The explanation of the interrelation between mass and gravity is not any more helpful than explaining magnetism as molecules lining-up in a mass or like-charges repel and unlike-charges attract.
Everything I read is like that! It does not explain the mechanisms; but how they work.
It is like asking someone what is time. They start explaining how a time-piece works: not what time is.
E.g. What is a charge on an electron or a proton? The mention of quarks or strings do not do it. Their presence may be the cause; but how do they cause it?
With regards to gravity --- how is the effect of gravity caused by the presence of mass?

The explanation of the interrelation between mass and gravity is not any more helpful than explaining magnetism as molecules lining-up in a mass or like-charges repel and unlike-charges attract.
Everything I read is like that! It does not explain the mechanisms; but how they work.
It is like asking someone what is time. They start explaining how a time-piece works: not what time is.
E.g. What is a charge on an electron or a proton? The mention of quarks or strings do not do it. Their presence may be the cause; but how do they cause it?
With regards to gravity --- how is the effect of gravity caused by the presence of mass?

Hi Zanderbaxa,


Other than a mass telling space time how to curve and curved space time telling matter how to behave I don't know.

On a philosophical level perhaps you are asking how the relationship between cause and effect is possible.


Tut

This seems more Meta-physical than physical!

This seems more Meta-physical than physical!


Could be.

When it comes to string theory I don't believe they are doing science. I am sure they are doing metaphysics.

TUt

I have a problem with SR, too. Like the explanation for simultaneity is inconsistent with the idea that the speed of light for all observers regardless of their motion. Also, each point in a wave has the same velocity as the propagation, even though particles of the medium does not travel in the direction of propagation. As the source moves, the wave front also moves. Wave fronts can be created by interupting the wave (e.g. a rotating disc with a hole in front of a light beam). If light speed did not vary, red-shift spectroscopy would not exit. I have thought a lot about this; but there is not enough room here.

I have a problem with SR, too. Like the explanation for simultaneity is inconsistent with the idea that the speed of light for all observers regardless of their motion.

How so? What "explanation for simultaneity" are you referring to?


Also, each point in a wave has the same velocity as the propagation, even though particles of the medium does not travel in the direction of propagation.

Not sure what you're getting at, but this statement is generally not true. The velocity of an individual point in a medium that has a wave propogating through it is in general different than the velocity of the wave propagation. For example consider sound waves - the velocity of propagation of a sound wave in air is about 1000 ft/sec, yet the individual air molecules that make up the medium do not themselves move anywhere near that fast.


As the source moves, the wave front also moves. Wave fronts can be created by interupting the wave (e.g., a rotating disc with a hole in front of a light beam). If light speed did not vary, red-shift spectroscopy would not exit.

Absolutely incorrect. By your reasoning the Doppler effect which we experience when we hear the siren of a passing ambulance would require that the speed of sound in air not be constant, but it is. I suggest you review this: Doppler effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect) and note that it all works with waves that move at a constant velocity.

Two events happening at the same moment and arriving at the observer at different times. A classic explanation is: two poles situated light years apart alongside a set of tracks. As a train approaches the mid distance between the poles near the speed o light, lightning strikes both poles. Because the train is traveling on the tracks, the pole the train is approaching arrives at the observer first. This is inconsistent with the idea that light travels at the same speed to all observers regardless of the motion of source or observer. Mathematically,it can be easily shown that observed frequency is proportional to frequency. If the observer is directly in front of the source (like s siren), the observed frequency is constant. If the observer is alongside the source the velocity to the observer varies as cot(a)csc(a)/lamda where "a" is the varying angle between the source and the observer. If there is no change in velocity there is no change in frequency. This is that same for the velocity of light. I have a few more inconsistencies.

Two events happening at the same moment and arriving at the observer at different times. A classic explanation is: two poles situated light years apart alongside a set of tracks. As a train approaches the mid distance between the poles near the speed o light, lightning strikes both poles. Because the train is traveling on the tracks, the pole the train is approaching arrives at the observer first. This is inconsistent with the idea that light travels at the same speed to all observers regardless of the motion of source or observer.

