Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
trevor borocz johnson

How gravity works

215 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Rlyeh

So according to your explanation, quarks are dense space-time which squeezes space-time causing gravity. Do you see a problem with this? Quarks should be creating more quarks at an accelerating rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
9 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

So according to your explanation, quarks are dense space-time which squeezes space-time causing gravity. Do you see a problem with this? Quarks should be creating more quarks at an accelerating rate.

why should quarks be creating more quarks at an accelerating rate? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
9 hours ago, trevorjobo said:

oh yeah that old saying. Anyways to almost everyone who has responded, how dumb do you think I am?

[Emphasis mine.]

In my opinion, I agree with Emma_Acid and ChrLzs: That ``old saying'' applies to your posts.

If you say ``2+2 = 4'', you are correct. If you say ``2+2 = 5'', you are wrong. If you say ``2+2 = butternut squash'' you are not even wrong.

Of course in all cases you can claim to be correct, if you redefine ``5=4'' and ``butternut squash=4''... but why would you do that? Why not just use the same language that everyone else uses and understands?

The words ``quark'', ``dimension'', and ``gravity'' all mean something very specific to cosmologists. Unless you are radically redefining what those words mean, your explanations cannot possibly be even remotely correct - and just like stating ``2+2 = butternut squash'' simply seem to indicate you have no idea what you are talking about.

Do you think I don't already know there is no definitive explanation for gravity and that current thinking is that it leaks into our universe from particles or is caused by gravitino's? Almost all of you people need to respond with respect to what you have reoccurringly claimed as your side opposing mine (cough cough) and that is current established physics to which if you look the current understanding of the mechanism by which gravity's attraction occurs is CURRENTLY UNEXPLAINED, not bending or warping, not the ball on the cloth, not newton Einstein Pascal Da Vinci who else?

[Emphasis mine.]

I don't know any cosmologist or physicist who has ever made any claim even remotely similar to what you are stating. Can you provide a credible reference to that claim?

8 hours ago, trevorjobo said:

Sure, we can readily observe that gravity fields need no medium other then space-time to act on each other. If Einstein is correct that gravity warps space-time in a 2 dimensional way, then we can say that 3 dimensionally this would look like a squeezing on the grid of space-time. If the denser space-time of two gravity fields acts on each other, then we can observe that the particles that cause gravity, quarks, are particles of hyper dense space-time that transcend a squeezing force outward that dilutes itself into the vastness.

Einstein never claimed that gravity warps space-time in a 2-dimensional manner (nor has any other modern cosmologist). That is categorically, demonstrably, and empirically wrong.

If you arrived at this conclusion by reading about the ``rubber sheet analogy'' it just shows that you don't understand what analogy means.

If you arrived at this conclusion by reading about the ``holographic principle'', then I am slightly more impressed but you are still wrong. (And Einstein never even heard of the holographic principle, so I suspect this is not how you reached your conclusion.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
On 6/28/2016 at 8:29 AM, trevorjobo said:

when you die you enter into the next dimension of the infinitely divisible, the quark dimension where you become yourself with your previous lives circumstances and are a person's size inside a quark the same ratio as your size to the present universe. to say that quarks are point particles is like saying "for all we know, we can't divide smaller then a quark" which is rubbish.

Love it. If you are going to make "bold" claims, you might as well take it to the max !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
20 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

and just like stating ``2+2 = butternut squash'' simply seem to indicate you have no idea what you are talking about.

Just like I said earlier there's no shying away from some of you people on being sarcastic know it all's. I don't know where you get your information from and believe me, ha am beyond don't care,ha, but if you could just clarify in your omniscient understanding of physics which I obviously lack (obviously duh) what in my OP counters your well established deep understanding of the unexplained and anything to do with this topic?

Edited by trevorjobo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
2 minutes ago, trevorjobo said:

Just like I said earlier there's no shying away from some of you people on being sarcastic know it all's.

Seems to me that the sarcasm is now coming from the person who is pretending to know stuff, but has clearly demonstrated he has not even a basic grasp of the basics...

2 minutes ago, trevorjobo said:

I don't know where you get your information from

That's your problem.  Sepulchrave in particular has an exceptionally good knowledge of this topic and has demonstrated that time after time here at UM.  And frankly, he doesn't need to cite sources as your ignorant ramblings are so off base that even a quick visit to Wikipedia (if you could only understand what was being said) would be enough to show that you are posting incoherent rubbish...

2 minutes ago, trevorjobo said:

and believe me, ha am beyond don't care,ha

So, you are trolling?

