Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Medium entrainment considered as flow
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Astrophysics
 Gravity & Relativity
 Medium entrainment considered as flow
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 12 Mar 2012 :  14:43:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Let's start with a question around the initial assumption:
Differentiation between graviton medium // light carrying medium // normal sized matter

What are the main principles/concepts that would support these media to be distinct from each other?
In other words, what would be opposed to assume just one type of medium/particle?

Reasoning:
1- Local properties of light-carrying medium depend on strength of gravitation field.

2- If we add energy to an electron contained in an atom, then the mass of the atom increases (and its energy proportional to E=mc2).
The extra mass is mass 'borrowed' from the medium and kept attached to the atom through the extra energy supplied.

The above is the same question I would have raised with Tom ...
(whereby I would anticipate some of Tom's answers which would allow me to raise my next question)
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2074 Posts

Posted - 12 Mar 2012 :  15:42:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
If you don't mind, I'd like to rephrase your question slightly. I have two reasons for wanting to do this. First, I think there is something more important than principles/concepts that suggest two media. Second, by rephrasing your question in my words, the possibility that we are not talking about the same thing AND NOT REALIZING IT is reduced.

[rephrase]"What physical evidence exists that would support the need for two media?"

Before I present the evidence to you, I'd like to hear any comments you have about what I have just done. (No comment is a tolerable response.)

===

[Bart]"Local properties of light-carrying medium depend on strength of gravitation field."

You have not provided enough information for me to tell if I agree or not. Which gravitational field are you talking about? Each mass has two.

This is not a 'trick question' per se. But it is 'tricky' in the sense that most physics courses do not point this out and as a result most physicists do not think of the two fields as two fields. It is possible that you can name them. And, the simple fact of having spent time at this website makes it more likely that you can. But if you cannot, don't worry. As soon as I name them, you will recognize them.
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 13 Mar 2012 :  15:35:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
As per : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field
"In a field model, rather than two particles attracting each other, the particles distort spacetime via their mass, and this distortion is what is perceived and measured as a "force".

Now if we combine this with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay
"The measured elapsed time of a light signal in a gravitational field is longer than it would be without the field, and for moderate strength near-static fields the difference is directly proportional to the classical gravitational potential, precisely as given by standard gravitational time dilation formulas."

Then we can logically deduct:
1. masses will be forced towards the direction of the lowest speed of light
2. the associated (gravitational) force is proportional with the difference in speed of light at the opposite sides of the mass

Therefore: "Local properties of light-carrying medium depend on strength of gravitational field"
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2074 Posts

Posted - 13 Mar 2012 :  17:17:09  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Each mass has a gravitational force field[1], and a gravitational potential field. Mathematically, gravitational potential is a 1/r function and gravitational acceleration/force is a 1/r^2 function.

The first Wiki article does not say which of the two gravitational fields is being discussed, but leaves the impression it is about a force field. However, spacetime distortions are associated with the potential field. Like I said, it's a tricky situation.

In most discussions of GR the word field is used to refer to both (as above) without mentioning when a change happens. The EFEs (Einstein Field Equations) deal specifically with the potential field, not the force field, so almost every use of the word field is a reference to the potential field. People who work with GR on a daily basis get so used to thinking of gravitational effects as functions of the potential field that they stop mentioning it explicitly. Human nature.

All of the widely known and experimentally demonstrated secondary phenomena associated with gravitation (light bending, Shapiro delay, perihelion drift, clock slowing) are functions of the potential field. Another long sought but still elusive secondary (and therefore associated with the potential field) phenomenon is gravitational waves. We have built several fairly expensive machines to detect them, but so far without success. They are just too weak. Or maybe they don't actually exist?

But the one primary phenomenon associated with gravitation, mutual attraction, is not a function of the potential field. It is a function of the force (acceleration) field.

And changes in this field are not too small to detect. We have lots of devices that can measure changes in the force field.

So if we put all of this together, we can say that "Local properties of light-carrying medium depend on strength of gravitational POTENTIAL field".