You still haven't shown any inconsistency here. Two events happening at the same moment as perceived by one obeserver may appear to not be simultaneous to a second observer. For the observer on the train to perceive that the lightning hit the pole in front before the pole in back, while the observer on the ground sees the lightnong striking both poles simultaneously, does not require that the two observers measure a different speed of light.


Mathematically,it can be easily shown that observed frequency is proportional to frequency. If the observer is directly infront of the source (like s siren), the observed frequency is constant. If the observer is alongside the source the velocity to the observer varies as cot(a)csc(a)/lamda where "a" is the varying angle between the source and the observer. If there is no change in velocity there is no change in frequency. This is that same for the velocity of light.

You're going to have to work on this one, because the way you describe it is wrong:
1. "observed frequency is proportional to frequency" - is that really what you meant to write?
2. velocity "varies as cot(a)csc(a)/lamda" - please show how you derived this. The units doen't work out, and if you try a few values of 'a' you get crazy results. For example for 'a' = 0 you get:


v = \frac {cos(a)}{\sin^2(a) \lambda} = \infty


Obviously this equation of yours needs work. The perceived frequency of sound for the observer on the ground is


f = (1- \frac {v_r} c)f_0


where v_r = the relative velocity of the two observers - it's a negative number if the source is approaching the observer and positive if moving away. Using your angle 'a' notation, if v_s is the velocity of the source and the obserever is stationary:


v_r = v_s \cos(a)



I have a few more inconsistencies.

You haven't provided one yet.

I have trouble getting links and special characters to sow correctly. So if you want a CAD and math representation I will have to give you an http://www/... link for a PDF document.

http://www.nykkyo.byethost5.com/doppler.pdf

http://nykkyo.byethost5.com/doppler.pdf

http://nykkyo.byethost5.com/doppler.pdf

Link doesn't work.

I tried attaching it here

There are at least three significant errors in your attachment. Before getting into the details, note the graph you present is clearly incorrect, which provides a strong clue that there are errors. Note that it predicts that it's impossible to hear an ambulance siren approaching you. You say that the frequency of the sound as the source approaches you goes "beyond the hearing range" as the angle \theta goes to \pi/2. Actually the graph says it goes all the way to infinity. And that this happens even if V_s is very small. Consequently - your graph says that it's impossible to hear a car passing you at, say, 30 MPH. Obviously this is not correct.

So given the clearly incorrect results let's see where the errors in your math are. There are three that I see:

1. The relative velocity of the source as seen by the observer is V_o = V_s \cos \theta , not
V_s \sec \theta . Your formula goes to infinity at \theta = \pi/2 when clearly it should go to zero (as a source passes you for a brief instant it is neither approaching nor receding - so it's relative velocity is 0). Hence it's clear that the secant term is incorrect.

2. The velocity of the wave front is set by the properties of the medium (air, in the case of sound), NOT by the speed of the source. So your equation f_o = (V_s/\lambda) sec \theta is not right on two counts - first because the secant tem is incorrect and second because of your incorrect assumption that the velocity of the wave front is dependent on the velocity of the source.

3. Third error is in coming up with the function \sec(x) + \tan(x)\sec(x) You don't indicate why you think it appropriate to add together what you claim are the relative velocity and relative frequency.

Back in post #6 of this thread I had directed you to a web site that demonstrates the Doppler effect pretty clearly - did you look at at that, and if so do you have any questions about it? I had also posted a formula in post #8 for frequency as measured by the observer as determined by the source frequency and relative velocity - again, have you read it?

f+dela-x is appropriate. The derivative of f (delta-x) is sec(x)tan\n(x)! Are you implying f=1/T
(by definition) is wrong? Because f tends to infinity as T goes to zero? Or black holes do not exist
because their mass is infinite and matter entering its horizon does not disappear? Or singularities are fictitious (in complex variable theory, in wave filters) because at that poinbt f is 1/0?