2 minutes ago, trevorjobo said:

, but if you could just clarify in your omniscient understanding of physics which I obviously lack (obviously duh) what in my OP counters your well established deep understanding of the unexplained?

Sep and others have already explained adequately what is wrong with your waffle.  And yes, you do obviously lack even basic understanding.  Nothing in your OP is worthy of wasting further time.

 

Go on, ask me what I really think.  And ask yourself, Trev, why do you get similar responses wherever you post this tripe?  It could be that you are an undiscovered genius who will, one day, turn physics on its head... but there's another explanation that is 100% more likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
31 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Sep and others have already explained adequately what is wrong with your waffle.

sweet so totally write off your responses as sarcastic know it allism then I won't even read what you guys say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
2 hours ago, trevorjobo said:

Just like I said earlier there's no shying away from some of you people on being sarcastic know it all's. I don't know where you get your information from and believe me, ha am beyond don't care,ha, but if you could just clarify in your omniscient understanding of physics which I obviously lack (obviously duh) what in my OP counters your well established deep understanding of the unexplained and anything to do with this topic?

I don't have omniscient understanding of physics and never made and such claim. I do have a Ph.D. in physics, I suppose you can read into that whatever you like.

Ok, from your OP, point by point:

  1. "Space, which I refer to as void, and time which I refer to as energy," - time and energy are conjugate variables. The can (and often are) related, but definitively cannot be equal.
  2. "A universe or quark is then composed of cubic void blocks..." - there is no rational reason for any fundamental object to be cubic.
  3. "...energy lining those void blocks in a cubic honeycomb symmetry." - I interpret "honeycomb symmetry" to mean a "2D hexagonal lattice", and there is no way of tiling cubes in a 2D hexagonal lattice which still preserves the cube as the fundamental building block. (In the sense of a Bravais lattice, at least; and if you aren't talking about those then what are you talking about?)
  4. "A Quark is a super dense, super small, area of space-time." - this is unlike every definition of a quark that I have ever heard of, and seems to be in contradiction to your earlier statements which indicate that space-time is everything. If space-time is everything, how can one area be more or less dense than another?
  5. "An area of denser space-time will put a transcendent squeezing or density in the surrounding space-time it exists in. Blocks surrounding the quark are squeezed smaller by the super dense dimension of the quark." - Rlyeh also commented on this; this would lead to positive feedback and collapse the entire Universe. If a denser area of space-time makes adjacent areas denser, then how does this process ever stop?
  6. "The number of quarks in a human body is 1.345 x 10^29." - It seems like you obtained this number by finding the number of quarks in 75 kg of matter. However since adults vary considerably in mass (I know some women who are less than 50 kg, and some men who are over 100 kg), how can you state the number of quarks with 3 decimals of precision?
  7. "The area in which all the quarks of the earth would occupy if only quarks were to fill a region is a sphere with a diameter of .7 inches." - It seems like you obtained this number by calculating the Schwarzschild radius of the earth. How do you justify this as being the size of tightly packed quarks? I thought quarks were cubic and somehow arranged in a hexagonal pattern - why is the Schwarzschild radius (which is spherical) relevant here?
  8. "The limits of the gravitational boundaries of a single quark is of an inch to a sphere with a radius of up to four million miles." - What is the principle that would confine the range of action to these seemingly arbitrary limits? All fundamental forces that I know are either infinite or have asymptotic freedom.
  9. "It is at this boundary to a single quark that its influence on space-time seizes and it can go back to its regular state." - I don't understand what this means. What is the "regular state" of a quark? How does an influence "seize" and what does that mean?
  10. "For the nucleus of a hydrogen atom which contains six quarks, three in its neutron and three in its proton" - that is deuterium, almost all hydrogen in existence (99.98%) has just a single proton in the nucleus.
  11. "...influence of gravity and compressed space-time returns to its regular state may ‘wobble’ between several different boundaries in accordance with the combination of quark spins." - Earlier you claimed that a quark was a cubic void block; how does it also have a spin?
  12. "These different boundaries are what make up the different electron shells that an atom can have." - The potential filling of the electron shells are identical for every atom (the energy and radii of these shells depends on the nucleus and ionization state, etc.). Furthermore the electron shells can be derived directly from the Schrodinger equation for electrons only, without requiring any understanding of nuclear structure.
  13. "...and its inactive form is a weak energy dimension... This weaker energy dimension is like a grid and has the property of flowing." - What does "weak energy dimension" mean? Why and how is it "weak", and relative to what? (EM radiation somehow?) How can a dimension behave like a grid, and how can it flow? Where does it flow from and where does it flow to?
  14. "The weaker energy dimension of empty space is a lining between the blocks of empty space void. It would resemble something like the lines on a sheet of graph paper where the white blocks on the sheet are the units of empty space void." - If it exists as you describe then it is not a dimension. Additional dimensions add to the space, they don't fill in gaps.
  15. "Electromagnetic radiation is a stress on this weaker dimensional energy of empty space." - How is "stress" different than "squeezing"? Previously you defined "squeezing" as generating gravity, but light is obviously not gravitational. How does this stress propagate in only one direction?
  16. "Magnetism is a property of the flowing of the empty space energy dimension." - So if radiation is "stress" and magnetism is "flowing", how can one derive Maxwell's equations?
  17. "In a ferromagnetic material all the electrons orbit in the same direction." - I thought electrons were simply a "slice of energy", how do they orbit? Secondly, the electrons in a ferromagnetic material definitely do not all orbit in the same direction.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

