How gravity works

[Leonardo]

4 hours ago, trevorjobo said:

Again you guys seem to have all the answers. I'm all ears. What are quarks composed of? not space-time you say? why? 

Quarks are tiny pockets of energy.

Space-time is not a "thing". As I previously said, it is (or appears to be) a property of our universes' interaction with matter/energy. Just as when you stretch a piece of rubber, the "stretch" isn't a "thing" but you energetically interacting with the rubber.

[SHaYap]

Sometimes ... it is very difficult to give a Quark ...

[trevor borocz johnson]

8 hours ago, Leonardo said:

Just as when you stretch a piece of rubber, the "stretch" isn't a "thing" but you energetically interacting with the rubber.

oh Ok so nothing physical happens to the fabric when you stretch it its just an allusion of me exerting energy. I think Democritus and Parmenides settled the debate if space-time is 2400 years ago when they said "You say there is a void; therefore the void is not nothing; therefore there is not the void".

[Leonardo]

2 hours ago, trevorjobo said:

oh Ok so nothing physical happens to the fabric when you stretch it its just an allusion of me exerting energy. I think Democritus and Parmenides settled the debate if space-time is 2400 years ago when they said "You say there is a void; therefore the void is not nothing; therefore there is not the void".

Democritus and Parmenides were not aware of the concept of vacuum. There is a "void", and it is indeed not "nothing". The vacuum (void) of space is teeming with energy, virtual particles, actual particles, macro-objects, etc, none of which are "space-time" but all of which interact with the universe to cause it to have "volume" - which is the spacetime.

As I said previously, please study modern physics and don't rely on millenia old philosophical postulates to build your view of what the universe is. That you want to question is fine, all scientists should question, but first learn what has already been discovered and why what that predicts what the universe is, is the universe.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Leonardo

[trevor borocz johnson]

8 hours ago, Leonardo said:

The vacuum (void) of space is teeming with energy, virtual particles, actual particles, macro-objects, etc, none of which are "space-time" but all of which interact with the universe to cause it to have "volume" - which is the spacetime.

Do you believe that space-time is fixed in density or do you believe it's expanding in a bubble as fAst as light?

Edited August 1, 2016 by trevorjobo

[Leonardo]

4 hours ago, trevorjobo said:

Do you believe that space-time is fixed in density or do you believe it's expanding in a bubble as fAst as light?

Spacetime has no "density" because it is not itself a medium. It is a volume, but that volume only has a meaning of concept because of that which is contained within it - energy, virtual particles, elementary particles, etc. None of those things are "spacetime".

As to whether spacetime is expanding, and the speed of that apparent expansion, that seems to be true (and calculable) according to observations.

I can't teach you physics Trevor, to do that here would be impractical. If you wish to understand why intelligent people consider what physics says to be so, is as it says then please consider taking up a course in a reputable institute of learning. You don't need to blindly accept all you learn as "truth", but at least you'll understand why physicists consider it "truth".

Edited August 1, 2016 by Leonardo

[trevor borocz johnson]

6 hours ago, Leonardo said:

 

I can't teach you physics Trevor, to do that here would be impractical.

oh and I didn't ask. Seems pretty pompous to say that to someone. Don't have much love for people who love themselves.

 

6 hours ago, Leonardo said:

Spacetime has no "density" because it is not itself a medium. It is a volume, but that volume only has a meaning of concept because of that which is contained within it - energy, virtual particles, elementary particles, etc. None of those things are "spacetime".

You say your referencing modern physics, what 'commonly accepted' present theory are you referring to? gravitons? it sounds like you're a graviton supporter, is that it?

Edited August 1, 2016 by trevorjobo

[sepulchrave]

8 hours ago, trevorjobo said:

You say your referencing modern physics, what 'commonly accepted' present theory are you referring to? gravitons? it sounds like you're a graviton supporter, is that it?

