|T O P I C R E V I E W
||Posted - 29 Oct 2011 : 17:36:46
Without having a deep physics explanation, I would like to share this thought:
What if the light carrying medium flows in to mass?
Imagine the medium is "pulverized" inside particles with mass, then catapulted outwards, only to recondense into medium again after some time.
I first had this idea when considering the two kinds of time dilation:
1) Time dilation because of relative speed.
2) Time dilation because of gravity.
Speed has [m/s] as unit, and gravity is an acceleration, with [m/s^2] as unit.
Could the second form of dilation just be the same as the first? Well maybe, if the medium gains speed towards the mass.
One can further imagine:
-Light as a wave would be curved by massive objects.
-The speed of light would always be observed the same at arrival, because the rate at which the medium is "consumed" is a property of mass itself.
-Redshift (big bang's expansion) could be explained by the constant recreation of medium in space.
As you can see, it's hardly a theory of everything, but it's certainly an interesting thought.
|20 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
||Posted - 24 Apr 2012 : 15:39:22
One aspect that I did not cover is the electric force field. Somehow the medium particles should account for this effect as well.
One option is to assume the medium particles to consist of even lower-level particles.
Each 'medium particle' would thereby form a small dipole consisting of lower-level particles rotating around its center.
An electric field is then be the alignment of the medium particle dipoles.
At the location of a mass, the small dipoles would then organize themselves geometrically as the nanoparticles in a ferrofluid:
Every peak in the ferrofluid has its magnetic field pointing in the same direction (towards or away from the mass).
Taking this analogy: medium particle dipoles all be facing in the same direction towards the mass
(thereby showing either a positive or negative charge at the outside of the mass).
||Posted - 22 Apr 2012 : 18:31:13
You provided a lot of information about the properties of your medium particles. And about the interaction of your medium particles with energy and other forms of matter.
But my basic question remains unanswered - What are your medium particles made of? (Hint: there are several reasonable answers to this question. And there are a whole bunch of unreasonable answers.)
||Posted - 24 Mar 2012 : 10:58:15
"LB: What are your medium particles made of?"
The medium particles have the following properties:
- they are the constituting particles of dark matter and visible matter
- they are the constituting particles of the light-carrying medium
- they are in constant interaction with each other (thereby sharing their momentum)
- they move or vibrate with a speed that somewhat above the speed of light (in such a way that the forward speed of a momentum exercised on the meidum particles = the speed of light)
- by default, the particles move or vibrate in a random way
The medium that is constituded of the medium particles can subject to a flow of medium particles:
- the flow can be entrained by moving electrons (magnetism)
- the flow can be entrained by any other type of moving mass (gravitomagnetism)
Masses are entrained by the medium flow:
- electrons : (electromagnetism / Hall effect)
- masses (gravitomagnetism)
When the entrainment of the medium is performed with a periodicity corresponding to the induced wavelenght, an electromagnetic wave is induced:
- an electromagnetic wave reduces the randomness of the medium particles and makes them flow with a specific pattern
- the wave pattern takes energy to be developed and this energy is maintained in the medium
- the wave pattern moves forward with the speed of light
- a photon is a specific type of wave pattern that maintains itself while moving forward with the speed of light
(the energy contained in a single photon does not 'spread' out)
- the simplest form of an electromagnetic wave pattern corresponds with a 'spinning disk' (covered before)
A mass is constituded of medium particles that are subject to an electromagnetic wave pattern:
- the wave patterns within the mass are connected with themselves (so although the waves move with the speed of light, they retain their position within the mass)
- the wave patterns lock the medium particles togehter, thereby forcing them to move along with each other as one entity
- the medium particles within the mass have a velocity with a preferential 'perpendicular' direction
(in the direction towards are away from the center of the mass, the medium particles show a decreased average speed)
A mass reduces the speed of the medium particles surrounding it because of the above effect (a lesser average speed towards or away from the center of the mass).
This reduced speed is shared with medium particles at a further distance from the mass through the continued interaction of the medium particles.
(analogy: when the middle of a metal plate is heated, the heath will propagate because the atoms in the metal share their vibration with their neighbour atoms)
As a consequence, the speed of light surrounding a mass is reduced; at the same time, the effect decreases with the distance from the mass.
The recuding of the speed of light around a large mass is directly proportional to the number of medium particles that are locked into the mass.
The energy contained in a mass (the sum of all the electromagnetic waves) is proportional to E = Mc^2:
- m = the mass of the constituting medium particles
- c = the speed of light at the location of the mass
When an electromagnetic wave (with the spinning disk analogy) included within a mass becomes subject to a medium whereby the speed of light shows a gradient:
- the wave (spinning disk) will tend to move into the direction where the surrounding medium particles have the lowest speed (and the highest density)
- this is what constitutes the GRAVITATIONAL FORCE
When a mass effectively moves towards a position where the speed of the medium particles is reduced:
- The mass will lose energy because of E = mc^2
- this is what constitues the GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY
One could also state that the GRAVITATIONAL FORCE is the result of the tendency of a mass to move towards a position that reduces its ENERGY.
So Newton's apple is subject to a GRAVITATIONAL FORCE pointing to the Earth because the speed of the medium particles above the apple is higher than the speed of the medium particles below the apple.
When the apple effectively falls from the tree, then the energy contained whithin the apple is converted to:
- increased kinetic energy (acceleration) at the moment of falling down
- internal heath of the apple + deformation of the soil at the moment of hitting the Earth
So we end up with a 'lower energy' apple because of the reduced C (as per E=MC^2)
So the gravitational energy does not need to radiate as it is already contained within the mass that is subject to the gravitational force.
||Posted - 23 Mar 2012 : 13:43:54
LB, Of course these properties are intertwined-however,force is not energy. IMO, force is a field property(whatever a field is) and energy is as stated in E=mc^2. If gravity is energy then it will radiate,but, as a force it exists as a field and does not radiate. This has a lot to say about the proposed speed of gravity in that there is nothing moving in the structure of a field. Since you know all about how gravity maybe you also can understand why a field exists.
||Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 22:32:54
[Jim] "... you never showed how gravity is energy"
I never tried to do that.
Gravity is not energy.
And, it is not force.
And, it is not acceleration.
(It is also not himelfarb, but that is probably not on topic.)
These things are tools (models, theories, ... FANTASIES !! ) we use to think about and talk about certain aspects of gravitation.
They are not gravitation. (HINT - no one knows what gravitation IS. (Except me, of course, and I'm not going to tell.) We are trying to figure it out.)
I wonder ...
Is this what you are looking for?
for a given mass m:
F is force
E is energy
a is acceleration
v is velocity
F = m * a EQ1 general force equation
E = --- * m * v^2 EQ2 kinetic-energy equation
combining terms and rearranging, we find that
2 * a
F = ------- * E EQ3a kinetic-energy converted to force equation
it is also possible to manipulate the variables to show the reverse conversion
E = ------ * F EQ3b force converted to kinetic-energy equation
2 * a
It is likely that these conversion equations can be simplified. I have not looked into that issue. In this format they clearly show a relationship between force and energy. In a simplified format that clarity might be reduced.
||Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 21:20:13
LB, Now who is twisting these words? I asked about gravity energy. You agree gravity is a force but not just a force. But, you never showed how gravity is energy. I'm also trying to help by putting limits on how sloppy concepts become in the name of what ever works and solving the problem at hand is all that matters.
||Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 18:52:45
Failure works out best if you don't insist on being right.
Imagine a large shallow lake. In the lake, there are a number of balls (maybe they gently rest on the lake floor). The balls are so hot, that the water boils on contact. The steam moves up into the sky, where it forms clouds. The clouds then rain down on the lake again (evenly).
The surface of the lake is covered with duckweed. The duckweed travels along with the currents in the lake, and can accumulate, but not unlimited. The duckweed is not evaporated by the balls, but there may be some other interaction.
The rate at which the lake water settles to equilibrium is much faster than that of the duckweed.
Each ball causes a current in the water, towards itself. The bigger the ball, the more water it evaporated, so it will cause a larger current. When two balls are close, they will be in eachother's current, and accelerate towards eachother. The duckweed will have a higher density around the balls.
The balls are not in direct contact with the water (because of the boiling), so motion is frictionless. But if you push a ball it won't start moving just like that, because the current-patterns in the water have to be adjusted.
In this analogy, the duckweed represents the light carrying medium, of course. Relativistic effects would involve large accumulations of duckweed.
||Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 17:15:55
Just trying to help, Jim.
Actually, acceleration and energy and momentum are not any deeper than force. And they are not any harder to use. It's just that you are used to thinking and talking in terms of force. And not used to the others. That makes force seem more natural to you.
And that is OK. There are not a large number questions about gravitation that can't be figured out using the force model. But when someone else makes use of one of the other models, it is not very reasonable to say "... that model is useless - it leads no where at at all". If that were actually true, it would apply to the force model as well.
Now that I understand your limits, I'll not bother you with the attempted tutorials again. Unless you ask.
||Posted - 22 Mar 2012 : 13:28:28
LB, I am not distorting your words or anything else here. I do avoid the deep stuff you relish that simply leads no where at all. You can call a rose by any----oh wait, that,s been said already.
||Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 22:03:30
Did I mention that the physical side of reality is sort of squishy?
The conceptual side of reality, mathematics included, is clean and neat by comparison.
We need all of it, if we are ever going to understand the universe we inhabit. Just keep them in separate buckets. Use them as needed.
And justify your choice.