With one exception. The gravitational force field is responsible for physically imposing the 1/r pressure gradient in the LCM, thus making the LCM the physical embodyment of the gravitational potential field.

We have experimentally and observationally measureable phenomena that depend on both fields. This is part of the physical evidence I mentioned earlier.

More later.

Regards,
LB

[1]
Actually, any isolated mass M produces an acceleration field rather than a force field.

             M  
   a = G * -----
            r^2

(r must be greater than R, the radius of M)


No force is generated until another mass m is introduced. Then we can use the trusty old f = m * a, substituting the formula for a from above, to find the force between M and m.

            M * m  
   f = G * -------
             r^2

()


But most physicists speak of a force field rather than an acceleration field because their end goal is usually to find the force on a second mass.
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 14 Mar 2012 :  16:27:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
If we state that "the associated (gravitational) force is proportional with the difference in speed of light at the opposite sides of the mass":

a.- the speed of light is relative to 1/r
b.- the difference in speed of light is relative to 1/r^2

a. = the potential
b. = the force

"LCM is the physical embodyment of the gravitational potential field"
> sounds logical

"Gravitational force field is responsible for physically imposing the 1/r pressure gradient in the LCM"
> I would tend to reverse: "The gradient of the gravity potential field is responsible for the gravitational force"
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 15 Mar 2012 :  17:49:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I would like to simplify the assumptions by stating that there is only 1 medium that propagates light, holds the gravitational potential and forms the basis of every mass.

Properties:
- The particles interact with each other
- Particle velocity is proportional to the local speed of light
- The particle velocity gets reduced through the influence of masses
- Particles can be entrained through a mass that moves relative to the medium;
the level of entrainment is proportional to the wavelength of the mass.
(so more medium is more easily entrained by electrons than by protons)

The magnetic force is a direct result of the Bernouilli effect exercised through the LCM (a force pointing towards the direction of the stronger flow). A magnetic force vector is the mathematical representation of a medium that rotates around the vector axis. The direction of the vector indicates the direction in which the medium rotates around the vector axis.

When we translate the mathematical representation of an EM wave into the corresponding physical representation, then we end up with a series of spinning wheels. Every wheel has a diameter of half a wavelength. Subsequent wheels are spinning in opposite direction. The wheels move forward with the speed of light. See: http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/1870

If we now apply this model of spinning wheels to the model of electrons that are part of an atom.
Take four consecutive spinning wheels and fold them around an atom (e.g. Helium with 2 protons and 2 neutrons).
If we look from the top, we observe:
- two pairs of spinning wheels
- every wheel within a pair spins in opposite direction relative to the opposite one
- the pairs are perpendicular to each other
- only one of the pairs contains the electrons (since the electrons repel each other)

If we add enough energy (through a photon with the right wavelength), then we can add pairs of wheels:
- adding a fraction of a wheel or a single wheel wouldnt create a stable configuration and is therefore not possible
- only when a pair is added, all the wheels will touch each other in a way that their circumferences move in the same direction.

When a pair is added (by adding the energy of a photon), then the mass of the Helium atom is increased with the mass of the extra pair of wheels (proportional to E=MC^2. When the Helium atom is accelerated, it will now need to carry the extra pair of wheels along with it.

The extra pair of wheels will now also start to increase the gravitational potential around the Helium atom.
Outside the context of a mass, the particles of the LCM have a high degree of entropy. Within the context of the mass, the particles have a lesser degree of entropy because they are forced to spin in a preferred perpendicular direction. As a consequence, the particles show a lesser degree of movement in a direction away from the atom. This in turn reduces the speed of the medium particles around the atom (and the associated gravitational potential).

I would assume that every mass is ultimately build up by the same elementary particles. The energy patterns that binds the medium particles is what ultimately differentiates the elementary particles (recognised as 'regular mass') from each other.

Gravity works at the level of the medium particles and their associated entropy and is therefore independent from the masses' in which these particles are contained. The masses' cannot shield gravity which is playing at the lower level of the medium particles.

