I have a theory Part 2

I dispute SlartyB's claim that gravity acts at the same rate as light. I claim that gravity (as modeled by our current equations) is a simple scalar potential field. That is the force of gravity on a particular mass is exclusively a function of the reciprocal of the square of the distances between those masses. If the distance is altered, the gravitational force between the two objects changes instantaneously. It is not like an electric field where to change the force we move charged particles through the field. At least that is my understanding.

------------------
With searching comes loss
And the presence of absence:
"My Novel" not found.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by geeking:
I dispute SlartyB's claim that gravity acts at the same rate as light. I claim that gravity (as modeled by our current equations) is a simple scalar potential field. That is the force of gravity on a particular mass is exclusively a function of the reciprocal of the square of the distances between those masses. If the distance is altered, the gravitational force between the two objects changes instantaneously. It is not like an electric field where to change the force we move charged particles through the field. At least that is my understanding.

---

Dispute all you like - I know who's right https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/6.gif

If you *REALLY* think gravity acts instantaneously, then I would get down to the Patent Office and register your idea before someone beats you to it. Go on, off you go ....

Hey Slaty B, so you mean that the gravity waves travel at the speed of light? This is pretty interesting. I actually live nearby one of the LIGO detectors to find these gravity waves. I wonder what makes up gravity waves? Probably some unknown subatomic particles or cosmic string. Hmmm, this might be a dumb question, but how would these particles bend space? I could do all kinds of cool things if I knew how to bend space! An artificial form of antigravity would be my first priority!

------------------
Lets make a run for it, B!

hmm.. im going to move this to the Gizmos and gadgets forum... maybe we will let it pass because it involves telescopes and whatnot.. otherwise i'd have to close it, which i will do if this gets outa hand =P

Seems to be okay for now tho.

------------------
[email protected]
ICQ: 2852628

Nice home to fill in G and G. Accessed this by clicking Catalysts post name. Good.



------------------

A-Open 300W 5-bin ATX case
Asus socket370 CUV4X-E mainboard
1Ghz Intel P3 815chip CPU
Asus GeForce 2MX V7100 Pure (32MB)
256RAM u.g.t.1GRAM, 15G HD
Win Lucent 56K modem
DX8 Win98SE
Sound Blaster Live
SFS Flightstick/Throttle
SW FreeStlye Pro
HP Apollo P-2250
Afga Snapscan 1212u
15inch e-View s monitor
---COL3:17

Uh-oh... a full day went by without a new post on this thread!

I guess I'll bump it for ya Garrin...

I don't mind if it goes below the "interest equator". I can always dig it up when I add something. Thanks for the help. I'll be back on it sometime...

Slarty Bartfast (I hope I got the reference right), I want to congratulate you on being one of the sole bearers of logic in this thread!

Relativity is not a "fringe" science or a topic you can discuss without education. It's not a paradox unless you do not understand it right.

It's very simple. If you're travelling in a spaceship travelling at 0.99 c (i.e. 99% of the speed of light), and you shine a flashlight out your front window, you WILL see the light travel forward at 3.0x10^8 m/s like normal. A guy sitting on the side of the road will also measure the light at 3.0e8 m/s, and will measure you at 99% of that speed. Now, a better example: if you throw a ball forward at 0.9c while travelling at 0.9c, you will see the ball go forward at 0.9c. HOWEVER, a "stationary" observer will see the ball go forward at (v1 + v2)/(1+v1*v2), which is 1.8/1.81 or 0.994 c.

Never use the word weight if you can help it, especially in relativistic situations. Photons do NOT have mass, but they DO have momentum. Because of this remarkable principle, Energy = Momentum (Since m^2 = e^2 - p^2, with m = mass, p = momentum, and e = energy. the m term drops out, and e^2 = p^2). Therefore, photons feel the effect of gravity but they do not have REST mass (i.e. mass when v = 0, because by Maxwell's equations they cannot travel at any speed other than the speed of light--3.0e8 m/s).