I am pretty sure Leonardo is referring to the widely accepted and empirically supported modern theory of General Relativity and the widely accepted and empirically supported modern theory of Quantum Field Theory, both of which are taught in universities world-wide.

Can you explain, in your own words, what the mainstream definition of a graviton is?

Can you explain, in your own words, what the mainstream argument for the incompatibility of General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory is?

******************

If I went into a forum on US Politics and suggested that the ``second amendment should be banned from the Declaration of Independence because guns are a gateway drug'' it would be pretty clear that I don't know what the US Constitution or the Declaration of Independence actually are, also I don't know what a gun is, and I am ignorant of US constitutional law; consequently I don't think my arguments would find much traction in that forum.

Why do you expect your arguments to find traction here?

[trevor borocz johnson]

you guys take aim at me like one would expect anyone to do as if they were claiming their perpetual motion machine produces energy, yet its all misses, you guys haven't and don't have the time yet to think about what I'm saying is what I have to say to most of your responses. I don't just write things up on these forums without thinking if they logically make sense, that part of it took me four years and thousands of hours to conclude.

[trevor borocz johnson]

On July 4, 2016 at 5:22 PM, ChrLzs said:

You have no maths, no predictions that can be tested, no observations that falsify current theories,

Another observation using Einstein's general relativity that proves his 2 dimensional thought experiment of a ball on a piece of cloth 3 dimensionally is a squeezing on space-time: Einstein said that a person on a spaceship that is moving will experience artificial gravity and that gravity and momentum are one in the same.  The spaceship covers a certain distance of space-time dependent on its momentum, from this we can observe that a gravity field that is equal to the strength of the artificial gravity on the spaceship contains as many layers of space time for the area of the person as the person would travel through moving at the speed equal to the gravity field strength. This would be evidence that space-time in a gravity field is denser then space time vacant of any gravity creating mass.

Edited August 15, 2016 by trevorjobo

[sepulchrave]

5 hours ago, trevorjobo said:

Another observation using Einstein's general relativity that proves his 2 dimensional thought experiment of a ball on a piece of cloth 3 dimensionally is a squeezing on space-time: Einstein said that a person on a spaceship that is moving will experience artificial gravity and that gravity and momentum are one in the same.  The spaceship covers a certain distance of space-time dependent on its momentum, from this we can observe that a gravity field that is equal to the strength of the artificial gravity on the spaceship contains as many layers of space time for the area of the person as the person would travel through moving at the speed equal to the gravity field strength. This would be evidence that space-time in a gravity field is denser then space time vacant of any gravity creating mass.

Can you provide any references for this? Particularly:

1. In what literature did Einstein describe a "2 dimensional thought experiment on a ball of cloth"?
2. In what literature did Einstein claim that "gravity and momentum are one [and] the same"?

I have studied special and general relativity at the advanced undergraduate level, I have read few English translations of a few of Einstein's original papers, I have also read Einstein's short book on relativity, and I am not familiar with Einstein making any of the claims you attribute to him.

I am also rather confident that no scientist, ever, claimed that momentum and gravity are the same.

I teach special relativity at the junior undergraduate level, so if I am completely wrong about my understanding of relativity please point me in the direction of the appropriate literature.

[Derek Willis]

7 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Can you provide any references for this? Particularly:

In what literature did Einstein describe a "2 dimensional thought experiment on a ball of cloth"?

In what literature did Einstein claim that "gravity and momentum are one [and] the same"?

I have studied special and general relativity at the advanced undergraduate level, I have read few English translations of a few of Einstein's original papers, I have also read Einstein's short book on relativity, and I am not familiar with Einstein making any of the claims you attribute to him.

Sep, didn't you know there is an entire corpus written by scientists such as Einstein, but it is not available unless you have magical access?