(If you can. Others will probably not appreciate your use of "intuition". Screw them. But expect to be wrong. There really is a Murphy.)
||Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 21:53:19
We also have a way of thinking about gravitation that we call acceleration.
Gravitation is observed to have this strange property that allows it to accelerate all masses at the same rate.
If you just push on a thing, it will accelerate.
You have converted a force (your push) into energy (and/or momentum, depending on how you want to look at it).
Nothing about IT has changed because you look at it differently. Only the way you pick to look at it has changed.
Experience teaches us that it takes a bigger push to accelerate a bigger thing than to accelerate a smaller thing.
Then gravitation shows up and accelerates all things, big and small, at the same rate.
This is different!
So this "acceleration" model is particularly usefull for problems that focus on the acceleration-related aspects of a mass in the gravitational "field" of another mass.
You can calculate a "force field" instead of an "acceleration field" if you want to. But then to predict the position or velocity of a mass moving in that field you would need to convert the force into an acceleration before calculating the velocity or position at each point of interest.
But if you are interested in knowing how much force mass A will apply to mass B at various locations in the vicintity of mass A, it makes more sense to calculate a "force field".
Both the force field and the acceleration field of the mass "exist". As does the momentum field and the energy field. You could probably also devise a way to calculate a work field. If it helps you solve a problem, it is a reasonable thing to do. (What? No one else has ever done it that way? If it works, why would you care? The Noble Committee won't care either, as long as the results are obvious. And big.)
But none of these things, these models, is gravitation. So what is gravitation?
We do not have a solid answer. We have answers. Plural. Enough that some are in conflict with others. Which is right? That, of course, is TBD.
They cannot all be RIGHT. (Duh.)
But they can all be WRONG.
||Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 21:23:55
We have another theory called energy.
It is a way of looking at gravitation. It is a way of thinking about gravtation.
It is not gravitation.
||Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 21:22:19
In the case of gravitation, we have a model (theory) called force.
It is a way of looking at gravitation. It is a way of thinking about gravtation.
It is not gravitation.
||Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 21:21:00
Gravitation is gravitation.
A is A.
However, we are trying to understand it. And one of the ways we have invented to help us in our quest for such knowledge is to build models of parts of a thing.
||Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 21:09:02
[Jim] "So, you say gravity changes to suit the problem at hand? "
If I changed my words from
"Which way you pick to look at it depends mostly on the problem or the question you have before you ..."
"The way you pick to look at it changes it, and determines which of these it is ..."
Then your accusation would have some legs.
But I said what I said. Not what you accused me of saying.
QUESTION: Why are you deliberately distorting my words?
||Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 20:52:27
So, you say gravity changes to suit the problem at hand? Gravity can be a force; or it might be energy if the problem needs that; or at times it can be acceleration. Don't forget energy radiates and gravity does not. Remember acceleration is induced by a force and is not the force. I looked at your connections and still don't see where energy and gravity interchange as you simply indicate gravity forces particles to react. You haven't explained energy or force by confusing them with each other.
||Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 16:49:07
[Jim] "Maybe you could write a model like: F=ma that would show how gravity is something other than a force."
Here you say "... show how gravity is something other than ..."
I am trying to show you that gravity can be viewed in more than one way. It is not something "other than" force.
- It is energy (kinetic and/or potential).
- It is force.
- It is acceleration.
- It is not potential. (Force " " "is" " " energy. Force is not potential.)
- The physical potential field is involved with observable physical things like light bending and clock slowing.
- It is not involved with observable physical things like force and acceleration.
(Hmmm. Do not read the word 'is' as the equivalent of an equal sign. Use some caution if you feel like reading 'is not' as its mathematical equivalent. This is not really so much about math.)
Which way you pick to look at it depends mostly on the problem or the question you have before you, but can also be influenced by your personal preferences (for problem solving).
||Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 14:11:27
You don't know? Since I've given you the answer several times (even drew a picture once), you must mean that you don't understand.
That can be your fault, or mine, or both. Let me think about this a little and see if I can find another way to explain the relationship between energy and force.
||Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 13:21:47
LB, You asked the same question several times and my answer is still the same(I don't know). However, maybe the question is trivial in that a force can and will be move only when it's source changes in some manner. So, in order to understand how gravity works maybe you need to know why the source has that property. If you simply say force and energy are equal you miss a lot of fine detail that is very important if any progress is to be made here. Force is totally different than energy. Maybe you could write a model like: F=ma that would show how gravity is something other than a force. We have no model for the force of the photon and that is needed too. E=mc^2 ignores photon force-so does E=hf. That is a big hole in the middle of our field don't you think?
||Posted - 21 Mar 2012 : 09:35:53
[Jim] "Gravity force causes acceleration. ... Gravity is the force that makes things happen. "
Yes it does. Yes it is. How does Earth's gravitational force get to Luna, so it can cause Luna to accelerate?