Electromagnetic waves are the coordinated movements of medium particles and need room to travel through the light carrying medium. The coordinated movements are as such that there is no net displacement of particles. Therefore photons are observed to be without mass.
Photons that are absorbed by a mass 'collapse' the EM wave of the point of collision and transfer the total energy contained in the EM wave to the mass. This is when photons are observed to have particle properties.

Electromagnetic waves that travel through a magnetic field see their polarity rotated because a magnetic field is by definition is a rotation of the medium. (See Faraday rotation)

Electromagnetic waves that travel through an area with a higher gravity potential will slow down because the velocity of the medium particles is reduced.

EM waves can be shielded by ensuring their energy gets transferred.


To get back to the model for the Helium atom:

From a distance, the Helium atom is magnetically neutral because the magnetic fields induced by the opposite wheels cancel each other out. When getting closer to a wheel, the magnetic field induced by that wheel is felt because the opposite wheel is relatively at a further distance.

So what happens when two Helium atoms get close to each other? If the wheels containing the electrons get close, the atoms are repelled due the negative charges; but if one of the other wheels get close, then atoms can get magnetically connected to each other.

This is happening when Helium gets in a Superfluid state: the Helium atoms get tightly connected to each other, thereby forming a long string of connected atoms. This long string of tightly coupled He atoms (forming a sort of solid) explains the associated characteristics of the superfluid state such as: ability to flow through pores, the formation of vortex lines, the high heat conductivity, the high sound velocity and the zero entropy.

Looking at the properties of the superfluid state, it looks 'logical' to assume that the atoms are tightly connected but it doesn't look like there is a physical model in place to explain this connection.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2074 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  10:25:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Bart,

We know that EM energy physically propagates through space. And we can measure to high precision the speed of that propagation.

But what about gravitational energy? We have no idea what its propagation speed is. In fact, we do not even know if it propagates.

    GR does not have an intrinsic speed limit. But it inherits a speed limit from SR. That speed limit and the belief that time is some sort of physical thing that is physically altered by other physical things (speed) means that nothing, including gravitational energy, can propagate faster than light.

    But if it does propagate as slowly as light, then our solar system would fall apart in a few thousand years. This is basic celestial mechanics. We calculate the gravitational influence of all mass in the Sol system on each mass by assuming that gravitational force acts instantly between each pair of masses. Run all the calculations for all the orbits, using this assumption, and the calculated orbits match the observed orbits to within the error bars of our ability to measure the orbits.

    If you change that assumption by explicitly introducing a non-infinite propagation speed into the equations, and run the calculations, you predict orbits that are different from those we observe. In particular, suppose you assume that gravitational force propagates at the speed of light. This changes all the orbits from ellipses to outward spirals. The radius of Earth's orbit, for example, would double in about 1200 years.

    The orbits of balloon satellites work like this. The force caused by the pressure of light is large enough relative to their tiny mass to cause observable acceleration. If the conditions are right, normally elliptical orbits become spirals. The equations we use to analyze them must have an explicit speed of propagation term for this force in order for them to predict the same orbits we observe.

GR solves this delima by declaring that gravitational force does not propagate. It is just there. Since it is just there, and nothing needs to propagate, the issue of propagation speed does not arise. No propagation/always there is the mathematical equivalent of infinite propagation speed.

    GR could also solve this delima by using LR as its base theory of relativity rather than SR. Since LR does not have a speed limit, GR would also not have a speed limit. Then the EFEs could be physically interpreted as a description of the LCM/gravitational potential field. And the GR equations of motion could be physically interpreted as a description of the graviton medium/gravitational force field.

    In fact, if you start with a physical model that uses separate media for EM energy and gravitational energy, and analyze the mathematical consequences, you end up with equations that are almost identical to the GR equations.

So, on the one hand EM energy must propagate. And it must propagate at a specific speed. A physical wave or a physical particle with very specific properties is required.

But on the other hand gravitational energy either

  • Does not propagate (GR)

  • or
  • Propagates at a speed different than EM energy. (DRP)


Either way, this suggests a physical wave or physical particle with properties that are different from those associated with EM energy.

