just a matter of relative perspectives.
Established Member
No, it will not attract the universe more. Looking at the contribution from that one rock: it moved away from half of the universe, and closer to the other half. No net effect. Far from the earth, the net attraction hasn't changed.
Member
That is true, but only true without the earth involved. Like you said: it's the contribution of that one rock. But the earth compresses the rock more when it's closer to the earth's centre of gravity, which gives them both more gravity force. It's an exponentially cumulative force: two object close together, somewhere in universe, have more gravity together than when they're farther apart. Together they can shrink more space than the plain sum of both forces. That's because we're talking about acceleration. There's already a 'square' in it.
Or course this seems negligible for just a rock, because we're talking about relativity. Newton laws will satisfy by just adding the two forces, but that's only because their (internal) acceleration isn't so big. In other words: we cannot measure general time slowing down or (cosmic) space shrinking when a rock falls down, but these tiny COSMIC changes in spacetime will of course 'easily' push the rock down and this is exactly where the 'energy' comes from.
I'm putting the word 'energy' between quotes now, only for our minds to get rid of the the idea that energy is something NOT relative, or something that can be 'stored' in vacuum. Energy is nothing but difference in spacetime and so is matter. Th cosmos in one big relational ball where nothing changes really, totally, WE only change perspectives.
Member
So 'another planet' is pushing the earth back in it's ground state, by pushing the rock closer to the core. The earth will gain energy and the other planet will lose it, or in particle terms: the other planet will fire it's gravitons to earth. But it's not really 'true' that the energy levels change. First of all, when the earth is more attractive, it will attract the other planet more also, giving that planet 'more' energy. But no, it's even different again. Both planets repel, by shooting gravitons. They drift apart. The gravitons arrive at earth, letting it suck up more space. So they get more attracted again. Also, shrinking space in between the two planets: are they coming closer or getting farther apart? Because, should we look 'along with' the curved space, or should we stock to our 'own' space frame?
Well, there is only one answer: to understand this really, you have to understand it all, which means no limits, no vacuum. And then you will see nothing changes. The change is in our perspective, and that's OK.
Established Member
No; as far as Newtonian gravity goes, the force depends linearly on the mass. You can't tell the difference between a sphere of uniform density and a point mass of equal value, as long as you are outside the sphere. This is Gauss's law. It follows in a straightforward fashion from the inverse square nature of the force, and is useful in electrostatics problems.That is true, but only true without the earth involved. Like you said: it's the contribution of that one rock. But the earth compresses the rock more when it's closer to the earth's centre of gravity, which gives them both more gravity force. It's an exponentially cumulative force: two object close together, somewhere in universe, have more gravity together than when they're farther apart. Together they can shrink more space than the plain sum of both forces. That's because we're talking about acceleration. There's already a 'square' in it.
Order of Kilopi
Or a spherical shell of uniform density (again, if you are outside the sphere).You can't tell the difference between a sphere of uniform density and a point mass of equal value, as long as you are outside the sphere.
Member
Mass is different from gravity, which is depending on mass and its velocity. How is pure mass calculated in this sphere? And how did it change from one state into another? What sort of energy did that and where did it come from?
About the rock: rock and earth are exchanging more energy when the rock is on the ground, than when the rock is on the mountain. If it takes one gust of wind to let the rock fall, there's more heat plus more attracting forces eventually, isn't there? If you say all energy was already potentially there in the rock, what does this concretely mean?
Member
When we have 2 planets, with both a certain amount of gravity and there is a certain distance between them, there is also a certain gravity between them. Now, if this is all, how can it be that there is more total force when they get closer? Where does the energy gain come from?
Established Member
There is no energy gain as they move closer. Absent any other forces, they will move faster as they move closer, but their potential energy will decrease (becoming more negative). The sum of PE + KE remains constant.
Member
Right, potential energy is about space (distance).
Constant velocity is never something that exists without costing energy. The entire universe is filled with gravity (acceleration), or in other words, no 2 bordering space frames are alike in volume. When we reach constant velocity, we do that by constant acceleration. Like the train with constant velocity, which will constantly have to accelerate to keep the constant velocity. Yes, people inside have constant velocity relative to the earth, but it's always devided by acceleration, or in other words, there's always (potential) force in between. This is just space. Ever curved space. Only 'around' the train it is very curved.
About these space frames: when we cut the earth in wedges, we might continue the borderlines of the wedges somewhat into space and we can see that a space frame close to earth is smaller than farther away. This is because of gravity that is stronger close to earth, thus compressing space into smaller space frames. However, we take the size of a space frame that we're in as our grid. When the borderlines of these (our grid) frames are parallel, they will continue to be parallel in our view through the cosmos. In an absolute way, all curved frames (the wedges with 'different volumes'), are all of the same 'value', because they're (seemingly to us) just more or less compressed. We have our relative grid which seems to us as 'objective'. This relative grid makes an object moving in a compressed frame seemingly faster than in a less compressed frame. This is not just as it 'seems', this is the basis of all energy: spacetime.