May I ask if you have had your theories published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  They do seem hair-brained at first glance, I gotta say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
19 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

May I ask if you have had your theories published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  They do seem hair-brained at first glance, I gotta say.

Spelling Police Report : "hare-brained"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
3 hours ago, trevorjobo said:

why should quarks be creating more quarks at an accelerating rate? 

Didn't you say quarks squeeze space?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton
26 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Spelling Police Report : "hare-brained"

"Correcting" people's spelling and so on is a violation of this web site's rules.  I'm not going to bother reporting it though because we all know what sort of person you are and it would just waste time.  People do make typos from time to time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
8 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Didn't you say quarks squeeze space?

yeah the quark squeezes the surrounding space-time it exists in to the density of the quark at the wall of the quark, and again believe me I could easily call me out on saying ha that anyways at the wall of the quark but as you expand further away from the quark the squeezing force is diluted and weakened as you get further away. Evidentally I estimated the area of a quarks influence on space-time this way to be a trillion times its width to the border where space-time returns to a normal state.

Edited by trevorjobo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Wow, trevor must be a used car salesman, I have never heard such convincing argumentation !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
1 hour ago, trevorjobo said:

yeah the quark squeezes the surrounding space-time it exists in to the density of the quark at the wall of the quark, and again believe me I could easily call me out on saying ha that anyways at the wall of the quark but as you expand further away from the quark the squeezing force is diluted and weakened as you get further away. Evidentally I estimated the area of a quarks influence on space-time this way to be a trillion times its width to the border where space-time returns to a normal state.

"A Quark is a super dense, super small, area of space-time."

If the space-time is around the quark is compressed to the same density of the quark this should create more quarks, which then create even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
31 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

If the space-time is around the quark is compressed to the same density of the quark this should create more quarks, which then create even more.

The space-time of the quark is a different density then the space-time of the universe. The universe and the quark are both permanently fixed in density, size and shape. The squeezing on space-time caused by the quark is caused by the quark, an actual object, it can move around and spin and things, the space-time that is right at the wall of the quark is just almost as dense but slightly weaker but exists as a whole,or in composite parts forming a whole, that is the universe, 

So the space-time just outside the wall of the quark creates a quark like environment but then it shades out as the gravity field gets weaker, the universe that the space-time belongs to stays part of a whole.

Edited by trevorjobo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

This thread is a warning to others not to fall down (or be sucked into) anyone else's rabbit-hole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
44 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

This thread is a warning to others not to fall down (or be sucked into) anyone else's rabbit-hole.

Indeed.  Now, how do I get this trainwreck thread off my "Content I Posted In" list?  Even seeing it makes me lose IQ points..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
On ‎23‎/‎06‎/‎2016 at 1:52 AM, trevorjobo said:

Theoretical Physics
By Trevor Borocz Johnson

 

A universe and a quark are composed of the same substance that is Space-time and have the same properties, properties like fusion in stars, the periodic table, the chemistry for life, nature etc.. Space, which I refer to as void, and time which I refer to as energy, are woven together to form a universe or a quark. A universe or quark is then composed of cubic void blocks and energy lining those void blocks in a cubic honeycomb symmetry. A universe or quark is shaped like a cube. 

A Quark is a super dense, super small, area of space-time. An area of denser space-time will put a transcendent squeezing or density in the surrounding space-time it exists in. Blocks surrounding the quark are squeezed smaller by the super dense dimension of the quark. A body such as a planet creates a field of these denser void blocks because of the combined gravity field of the astronomical number of quarks in the planet. A quark passing by will “fall” into this field as it is attracted to the region of denser void which only increases the closer you are to the planet. 