You are confusing so many things that it's going to be difficult to untangle.

1. Your sec(x) function is wrong, as shown earlier. Yes, the derivative of sex(x) is sec(x)tan(x), but that simply shows that you know how to take the derivative of the wrong function.

2. Yes f=1/T, where T is defined as the period of the wave. But no, f does not go to infinity, because T does not go to zero unless the source velocity is equal to the speed of sound. When a jet airplane travels at the speed of sound in essence all the sound waves pile on top of each other creating a discontinuity that we perceive as the sonic boom. But your PDF document claims that sounds from all objects create sonic booms independent of how fast they are traveling. Don't you see that that's just plain wrong?

3. Your past few posts have been all about Doppler effects for non-relativistic conditions, such as sound waves in air. Please do not start throwing in issues about black holes as that just confuses things. Let's get the Doppler effect understood for the simple case of sound waves in air before worrying about how gravity can affect light waves. But... no, the mass of a black hole is not infinite.

You have not as yet responded as to whether you agree or not with posts #6 or #8.

I am not just throwing black holes... Red-Shift is touted as similar to Doppler shift, is that also confusing?

I think I figured it out. Matter displaces an elastic medium (like quantum foam) and the restoring force (trying to compressing the matter) is gravity (like a rock submerged in water).

The task of science is to describe the WHAT question, not HOW question. Hence,science can only answer what happenes when there is gravity (they follow the rule of gravity)

Science attempts to answer a modifyied HOW question, as in "WHAT makes gravity", which is a modified version of "HOW is gravity made", but it won't really work out.

In the last century, I read in the book, title translates to "consequence of critical scientific theory" that the what question was "made cheaper" by high thinking school of scientists, who attempted to hit the "how" question. Indeed they were of extraordinary genius, but then, science left it's own definition and got merged with philosophy.

I myself have an undergraduate degree in astrophysics, and geology (dual program), so I guess I am lucky enough to compare the science that engages with "how" question (cosmology, sr, gr ) and the "what" question (what animal is that fossil)...

I think we need some radical exploratory discovery, to handle the manifestation question.

I know this question does not answer "how gravity is manifested", but it would be nice to have a more well formed question.

Assuming you wanted to ask "What happens when a mass is placed": The answer is, spacetime bends. The mass changes the geodesics (geodesics are the lines a non-accelerating particle would follow, a generalization of straight line, geodesic to relativity, as straightlines to first law) to a curved shape. All particles now must follow the curved geodesic. A particle that followes a curved path near a massive object, is accelerating according to 1st law, which you see as the "action of gravity"

This explanation indeed consists of holes, which are not quite unambiguously solved.

Geodesics do follow contours but the contours of space are strains on space as a result of mass displacing it. The bigger the mass the farther reaching the deformation: thus, masses far apart interact. For the most part quantum theory explains subatomic interactions; but when it goes meta-physical (e.g. Schrodinger's cat, entanglement and conscientiousness influencing measurements) it is going off track,

Geodesics do follow contours but the contours of space are strains on space as a result of mass displacing it. The bigger the mass the farther reaching the deformation: thus, masses far apart interact. For the most part quantum theory explains subatomic interactions; but when it goes meta-physical (e.g., Schrodinger's cat, entanglement and conscientiousness influencing measurements) it is going off track,

Hi Zanderbaxa,

The problem with Schrodinger's cat is that consciousness is a prerequisite for the experiment. The other problem being that no one really knows what consciousness is. By the way, cat lovers need not fear as no cats were harmed in this experiment.

For the purpose of this experiment consciousness is taken to mean observation. How do we justify the connection between quantum and consciousness? With great difficulty when it comes a purely scientific explanation.

The physicist/philosopher John Wheeler said something along the lines of there is no quantum phenomenon until it is registered phenomenon. Somehow we seem to live in a participatory universe.

Tut

That would imply the universe is here for us. What we see may be our construction. That is getting very close to religion.

How do we justify the connection between quantum and consciousness?

We do not do that.That is not the task of science.