It seems counter productive to pursue a one-medium-model, give this information. But perhaps you can adjust your model to show how one medium can do two very different things? BTW, I mean adjust it in the physical sense not the mathematical sense.

===

GR is a great theory, mathematically. It provides us with stunningly accurate descriptions and predictions of the world around us. It would be foolish to get rid of it (without damn good reasons).

But it has some serious problems on the physical side, and stumbles around a lot as it tries to explain the physical basis for those equations. (If you start with a good physical explanation and THEN do the indicated math, this does not happen.) Any candidate for replacing GR's current physical "explanations" will need to be able to handle the two different propagation speeds with natural grace, or it will go no where.

A Ptolemaic style "wheels" model can probably be made to work mathematically, but physically it seems a waste. Ever seen a naturally occuring wheel? You will need axles and frames as well. Even in the world of biology where bizzare is the new normal[1], wheel-like structures are almost unheard of. Until you move up the food chain to intelligence.

LB

[1]
Not actualy a wheel (no known examples) - more like a propellor.

Some bacteria have parts known as flagella. These are corkscrew like devices that protrude through cell's outer membrane. Inside the cell it is attached to an electric motor that turns the screw.

Yes, I'm serious. The "motor" works by proton exchange rather than electron exchange.
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  15:56:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
On the topic of propagation of gravitational energy.

Masses only respond to local differences in gravitational potential which in turn is differences in speed of the medium particles around the mass. In other words: masses do NOT respond directly to gravity emitted by distant masses.

Considering the Solar System (but excluding the effect of planets):
the gravitational potential is the same for every point at the same distance from the Sun.
at the same distance from the Sun, the medium particles have the same velocity (bouncing with each other).
So from the perspective of any mass, the medium particles in the exact direction of the Sun will be the slowest.

Where it concerns the Sun, the gravitational potential is not dependent on the propagation speed.

Planets are therefore subject to a gravitational force pointing exactly to the Sun and not change their elliptic orbit into a spiral.

The alteration of the orbit of balloon satellites caused by the pressure of light is a different effect.
Light hits the balloon satellites with a REAL (and not apparent) aberration angle which causes the assymetry.

But where it concerns the gravitational potential induced by planets, the propagation speed does matter.
If gravity would not propagate, then the position of the Sun would not continuously change with the relative position of the planets.
On the other hand, we would indeed need to expect an asymetry induced through the gravitational force of other planets.

The propagation of gravity is the 'resetling' of the medium particles.
A way to compare would be with how temperature spreads through a metal plate.
If we heat the metal plate at the middle, then the 'vibrations' of the metal atoms will spread themselves.
If we move the heat source at the middle of the plate, then we will observe the area of 'vibrations' to move accordingly.

A more significant problem with the particle medium model is that one would expect the effect of 'drag' on the planets when they move through the medium. This drag would cause the planets to slow down. Even if planets with entrain the surrounding medium, the surrounding medium would in turn be suject to drag. This is how I came to the conclusion that the medium must be rotating around the Sun with the same speed as the planets. At the edges of the Solar System, the objects leaving the Solar System will become subject to drag and will slow them down as a consequence of which they move back towards the Sun. The Kuiper belt is where these objects seem to gather ... (so 'belt' in the two meanings of the word)

The wheels are 'vortices' within a medium that has no friction ...
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 17 Mar 2012 :  02:55:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
To avoid confusion, I will rename the 'spinning wheels' to 'spinning disks' ...

To provide an analogy:
Consider a large container filled with a superfluid (so no friction).
In the middle of the container we have a piston that moves up and down.
The piston accelerates the surrounding medium and forces it to go around around the piston.
(The medium thereby follows a circular path around the piston.)
If we continue to move the piston up and down (and thereby continue to supply energy),
the circular pattern will propagate throughout the container.

Going back to a spinning disk in the LCM:
If the spinning disk finds itself in a position whereby the medium density is different at both sides of the disk,
then the spinning disk will have a tendency to move in the direction of the highest medium density.