Just like the super dense space-time of the quark puts a transcendent squeezing effect on the surrounding space-time its in, so too does the planet's gravity field have this effect on the edge of the quarks gravity field. When the edge of the gravity field of the quark touches the gravity field of the planet, the part of the outer layer touching the planet's gravity field becomes as dense as the outer layer of the planet's gravity field. The space time of the quarks gravity field that is squeezed becomes smaller in size, the quark and its gravity field then experience momentum in the direction of the squeezing, each successive layer of the planet's gravity field pulling it in faster. The denser space which increases the closer to the planet, has the more powerful attraction  force and the quark is pulled in that direction giving it momentum energy. The quark and the planet both pull on each other and effect one another in ratio to their size. 

If a body with a gravity field loses weight or during an object’s momentum on the surface of said body The field in its entirety decreases, and the units of empty space void expand slightly in a wave that perpetuates outward from the object. This is what creates gravity waves.

The number of quarks in a human body is 1.345 x 10^29. The area in which all the quarks of the earth would occupy if only quarks were to fill a region is a sphere with a diameter of .7 inches. That puts the weight of the earth into a teaspoon. In comparison to the size of the gravity field they create from there desolate existence it is clear that a quark has a much greater role in the universe then that of its physical boundaries. The limits of the gravitational boundaries of a single quark is of an inch to a sphere with a radius of up to four million miles. It is at this boundary to a single quark that its influence on space-time seizes and it can go back to its regular state. That is for a single quark. For the nucleus of a hydrogen atom which contains six quarks, three in its neutron and three in its proton, the region of boundary where the influence of gravity and compressed space-time returns to its regular state may ‘wobble’ between several different boundaries in accordance with the combination of quark spins. These different boundaries are what make up the different electron shells that an atom can have. From here at these boundaries, the atom’s retain the electron’s that compose their essence.  An electron then is simply a slice of energy whose amount is calculated by the edge of the region of space that is affected by an atom’s gravity. 

The strong form of energy is electromagnetic radiation(EMR) and electrons, and its inactive form is a weak energy dimension, the time of space-time. This weaker energy dimension is like a grid and has the property of flowing. The weaker energy dimension of empty space is a lining between the blocks of empty space void. It would resemble something like the lines on a sheet of graph paper where the white blocks on the sheet are the units of empty space void.

Electromagnetic radiation is a stress on this weaker dimensional energy of empty space. The stress gives energy and electrons ‘weight’ by squeezing on the dimensional void of space-time its in creating the effect of gravity. The squeezing stress itself is invisible which can be observed by holding a flashlight or LED behind one’s head and pointing it in the direction of sight in the dark. Anything within the region of squeezing will become illuminated but space itself will remain dark. In a sunlit room each illuminated object will add its own hue of coloration to the overall tension in the room which can be observed by holding a white sheet of paper in the center of the room. The sheet of paper will reflect the mixture of colorations that are present in the tension of empty space and changes as you move it around.

Magnetism is a property of the flowing of the empty space energy dimension. In a ferromagnetic material all the electrons orbit in the same direction. This creates a fan like churning of the empty space energy dimension. A magnetic field is then stirred up like wind through fan blades where one side of the material, south, is the draw for the fan, and the other side of the material, north, is the region that the ‘air’ would fill. Thusly two north ends repel each other and so do two southern ends.  When you move the magnet around you change the region of empty space which it has an effect on.

To get straight to the point gravity is the least understood of the 4 forces.

With us recently detecting gravity waves it will likely lead to us pinning down an atomic particle to account for the force in a few decades time. But with the current state of affairs there is no atomic particle in the standard model which has been detected to account for it.

Even worse the works of Newton and Einstein don't explain how gravity works at very small distances or at very large (meaning both Classical and Relativistic mechanics are flawed). With the later, the large distances, there are disagreements over observational evidence with the rotation speeds of galaxies. Some think it means we dont understand gravity on huge scales while some are trying to pass it off as being caused by dark matter. That strange form of matter has not been detected and experiments designed to reveal its presence have all returned empty handed. Although it should be pointed out it is still early days with this.

Watching the waves in the ocean you can see them combine and cancel each other out leading to areas of flatness or unusually large peaks and troughs. If gravity is a wave what happens when gravity waves overlap? Do they cancel each other out or combine? If they combine is it reasonable to assume there are areas of space with vastly strong gravity wells violating relativity? Like a sweet spot between two black holes that are close to each other? Give it 100 years and we might figure out we can travel faster than light or travel back in time from this.

As it currently is with our understanding or gravity there is something obviously wrong because you can get gravity to do work without the strength of gravity from the involved objects declining. That means with our current understanding of the force that you could build a perpetual motion machine it. That is if you could move planets around, etc, to create the mechanism at the scale that you could use to perform a meaningful amount of work.

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
1 hour ago, RabidMongoose said:

Watching the waves in the ocean you can see them combine and cancel each other out leading to areas of flatness or unusually large peaks and troughs. If gravity is a wave what happens when gravity waves overlap? Do they cancel each other out or combine? If they combine is it reasonable to assume there are areas of space with vastly strong gravity wells violating relativity? Like a sweet spot between two black holes that are close to each other? Give it 100 years and we might figure out we can travel faster than light or travel back in time from this.

Yes, gravity waves would combine creating areas of constructive and destructive interference.

There will not be a ``sweet spot'' between two black holes, because the underlying static gravitational fields always combine constructively (or, rather, the ``sweet spot'' will be negligible). In other words, the waves will just be small oscillations in the much larger background gravitational well of the black hole.

This is somewhat in contrast to electromagnetic waves: EM waves are partly so significant because the constant, background E field is usually zero since positive and negative charges cancel each other out. Away from large permanent magnets or active electric circuits the only significant EM effect is from EM waves.

However there does not seem to be such a thing as ``negative mass'', and it certainly is not common in our region of the Universe, so nothing cancels out the background constant G field.

As it currently is with our understanding or gravity there is something obviously wrong because you can get gravity to do work without the strength of gravity from the involved objects declining. That means with our current understanding of the force that you could build a perpetual motion machine it. That is if you could move planets around, etc, to create the mechanism at the scale that you could use to perform a meaningful amount of work.

That is not true. Gravity is a conservative force and you cannot use it for perpetual motion of the first kind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
1 hour ago, sepulchrave said:

Yes, gravity waves would combine creating areas of constructive and destructive interference.

There will not be a ``sweet spot'' between two black holes, because the underlying static gravitational fields always combine constructively (or, rather, the ``sweet spot'' will be negligible). In other words, the waves will just be small oscillations in the much larger background gravitational well of the black hole.

This is somewhat in contrast to electromagnetic waves: EM waves are partly so significant because the constant, background E field is usually zero since positive and negative charges cancel each other out. Away from large permanent magnets or active electric circuits the only significant EM effect is from EM waves.

However there does not seem to be such a thing as ``negative mass'', and it certainly is not common in our region of the Universe, so nothing cancels out the background constant G field.

That is not true. Gravity is a conservative force and you cannot use it for perpetual motion of the first kind.

With the gravity wave detector they didn't announce if gravity waves have negative troughs or just troughs. I don't think its advanced enough to detect negative troughs. Either way I was naughty there as I assumed they did in order to have gravity waves cancelling each other out. That may not be the case, all gravity waves may add together if the troughs dont dip below zero. You are also being naughty in your above comments as there's a lot of assumptions in there of how you expect gravity waves to work. We don't dont if they do or dont work like that either.

With the current understanding of gravity making perpetual motion possible I would disagree with you. Lets say we have a comet from deep space getting pulled into the Solar System by the Sun. That is work done yet the strength of gravity doesn't decrease. If it did then when we look at the size of stars and do calculations it would be impossible to come up with some kind of gravity constant. The reason? Each stars history is unique meaning some may have deflected the course of 1000 comets over their lives while some might have done it too millions. In simple terms the strength of gravity would have degraded faster for some stars than for others.

As our current understanding of gravity says its caused by mass curving space time it means the same mass travelling at the same speed always curves space-time by the same amount. Regardless of what work it has done. Where is the work done over time being taken into account in Einstein's equations? It isn't. Hence his equations allow perpetual motion using gravity.

Whether gravity can actually do perpetual motion or Einstein's equations are wrong is the point. I actually argue that his equations are wrong, or incomplete. Based on this and other problems with it namely dark matter. I dont actually personally believe perpetual motion is possible.