Back to PE and KE: all KE is acceleration and all PE is space. The most commonly used example is the pendulum. When we manually move the ball on the pendulum to the left side, we can set it free. When we remove our hand, we can take a quick snapshot, when the ball is not moving yet. Here we have potential energy. Then it will accelerate, increasing force in the rope and the crane (suppose there is no atmosphere). When it swings to the right, it will decelerate and stop very shortly. At this moment, there is hardly any resistance in crane and rope and there is no velocity. The potential energy here is more distance to the earth. When the earth is pulling the ball closer to is, crane and rope are resisting, thus making force possible. In other words: forces in rope, crane, ball and earth are shrinking space. This example is not so clear, so I will give a better one. I used this example to show that kinetics is all about acceleration and that resistance is needed.
The space part is better described with the 2 planets again.
You cannot accelerate anything when nothing resists! How can 2 planets in vacuum attract each other to acceleration? There needs to be at least a third planet! When 2 planets are fighting for a little third one in between, THEN we can get something to move, otherwise not. Is that true? We can see one piece of matter as well as many pieces of matter. Let's try to attract a candy bar, which is made out of chewing gum balls, all attached to each other, the bar pointed towards us. If we attract the whole thing, nothing happens, because it doesn't resist, but if we attract only the first ball, it feels resistance from the one behind, to which it is attached. Or we attract only the second ball and it will collide to the first one. But no, this doesn't make sense also, because nothing resists eventually. It doesn't matter how many balls we put there, we might attract one billion bowling balls just as easily as one chewing gum, or in fact, we don't attract anything at all. This is why universe is 'curved around' in another dimension: every participating particle needs to feel at least 2 oppsite forces: one in front and one in it's back and this is only possible 'around' something, like you cannot attach any elastic through entire universem because there are no points to attach it to. But you can put elastics around it.
2 planets in a 'round' universe. If they fire gravitons at each other, it can mean 2 things: 1. they repel, or 2. those 'billions' of gravitons per 'second' are shrinking space in between. However, those 2 planets will be at opposite sides of universe. They fire gravitons in all directions, which all arrive at the other side of course, always keeping the 2 planets as far away as possible. Let's forget about the particles and focus on space. Both planets will suck up space, they will 'divide' the space in between them. Space will be most compressed closer to the planets and in the middle space will be 'largest'. So space is just something relative; it's the ratio between the two planets. If one planet gets bigger, it will suck up more space relative to the other planet, or space frame angles will be more 'extreme' towards the bigger planet, from the largest space in between (a greater deviation from 90 degrees).
This sucking up of space, relative to each other, makes it also clear that it should be a closed (round) system. Now, if a third little planet would travel in between the 2 planets, it wants to suck up as much space as possible. Where the angles are more extreme, there is simply more space, so it will go that way. In this direction, space is more compressed, so the third planet will always be a little bit pushed together in the moving direction.
We can see it also from a particle point of view, but then we cannot see shrinked space. We have to take an absolute view. This means that a black hole is very big instead of very small. Both planets can only fire the same amount of gravitons, because 2 opposite forces can only be of the same value. Now if we consider one particle in the third planet, and this particle is receiving one graviton from planet 1 (biggest planet) and one graviton from planet 2, we have different angles on average. Gravitons from all parts of planet 1 will want to react with this particle from planet 3, which only happens when gravitons from planet 2 arrive at the same 'placetime'. Since planet 1 is 'wider', the angles will be more extreme, but exactly opposite to when we considered space to be more compressed. But, gravity is a 1-dimensional force. (I'm sorry, but I'll explain later.) So there are no angles for gravitons: they are always exactly opposite, in one straight line from planet 1, through planet 3, to planet 2. And on the average, back in 3-d, the forces from planet 1 come 'wider', thus contributing less to the direction of planet 2, than planet 2 contributes to the direction of planet 1. The wider force is in fact pushing the 'nose' of planet 3 a little bit together, so eventually we have exactly the same situation as from the 'shrinked space perspective'.
Whichever way we look at it, either gravity being an attracting force or a repelling force, when planet 3 is accelerating towards planet 1, it is shrinking space because of this acceleration. This is energy, it is increasing energy. When planet 1 and 3 'unite', all energy -mass plus increased acceleration- will form bigger energy, sucking up more space relative to planet 2. When planet 1 sucks up planet 3, it seems like it also sucks up the space in between them, 'giving back' larger, empty space, making the angles of planet 2 seem flatter, which is just relative.
So when a rock falls of a mountain, it shrinks space, making the earth angles more extreme relative to the outside universe. Other cosmic objects seem farther away.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote