Check out some similar questions!

nykkyo · Aug 4, 2011, 01:48 AM

Are quantized, similar to electrons around the nucleus of an aton?

ebaines · Aug 4, 2011, 10:42 AM

I'm not familiar with term "gravity shells" - what do you mean by it?

The question of whether gravity is quantized is still open for debate. So far no one has been able to unify the worlds of quantum mechanics, which describe how the other three forces work through the interaction of messenger particles, with special relativity (which describes gravity). The graviton has not been detected, and there is some evidence that it may not actually exist.

joypulv · Aug 4, 2011, 03:52 PM

I think you're on to something. Please explain. We all need new explanations for gravity.

nykkyo · Aug 4, 2011, 08:16 PM

Comment on gravity: for JOYPULY. The accelerations around a mass are in concentric spheres. Each sphere can be thought of as a shell. I was wondering if the concentric shells were separated by Plank's constant. I'm using matrix algebra for mapping the contours (of the accelerations) in a plane (I'm using a projection, of vectors, on a plane; because my computer memory is limited).
the contour lines, in the plane. They are conversions from polar coordinates (relative to the masses) to x-y coordinates (relative to the plane).

RickJ · Aug 5, 2011, 09:26 AM

Nykko, please stop posting your question(s) to multiple areas and multiple times.

Ask the question and then wait for an answer.

Thank you.

nykkyo · Aug 5, 2011, 01:48 PM

I am not sure about shells; but it seems logical. The mechanism for the creation of gravity still eludes me. The fabric of spacetime,as proposed in GR, seems a little too eccentric. I do not think time is a dimension. If shells and the mechanism (for gravty) is realized, I suspect it will become obvious (bout time). I think time is an imaginary scale upon which humans map 3D events to sequence them. SR is only a fanciful game with light. Michelson-Morely did shoed the ether did no exist, not the speed of light is constant, Maxwell shoed the speed of proagation to be 3e8 m/s: no where did he mention the velocity of the source of propagation.

ebaines · Aug 5, 2011, 02:13 PM

Getting a bit off topic here, but...

Michealson-Morley was not the last experiment ever done. Many expriments have built on that work so that today the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant regardless of the relative speeds of source and receiver is well tested and documented. If you think you have an argument as to how this is wrong, read this: Why is the speed of light constant and tell us where the error in logic is. Do you think that Maxwell's equations are in error?

nykkyo · Aug 5, 2011, 02:16 PM

Maxwell is not in error. He just did not mention the velocity of the source.

ebaines · Aug 5, 2011, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by nykkyo

Maxwell is not in error. He just did not mention the velocity of the source.

His equations make it clear that it the velocity of the source and observer are immaterial to the observed speed of light. It's a direct consequence of the equations. So if you don't accept that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, you also don't accept that Maxwell's equations are correct.

The web site I cited in my previous post goes through the math. I don't know what your level of math capability is - vector calculus involving things like curls and dels are a bit beyond most people, but should be pretty straight-forward to anyone claiming to be smarter than Einstein. ;)

nykkyo · Aug 5, 2011, 02:51 PM

All is well and good. It is circular logic, using SR to prove SR. For the proposition to be valid, Time will have to vary. The velocities of our moving solar system are so small, it is difficult to measure changes in the speed of light. All experiments with light (mind experiments) start with an SR premise, again circular logic.

nykkyo · Aug 5, 2011, 03:02 PM

The is no argument that the speed of light in a vacuum is c. It is the velocity of the source in a vacuum that is debatable.

nykkyo · Aug 5, 2011, 03:07 PM

Just because someone thinks differently than others, does not make smarter than others. I sense a threat to conservatism!

joypulv · Aug 5, 2011, 06:04 PM

You have to be brave in this subject. Talk on!

TUT317 · Aug 5, 2011, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by nykkyo

All is well and good. It is circular logic, using SR to prove SR. For the proposition to be valid, Time will have to vary. The velocities of our moving solar system are so small, it is difficult to measure changes in the speed of light. All experiments with light (mind experiments) start with an SR premise, again circular logic.

Hi nykkyo,

I think there are plenty of equations around that explain the characteristics of light and the characteristics of electricity and magnetism.

It is difficult to argue that light is not an electromagnetic phenomenon. I don't see the circular aspect of this type of reasoning.

I guess it gets back to your original idea about time not being a
dimension.