Considering an EM wave that we let 'raze' the Sun: the spinning disks included in the EM wave will find a higher medium density in the direction of the Sun. As a consequence, the EM wave will drift towards the Sun. (which we recognize as the gravitational bending of light)

Considering an EM wave that we point towards the Sun (whereby the LCM medium rotates faster near the Sun):
the spinning disks will 'feel' as if there is higher medium density when they enter into a medium with a different tangential velocity.
The EM wave will thereby move in the direction where the faster medium comes from. (which we recognize as the aberration of light)

Considering 'spinning disks' that are contained in a mass: the 'spinning disks' (that are the building blocks of all elementary particles) are forced in the direction of highest medium density. (which we recognize as the gravitational force)

Since mass contains nothing but medium particles bound together through energy: mass can never exceed the speed of the constituting medium particles. This is turn explains why a mass cannot be faster than the speed of light in the surrounding medium. In other words: a mass cannot be faster than the speed of its constituting medium particles.

At the same, the surrounding medium can be subject to a flow. Masses that are separated from each other and are each contained into mediums flowing in opposite directions can exceed the speed of light relative to each other.
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 17 Mar 2012 :  06:43:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
On "the belief that time is some sort of physical thing that is physically altered by other physical things (speed)":

Take the Shapiro Delay as described in Wikipedia:
"In a near-static gravitational field of moderate strength (say, of stars and planets, but not one of a black hole or close binary system of neutron stars) the effect may be considered as a special case of gravitational time dilation. According to special relativity, the speed of ight is constant for measurements in a local reference frame. However, this is not true for non-local paths along which a gravitational field is present. The measured elapsed time of a light signal in a gravitational field is longer than it would be without the field, and for moderate strength near-static fields the difference is directly proportional to the classical gravitational potential, precisely as given by standard gravitational time dilation formulas."

What the above implies is that the formulas for special and general relativity must be including a mathematical transformation:
- the variable 'speed of light' is transformed to a reference frame whereby the 'speed of light' becomes a constant
- the constant 'time' is transformed to a variable 'time'

The particles of the medium effectively slow down in a gravitational field.
As a consequence speed of light is reduced and atomic clocks will run slower.

The space-time curvature(at times represented with the rubber sheet analogy) is for sure a valid mathematical representation.
But if we take the rubber sheet analogy and state that it represents the speed of light at every location (as from the perspective of the reference frame of a 'remote observer'), we are probably closer to the physical reality ...
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2074 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  12:52:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart] "Where it concerns the Sun, the gravitational potential is not dependent on the propagation speed."

"But where it concerns the gravitational potential induced by planets, the propagation speed does matter."


This is the physical equivalent of saying that planetary gravitation propagates, but stellar gravitation does not. Are you really trying to have it both ways? It will be interesting to see what sort of a physical explanation you can provide for such optional behavior. (You can, however, do this in the math with little or no restriction.)

NOTE - if propagation speed is not an issue

  • either because propagation does happen [and is so fast it is effectively infinite]

  • or because propagation does not happen [and is even more effectively infinite]

then moving a mass 'here' instantanly changes its gravitational force (and therefore potential) field 'there'.

Either way, the speed of light is exceeded (by a very large margin). Using this effect for ftl communication is just an engineering problem.



[Bart]"... one would expect the effect of 'drag' on the planets when they move through the medium."

The wheels are 'vortices' within a medium that has no friction ..."


Drag is a type of friction. So you are no longer talking about a one-medium model? Or, maybe you are trying to have it both ways again?


[Bart]"Since mass contains nothing but medium particles ..."

Hmmm. What are your medium particles made of? Vortex equations?

Meanwhile, out here in the physical world medium particles are nothing mysterious ... they are made of mass. Like everything else that has physical existence.

===

I've spent a little time thinking about how your model would change in a universe that is described by LR/GR rather than SR/GR. There are some interesting differences.

LB


Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2074 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  17:27:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart]"The space-time curvature (at times represented with the rubber sheet analogy) is for sure a valid mathematical representation."