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
7 hours ago, trevorjobo said:

The space-time of the quark is a different density then the space-time of the universe. The universe and the quark are both permanently fixed in density, size and shape. The squeezing on space-time caused by the quark is caused by the quark, an actual object, it can move around and spin and things, the space-time that is right at the wall of the quark is just almost as dense but slightly weaker but exists as a whole,or in composite parts forming a whole, that is the universe, 

So the space-time just outside the wall of the quark creates a quark like environment but then it shades out as the gravity field gets weaker, the universe that the space-time belongs to stays part of a whole.

Trevor,

While I applaud your desire to question and investigate, it is also incumbent on any student to learn what has already been discovered before positing "new things". Science is a discipline whereby the new is generally built upon the old. It rarely happens that the old will be completely discarded, as scientific discovery is built upon observations.

Quarks are not "comprised of space-time". They are fundamental particles - essentially tiny bundles of energy that carry with them various properties (spin, charge, etc) - and when combined in various ways form other particles such as protons and neurons (hadrons). Quarks have no "walls", and it would be rather interesting to understand what the "walls" of your imagined quarks were comprised of anyway.

I would strongly recommend you study physics - particularly particle physics - to a greater depth before you attempt to posit new theories. This is not because you necessarily need a degree, but because you need to understand why what you propose is a better explanation than what others have proposed before you. If, after studying the orthodoxy, you discover that what you propose is not a better explanation, then perhaps that might lead you to understand why your proposal is incorrect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
10 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

With the gravity wave detector they didn't announce if gravity waves have negative troughs or just troughs. I don't think its advanced enough to detect negative troughs. Either way I was naughty there as I assumed they did in order to have gravity waves cancelling each other out. That may not be the case, all gravity waves may add together if the troughs dont dip below zero. You are also being naughty in your above comments as there's a lot of assumptions in there of how you expect gravity waves to work. We don't dont if they do or dont work like that either.

Gravitational waves do have ``negative troughs'' in a similar sense to electromagnetic waves: A ``negative trough'' just means the field is pointing in the opposite direction of a ``positive trough'', and how you define ``negative'' and ``positive'' is arbitrary. The wave equation for gravitational waves involves second derivatives in both time- and space-coordinates, so in the simple situation of flat space far from the source the wave will be sinusoidal just like EM waves in similar situations. (Of course the polarization of gravitational waves is more complex than EM waves, see the above-linked wiki article for more details.)

10 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

With the current understanding of gravity making perpetual motion possible I would disagree with you. Lets say we have a comet from deep space getting pulled into the Solar System by the Sun. That is work done yet the strength of gravity doesn't decrease. If it did then when we look at the size of stars and do calculations it would be impossible to come up with some kind of gravity constant. The reason? Each stars history is unique meaning some may have deflected the course of 1000 comets over their lives while some might have done it too millions. In simple terms the strength of gravity would have degraded faster for some stars than for others.

As our current understanding of gravity says its caused by mass curving space time it means the same mass travelling at the same speed always curves space-time by the same amount. Regardless of what work it has done. Where is the work done over time being taken into account in Einstein's equations? It isn't. Hence his equations allow perpetual motion using gravity.

Whether gravity can actually do perpetual motion or Einstein's equations are wrong is the point. I actually argue that his equations are wrong, or incomplete. Based on this and other problems with it namely dark matter. I dont actually personally believe perpetual motion is possible.

The Sun will do work on the comet. The strength of gravity does not decrease, and why should it? The gravitational potential energy of the comet decreases (goes more negative) the closer the comet gets to the Sun.

As the comet gets pulled towards the sun, the kinetic energy of the comet increases. In the absence of friction (solar wind, dust clouds, etc.) the gain in kinetic energy will exactly balance the loss of potential energy. This is a perpetual motion machine of the third kind; it does not violate any laws of physics or thermodynamics. Assuming the comet isn't falling directly towards the Sun, it will orbit the Sun forever. (Also assuming there are no other planets/comets to screw up that orbit.)

If there is friction (and there probably is some) then the gain in kinetic energy will be less than the loss of potential energy, and the comet's orbit will slowly spiral into the Sun. If we want to save the comet we must do work (with a spaceship or something) to drag the comet further from the Sun.

Einstein's equations, like other mechanical equations (Newton's law, Schrodinger's equation, Dirac's equation, etc.) deal with perfectly elastic and reversible systems. ``Work done over time'' is taken into account, because the assumption is that mechanical energy is never lost (due to friction or deformations). It is not too difficult to include effects from friction and/or deformations, but these effects are usually unique to the particular situation and must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
11 hours ago, Leonardo said:

Quarks are not "comprised of space-time"

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

 

56 minutes 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? 

I'm glad that now you're in the more discussionary phase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.