Science has a few well defined,yet largely ignored by modern science "boundaries", known as axioms.

The most prominent ones are:
Axiom of falsifiability : Any scientific statement, should be counterable at least with a Gedankenexperiment. The idea that quantum mechanics is presenting that the charm number, or the abcd number of abcd type particle is constant, and then there is a limit of what can be observed, that makes it conflicting with the interest of science

Axiom of incompleteness: A set of statements will always contain one statement which can not be proven with the statements of the same set alone. Any stattement of the state can be this "unprovable statement", there is no preference. But people are misusing it, to find a "ultimate", non falsifiable, non provable theory of everything. These are the events when things become religion or worse, cult.

Observations are what which decides the difference between truth and false.

A statement is true if and only if it stand some test. Different branches apply different tests. Before QM, GR etc, experiments were taken as the standard form of test, but again it was an arbitrary standard, from a POV of symbolic logic, but it was one which could not be largely misused.

Nowadays, having symbolic logic itself as the test, a limit on observations, and the notion that the theory is valid, because it can't be tested yet is used to explain other observations has one big loophole. It can be misused.

When Fresnel predicted the diffraction of light waves by sphere, it was a theoretical work, and it ALL it's consequences (not predictions, which is the final statement from a series of consequences) were put into test, which stood the tests. But when Darwin presented his evolution theory, the experimental results of the comparison of human brain and gorilla brain was misused. Only the similarities were put to support the claim, only the dissimilarities were put to unsupport it.

The good thing of Darwin, was again falsifiability. Indeed it is falsified, and in some cases the theory of adopting to new environments are accepted, rather than natural selection. However, the reasoning of modern physics, which denies to look for new clarifications, and assert that all clarification must start with Einstein / the dogmas QM - is sickening

I agree with you. It seems that science got off track with Einstein: Especially with mind-experiments used to prove further assumptions and speculations. Hubble's constant is nothing special. Expansion and acceleration of objects, on the surface of a sphere, (as it expands) is normal. I also have a problem with the explanation of electro-magnetic-waves; they are not recursive interactions of electric and magnetic fields.

Einstein, 50% is a myth, creation of media hypes created at the backdrop of the war. I personally think, he was hyped more than his genius as a symbol against Germany.

50% is true genius. And for that genius, he got his noble prize. Einstein did not get his nobel prize for relativity, but for his works on photo-electric emissions. His contemporaries realized that :)

Electronic, and magenitc fields obey the same equations, experimentally shown, with the theory itself not putting a limit on the observation <-- which is why that is more on scientific grounds than relativity. Therefore, it is speculated that they have a common origin. Maxwells theory does NOT speculate what the origin is, QM does: QM says it is photon. Then people, at least I personally, again get in trouble with the concepts.

Again I agree, though I suspect his so-called genius. Gravity is similar to water. Even though a mass displaces the water the mass can still move in the water. If the medium around a star is displaced by the mass of the star, the star can still be moving in space, in water a moving mass will create a drag-force. Does a star moving in space create a drag-force? How would we detect that force? Gravity is not an external force that warps space. Mass is embedded in space. Therefore its presence in space is a displacement of space, not an external force applied to space. And time does not enter, except as a parameter of movement.
Time is a concept. It is the number of times a periodic event occurs. Looking back or forward when there were no objects, there was still time; because our concept of time is a projection of events. Events do not have to be objects or acts upon object. Events can be occurrences in the same space. During those times there were no conceivers (of which we know), so there was no time. Intervals between events the and now are projrctions, not nreality.
Sure: Einstein postulated time as a dimension; but that was a flaw. For one, calculating the distance between two points require all units under the radical to have the same units ( ) but time is not length. The way around it is to multiply time be a velocity ( ) to get length. That is an arbitrary flaw in logic. His field equations (utilizing tensors) is basically an arcane use of mathematics to confuse us and indicate reality as a complex object. Another is his notion of light. Electro-magnetic-waves are not recursive interactions of electric and magnetic fields.