Obviously, General Relativity is a theory of gravity. Gravity is the consequence of a massive body distorting the space/time continuum. These distortions are what we recognize as the force of gravity.

We can talk about force as being an exchange of particles. (Standard Model) The fundamental forces oblige us in this regard. The only fly in the ointment at the moment is gravity. As everyone knows science has not been able to find the exchange particle when it comes to gravity.

The only real options are:
(1) find and/or explain exchange particle.(String Theory).
(2). Regard gravity as being a special and separate category.

"All experiments with light (mind experiments) start with an SR premise, again circular logic". Are you saying that because light, space and time are mind imposed categories that cannot be part of any model of physics?

Other than that I am confused.

Tut

ebaines · Aug 8, 2011, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by nykkyo

All experiments with light (mind experiments) start with an SR premise, again circular logic.

Nykko:

The fundamental reason why physicists accept the framework of special and general relativity is that they explain with great precision the things that are observed in nature. The constancy of the speed of light can be derived directly from Maxwell's equations without relying on an a priori assumption, which I pointed out to you earlier. One can question whether Maxwell was right - maybe he wasn't. And you can question whether Einstein was correct as well. But given that there is a tremendous amount of experimental evidence that they were right, if you have a different hypothesis your job is to come up with a better way of explaining such experimental phenomena using your own theory.

A few examples of things you will have to explain better than can be explained by special and general relativity:

1. Energy-dependent lifetime of particles (fast moving particles take longer to decay than slow moving ones)
2. Curvature of light by gravity - observed by astronomers who see "gravity lenses" bending starlight
3. Precession of Mercury
4. Finally - explain how GPS maintains such high levels of accuracy. As you may know, GPS is highly dependent on accurate and synchronized clocks between multiple satellites and earth receivers. The designers have built correction factors into the clocks to acount for (a) the slow down of the satellite's clock as measured from earh due to special relativity, (b) the affect on the clocks due to the difference in gravitational fields between the earths surface and the satellites' orbits (general relativity), and (c) "space frame dragging" due to earth's rotation (also a consequence of general relativity). If they had not made these corrections the GPS would not work properly. If you don't believe in either SR or GR, your theory will have to explain why these corrections didn't mess up how GPS accuracy.

Science is all about observing nature and trying to develop models that explain that behavior. The theory that does a better job of explaining what is observed ultimately wins out. If your ideas are better at explaining things than SR and GR can (maybe how gravity and quantum mechanics fit together?), and can also account for the observations I listed above, you could be onto something.

joypulv · Aug 8, 2011, 07:22 AM

I'm not a physicist nor a mathematician. I like to think that our universe is in a tiny speck of space surrounded by an infinite space filled with so much mass that it's going to gobble us up, before or after we collide with Andromeda.

ebaines · Aug 8, 2011, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by joypulv

I like to think that our universe is in a tiny speck of space surrounded by an infinite space filled with so much mass that it's going to gobble us up, before or after we collide with Andromeda.

This is not exactly a physics contribution (my apologies for going off topic a bit) , but I had to smile when I read this - it reminds me of the scene in "Animal House" where Pinto is having his first experience smoking pot, with Professor Jennings, and they're having a philosophical discussion about the nature of the universe:

Pinto: OK... so that means that our whole solar system could be like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being... Wow, too much. And that means that one tiny atom in my fingernail could be...

Prof Jennings: one... little... tiny... universe.

[pause while the weight of this thought sinks in]

Pinto: Could I buy some pot from you?

Check it out in this video - at about 2:10:
Animal House Clip - MovieWeb.com

TUT317 · Aug 8, 2011, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by ebaines

This is not exactly a physics contribution (my apologies for going off topic a bit) , but I had to smile when I read this - it reminds me of the scene in "Animal House" where Pinto is having his first experience smoking pot, with Professor Jennings, and they're having a philosophical discussion about the nature of the universe:

Pinto: ok ... so that means that our whole solar system could be like one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being..... Wow, too much. And that means that one tiny atom in my fingernail could be...

Prof Jennings: one ... little ... tiny ... universe.

[pause while the weight of this thought sinks in]

Pinto: Could I buy some pot from you?

Check it out in this video - at about 2:10:
Animal House Clip - MovieWeb.com

I remember reading this in Hawking's, ' A Brief History of Time'

A Brief History of Time