So for instance, Niels Bohr wrote how, one morning when he was walking in the woods with his fiance Margrethe, in an opening they saw a baby bunny playing with its mommy. Baby bunny was running around Mommy bunny in a circle. Suddenly, there was a flash of light from the trees which was so bright Niels and Maggie, as she was known to her family and friends, had to close their eyes. When they opened them again, Baby bunny was still running around Mommy bunny, but in a much bigger circle. There was another flash from the trees, and after opening their eyes Niels and Maggie saw Baby bunny was running around Mommy bunny in an even bigger circle. Then, a flash of light came from Baby bunny, and when the young couple opened their eyes, Baby bunny was again running around Mommy bunny in the smallest circle. This went on and on all morning. Eventually, it dawned on Niels that Baby bunny always ran around Mommy bunny in the same circles.

"How strange," Niels said to Maggie. "It's as though Baby bunny can only run around Mommy bunny in circles of certain, fixed radii"

"Yes," Maggie replied. "And did you notice how the flashes of light coming from Baby bunny are only certain colors? In other words, there is a line spectrum."

"I did, "Niels said. "I'm going to ask Mommy bunny what this game is all about."

Mommy bunny overheard Niels and said, "We call it the h over two pi game."

"The h over two pi game?" Niels said, scratching his head. "What are the rules."

"Well," Mommy bunny said, "Baby can only run round me if his angular momentum is an integer multiple of h over two pi."

"That is amazing!" Niels said. I wonder if that is also how hydrogen atoms work?"

"Sort of," Mommy bunny said. "But It's a lot more complicated than that. In a few years time a young man called Erwin will be coming into the woods and I will show him another game. That game involves a very complicated equation.

It was coming up to lunchtime so Niels and Maggie headed off home.

So you see, Sep, the books you have read only tell part of the story of how scientific discoveries are made. One day, you might have magical access to the corpus and then you can read all about Einstein's two dimensional thought experiment on a ball of cloth, and how gravity and momentum are one and the same.

[sepulchrave]

Thanks for the tip, Derek Willis!

I usually only check out the "science" and "science fiction" sections of my local library, but I suppose I should also pay close attention to the "fictional science" section...

[trevor borocz johnson]

 

15 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

In what literature did Einstein claim that "gravity and momentum are one [and] the same"?

http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation-at-Low-Speeds/#.V7EutGaXvab

[trevor borocz johnson]

Space has a maximum density to it as well as a regular density when it is unaffected by nearby mass. Its maximum density may be cramming a light year of volume into a one inch cube in the space just above a black hole. This fixed scale for space's density is in ratio with the speed of light, at its maximum slows the speed down to a almost standstill and free of gravity allows light to move freely at 186,00 mps. Assuming the space just above a black hole is close to as dense as a quark, then the speed of light is directly related to the density of a quark, and in ratio to the density of space. 

[Derek Willis]

1 hour ago, trevorjobo said:

 

http://www.emc2-explained.info/Time-Dilation-at-Low-Speeds/#.V7EutGaXvab

Can you point out where in the article it says gravity and momentum are the same? I am probably being stupid but I couldn't find the particular sentence. 

[trevor borocz johnson]

 

 

If you'll notice in the drawing in the video, the space-time of the gravity field around the planet and the quark can be looked at as a 2 dimensional perspective drawing of the ball on a large sheet experiment that causes other objects placed on the sheet to slide towards the ball as well as a 3 dimensional representation of the idea of space-time becoming denser when acted on by the planet or the quark, both ideas look the same when you draw them on paper.

[greggK]

On 7/3/2016 at 5:08 PM, ChrLzs said:

Pardon?  Photons are LIGHT.  Dreams are brain activity - tiny electrical impulses - if you are claiming your brain lights up at night and generates actual photons, could you provide evidence (and the chemistry formulas) for that? 

Every thought produces a photon of light or do you not understand? Oh, and you disqualify yourself when say 'electrical impulses.'  Your brain has a battery.  Charged by the sun.  That is how you dream.

A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of all forms of electromagnetic radiation including light.

So, light is just one form of photon.