Space-time curvature is not a mathematical model.

It is one of at least two physical models that match the EFEs. (By the way, the EFEs are a mathematical model.) There are probably more than two physical models that can be imagined which will match the math. But most of you stopped looking when the first one was found.

I stopped looking when I found (actually, when I was shown) the second one. (Why did I stop? It answers so damn many questions. Without creating new ones!) So I'm probably just as bad as you guys, in some ways.

All of us should keep looking. But we don't. Are we lazy? Or just dumb?
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1816 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  20:34:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
And why not both rather than pick one? It is clear to me gravity is not energy-gravity is a force. How can you interchange force and energy? You need to transfer mass to get energy from force.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2074 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  21:50:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Picking one (in a particular discussion) is not the same as excluding the other (in a different discussion).

Gravitational energy does exist.
Gravitational force does exist.
Gravitational acceleration does exist.
Gravitational potential does exist.

Sometimes we talk about one. Sometimes we talk about another. But we are lazy, and do not always speak the adjective that would make our meaning clear.




Go to Top of Page

Jim

1816 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  21:57:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
LB, Gravity energy makes no sense to me. Can you explain it in the everyday common language?
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2074 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  22:17:10  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I'll try.

Energy is the ability to use force (do work).

All forces require energy to exist.

But of course, things are not that simple in the world of physical reality. You can push on something (exert a force on it), but if it does not move you have done no work. (Accordng to the venerable formula work = force times distance.)

But in fact you have expended some energy. Because that formula is just math. (Kind of squishy, isn't it? The physical world is like that, and the mathematical world is not.)

===

I assume that you are still here because you DO want to be a physicist.

You have to move beyond math, if you want to become a physicist.

In some ways it is easier. In other ways, it is harder. Some of us can do it, some can't. Just like some of us can hit the bull's eye, and some of us can't.

We need both kinds of explorers. But we also need to realize that they are different. They are exploring different parts of reality. Some are exploring the physical parts. Some are exploring the conceptual parts.

Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2074 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  11:37:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Suppose you throw a tennis ball. It moves through the air and hits a basket ball. The basket ball moves.

You applied a force to the tennis ball (converted force to energy).
It moves through the air, even though no more force is being applied.
It hits the basket ball and the basket ball moves (converted energy to force).

Force requires direct physical contact to happen.

  • You are applying force to the tennis ball only while you touch it.

  • The tennis ball applies force to the basket ball only while it touches it.


Energy is/can be an intermediary. A force "carrier".

Apply a force to 'this' mass, now.
It carries the force across space in the form of energy.
And applies the energy to 'that' mass, over there, later, in the form of a force.

(Neglect things like drag and heat for this simplified discussion.)

Energy is a property that mass has when it moves. (So is momentum. Energy and momentum are related.)

Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2074 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  11:48:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
So force, per se, does not propagate. Energy does. But they are so intimately related, and we are lazy.

We experience the force field around a magnet by the forces we feel when we bring two of them close to each other. We can't feel anything moving between the poles. We cannot feel the energy. But it must be there. Our inability to detect it so far is not relevant.

The force field around a mass or a charge is similar.

Should we call them energy fields, instead? Perhaps, but we are used to doing it the way we do it.

===

When you only think about the math parts of a theory, it is possible to lose sight of something basic but important like this.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2074 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  13:34:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Energy. Force. Momentum. Work.

These are tools. We use them to solve problems, or find answers to questions. And we use them to think about and talk about the world.

Many problems can be solved by using more than one of them.

Sometimes one will be much easier to use for a specific problem.

Sometimes a specific person will find one tool easier to use, in general, than another tool.
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1816 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  14:02:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
LB, First-it matters not what you call these things. What does matter is they are as different as a b c d. Energy and force are not work and in fact work is not even a related concept any more than red light is. Anyway, this has nothing to due with my blindness to your "gravity energy" idea. I only gravity as a force and hoping you can enlighten me about the energy of gravity.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated © © 2002-? Meta Research Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.69 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03