Light does not travel any slower through a medium. It PROPOGATES slower. All photons still travel at 3.0e8 m/s, but every fraction of a second they keep getting absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons in particles of the medium. Thus, they travel at the full speed of light, but there are pit stops where the electron ceases to exist and is re-created (i.e. absorption and emission), creating the illusion of "slowed light".

Also, gravity IS limited by the speed of light. It's very simple. If the sun decided to start moving reaaaally fast (say, the speed of light) in a particular direction, the earth would orbit JUST AS IT ALWAYS HAS for the next 8.5 minutes, at which point it would slowly start being attracted to the "path" the sun took (i.e. after 8.5 minutes, its force vector would start following the path of the sun in its new movement). ALL FIELDS (gravitational, electromagnetic, whatever) are propogated at the speed of light. So the planet jupiter is constantly "propagating" an "updated" field out from itself. When light passes a few thousand miles away from jupiter, it passes by the field which propogated out a fraction of a second ago. Thus it feels a gravitational attraction to a 0.001 sec old Jupiter (it's hard to express this in words... *sigh*).

Oh well, that's enough for now.

[This message has been edited by Simpson, Homer (edited August 16, 2001).]

Alright Homer, since you know so much about quantum physics then maybe you can help me? How does gravity bend space at the quantum level? Or does anyone know?

------------------
Lets make a run for it, B!

Whoa https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif Never said I knew much about quantum physics.

The bending of space-time (general relativity) in quantum mechanics has yet to be figured out satisfactorily. String theory has some insights, but unfortunately, to experiment on the theory requires incredibly high energies and incredibly short periods of time (i.e. nearly immeasurable quantities of time).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by elimc:
Alright Homer, since you know so much about quantum physics then maybe you can help me? How does gravity bend space at the quantum level? Or does anyone know?

---

Courtesy of Moridin:
http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/08/1...ce/15PHYS.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by al bundy:

I don't know if anyone will want another book to read - but just in case, here's a good book that is relevant to the current relativity debate:

"Mathematical Invalidity of Relativity (Both Special and General)", by Cameron Y. Rebigsol, Vantage Press, NY, 1996.

Edit: Just trying to contribute something interesting! https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GARRIN19:

I love those kinds of books. "What u all lookin at?!" https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/...2002/02/11.gif It sounds like a string theory argument.

---

Hey GARRIN19, it's actually not a string theory argument... The above title exposes, in a very definite way, that the mathematics of relativity inevitably leads to several unacceptable operational and physical inconsistencies. Some of these include 1) direct mathematical fallacies at the equation level; 2) measurement unit inconsistencies; 3) a clear demonstration that relativity leads to a mathematical confirmation of Newton's third law, which relativity is actually supposed to be replacing rather than confirming.

The conclusion the author makes is that relativity theory, mathematically speaking, in fact has no ground to stand on - and that the scientific world desperately needs a new theory for these matters.

Edit: It's actually a very good read, I hope many here will have a chance to look at it - especially given the really interesting points being expressed in this thread! https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2002/02/3.gif

[This message has been edited by al bundy (edited August 18, 2001).]

It reminds me of the concepts of limits, how an object deccelerating at a certain average is technically(physically) supposed to stop, yet there is mathematical indication of continous motion. This and all of the Zeno's Paradoxes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GARRIN19:
It reminds me of the concepts of limits, how an object deccelerating at a certain average is technically(physically) supposed to stop, yet there is mathematical indication of continous motion. This and all of the Zeno's Paradoxes.

---

BTW, wouldn't "Zeno's Paradoxes" make for some good thread discussions, GARRIN19? Just a suggestion... https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/6.gif

They should change Gadgets and Gizmos to a Popular Mechanics forum. Thay way we could talk about all new technology, throw in some academic theory debates and keep it on topic.