Considering the kinematics of the collision (that is, the conservation of momentum and kinetic energy), the energy E₁ of the scattered projectile is reduced from the initial energy E₀:

E1=k⋅E0,{\displaystyle E_{1}=k\cdot E_{0},}

where k is known as the kinematical factor, and

k=(m1cos⁡θ1±m22−m12(sin⁡θ1)2m1+m2)2,{\displaystyle k=\left({\frac {m_{1}\cos {\theta _{1}}\pm {\sqrt {m_{2}^{2}-m_{1}^{2}(\sin {\theta _{1}})^{2}}}}{m_{1}+m_{2}}}\right)^{2},}^[2]

where particle 1 is the projectile, particle 2 is the target nucleus, and θ1{\displaystyle \theta _{1}} is the scattering angle of the projectile in the laboratory frame of reference (that is, relative to the observer). The plus sign is taken when the mass of the projectile is less than that of the target, otherwise the minus sign is taken.

While this equation correctly determines the energy of the scattered projectile for any particular scattering angle (relative to the observer), it does not describe the probability of observing such an event. For that we need the differential cross-section of the backscattering event:

dωdΩ=(Z1Z2e24E0)21(sin⁡θ/2)4,{\displaystyle {\frac {d\omega }{d\Omega }}=\left({\frac {Z_{1}Z_{2}e^{2}}{4E_{0}}}\right)^{2}{\frac {1}{\left(\sin {\theta /2}\right)^{4}}},}^[2]

where Z1{\displaystyle Z_{1}} and Z2{\displaystyle Z_{2}} are the atomic numbers of the incident and target nuclei. This equation is written in the centre of mass frame of reference and is therefore not a function of the mass of either the projectile or the target nucleus.

 

I could go further, but what else could Wiki offer. 

Maybe that when two ions collide, they produce a photon; but that is my simple explanation.  Your thoughts are Sodium ions and Potassium ions.

Edited September 17, 2016 by greggK
adding disqualification

[ChrLzs]

Greggk, that is just a steaming pile of meaningless bullsh word salad, dressed up with very impressive looking equations that, in no way whatsoever, you have explained the relevance of.

As you are simply typing gibberish, I'll leave this train wreck of a thread to others.  Good luck with it, and let us know when your 'theory' (aka waffle) actually produces something useful and/or testable.

 

But I will say, you and trevor should get together.....

 

[aquatus1]

12 hours ago, greggK said:

Every thought produces a photon of light or do you not understand? Oh, and you disqualify yourself when say 'electrical impulses.'  Your brain has a battery.  Charged by the sun.  That is how you dream.

Hmm.  No.  Your brain does not have a battery, nor is it a battery.  Your brain is an electrochemical engine fueled by about 70% of your bodies ATP production.

Quote

 

A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of all forms of electromagnetic radiation including light.

So, light is just one form of photon.

 

Not quite.

"Quatum" is a label used to describe the smallest quantity of a physical thing that can still be identified as being that particular thing. For example (and bearing in mind that these are all macro examples, and quanta is only used for items below the Planck Constant) a single marble would be a quanta for a bag of marbles, however, we would not be talking about an actual physical marble, but rather, the measurement of a single marble.

A "photon" is a single quanta of visible light.  It is the smallest measurable amount of light.  It isn't an actual "thing", as in, the marble equivalent of a piece of light.  Not in the way that we, in the macro world think of "things" (it's a bit different in the quantum world).  A "photon gun" doesn't shoot photons.  Saying "Photon gun" would be more similar to saying a "6 rounds per second gun".

Quote

 

Considering the kinematics of the collision (that is, the conservation of momentum and kinetic energy), the energy E₁ of the scattered projectile is reduced from the initial energy E₀:

E1=k⋅E0,{\displaystyle E_{1}=k\cdot E_{0},}

where k is known as the kinematical factor, and

k=(m1cos⁡θ1±m22−m12(sin⁡θ1)2m1+m2)2,{\displaystyle k=\left({\frac {m_{1}\cos {\theta _{1}}\pm {\sqrt {m_{2}^{2}-m_{1}^{2}(\sin {\theta _{1}})^{2}}}}{m_{1}+m_{2}}}\right)^{2},}^[2]

where particle 1 is the projectile, particle 2 is the target nucleus, and θ1{\displaystyle \theta _{1}} is the scattering angle of the projectile in the laboratory frame of reference (that is, relative to the observer). The plus sign is taken when the mass of the projectile is less than that of the target, otherwise the minus sign is taken.

 

This is just an equation for movement and trajectory (or, it would be, if it wasn't riddled with HTML code).  The sole purpose of this is to lay the groundwork for an explanation of the theory behind a particular technique used in physical analysis called RBS (it is the mathematical "proof" of the theory, like when the teacher asks you to show your work).  It isn't actually a formula to show how photons are detected (there is a formula for that, but this one isn't it).

Quote

While this equation correctly determines the energy of the scattered projectile for any particular scattering angle (relative to the observer), it does not describe the probability of observing such an event. For that we need the differential cross-section of the backscattering event:

dωdΩ=(Z1Z2e24E0)21(sin⁡θ/2)4,{\displaystyle {\frac {d\omega }{d\Omega }}=\left({\frac {Z_{1}Z_{2}e^{2}}{4E_{0}}}\right)^{2}{\frac {1}{\left(\sin {\theta /2}\right)^{4}}},}^[2]

where Z1{\displaystyle Z_{1}} and Z2{\displaystyle Z_{2}} are the atomic numbers of the incident and target nuclei. This equation is written in the centre of mass frame of reference and is therefore not a function of the mass of either the projectile or the target nucleus.

Rutheford Backscattering Spectrometry is used to determine the properties of macro materials, not quantum states.

Quote

I could go further, but what else could Wiki offer. 

Maybe that when two ions collide, they produce a photon; but that is my simple explanation. 

 

It really isn't either your explanation, nor is it simple, regardless of the attempt to humble brag.  It is actual physics, and there are people on this board who understand the purpose of those equations (or what you attempted to copy/paste; did you even notice the HTML code, or did you just not understand the whole thing?)

Discussion forums are not good places to try to BS your way through.  That sort of thing works best in face-to-face discussions, with people who are probably not at your level.  In a situation where you do not know the level of your audience, and where your audience has access to both time to respond and to do a few minutes of research on data, you are just setting yourself up to be exposed.

 

[Rlyeh]

13 hours ago, greggK said:

Every thought produces a photon of light or do you not understand? Oh, and you disqualify yourself when say 'electrical impulses.'  Your brain has a battery.  Charged by the sun.  That is how you dream.

Is that some kind of Breatherian crap?

[+Nuclear Wessel]

On 8/1/2016 at 11:29 PM, trevorjobo said:

you guys take aim at me like one would expect anyone to do as if they were claiming their perpetual motion machine produces energy, yet its all misses, you guys haven't and don't have the time yet to think about what I'm saying is what I have to say to most of your responses. I don't just write things up on these forums without thinking if they logically make sense, that part of it took me four years and thousands of hours to conclude.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of what you are saying doesn't logically make sense and does not agree with what modern theories of physics indicate. I don't believe that it took you "four years" and "thousands of hours" to "conclude" that nonsense.

[trevor borocz johnson]

1 hour ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

The fact of the matter is that a lot of what you are saying doesn't logically make sense and does not agree with what modern theories of physics indicate. I don't believe that it took you "four years" and "thousands of hours" to "conclude" that nonsense.

Yes, but you have to understand, listening to a bunch of strangers whose intelligence you've tested tell you they know more in immoral words, that';s not what I'm looking for. But you wanted to get into an arguement? some how exciting for wolves.

[aquatus1]

I would agree with what you say, but probably not in the way you meant it.

[trevor borocz johnson]

By all means semantics are nonsense. So remind me because my feeble mind can't read all of what was said, what were some of the good points brought up by the science in the original post?