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

Larry Burford

USA
2099 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  16:28:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It is not my idea. It is the way energy and force work.

You cannot apply a force to something if you are not touching it. If it is too far away for you to touch it directly, you can touch it indirectly by throwing something at it. If you hit it, that impact applies the force which you could not apply.

Note that if you miss it, no force is applied. But you still spent some energy. Which you created by applying force to the thing you threw, while you were touching it. Perhaps the thing you threw will eventually hit something else, and apply a force to that thing.

In order for gravitational force to exist, there has to be gravitational energy. A lot of particles or a lot of waves[1] moving around the universe all the time, pushing things toward one another when they hit something and apply a tiny push (a force) to to it.

Each mass has a gravitational force (energy) field around it. Much like each magnet has a magnetic force (energy) field around it.

LB

[1]
Could it be something other than particles or waves? Physically, these are all we know of so far, but 'other' is still possible. Until we can actually detect the energy mechanism (the force carriers) in one or more of these force fields, it would be foolish to rule out some as yet undiscovered doohickey.

    Dark matter and dark energy are 'wild ideas' that are being floated in an effort to explain some experimental and observational anomalies. Something too small to detect directly, is one common way it is described.

    The two particle fields we have postualted to explain EM energy (force) and gravitational energy (force) look like they might also explain some other of these anomalies.

Time might actually have physical existence. And it might therefore actually be possible for physical things like gravitational potential or speed to change time physically. And so on.

We can't detect space-time. We do not have a single device that can take a single measurement in 4D space-time. All of our toys work in 3D space plus 1D time.

Einstein's equations are said to have been tested by experiment. But this is not exactly true. His equations are all 4D, and we can't test in 4D. So we have to convert his equations from 4D to 3D plus 1D. Then we can test the 3D plus 1D equations. They are approximations in many cases (no exact translation available). But we can add as many terms to the series expansion as we need to match or exceed the precision or our experimental apparatus. It works fairly well.

Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2099 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  16:35:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Jim] "... it matters not what you call these things. "

Well, no, and yes. We cannot talk (or even think) about a thing until we have a label, a name, for it. And it truely does not matter what noise we make when we want to refer to some specific thing. But it does matter that we all use the same noise. And it matters that we all attach the same meaning to that noise.

It is a fact of life that we still have problems in this regard. Communication problems are everywhere. And the worst part of it is, often we do not realize it.

We do OK, all in all. But there is room for a lot of improvement.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2099 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  18:41:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote


     HERE                                               THERE

force_TO_energy ---------------------------------> energy_TO_force

    SOURCE                                              TARGET


Earth never touches Luna, but it continuously accelerates Luna. (And Luna continuously accelerates Earth.)

a = f/m

A force is needed to make the acceleration happen. Earth must be applying a force to Luna. But Earth never touches Luna. (Directly, at least.)

How does this happen?

Go to Top of Page

Jim

1823 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  20:25:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Gravity force causes acceleration. Energy is everywhere doing nothing or maybe doing something if forced to do it. Energy will flow when forced to do so or will lay around if not being forced. Gravity is the force that makes things happen. There needs to be a clear distinction made between these basic properties. As for your question how-I don't know and if I did I would not be looking for it. You have not addressed my question about gravity energy, have you?
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2099 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  21:01:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yes. Several times.

Perhaps you need to rephrase it?
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  21:01:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Where it concerns the Sun, the gravitational potential is not dependent on the propagation speed."

The propagation speed is the same for all masses (Sun and planets), but since the Sun is (almost) static relative to the reference frame of the Solar System the shape of the gravitational field is not dependent on how long it took to build up.

Since the planets are not 'static' relative to the reference frame of the Solar System, their gravitational fields are changing all the time. The pace at which the gravitational field moves forward (along with the planet) depends on the propagation speed.

As a consequence, the Earth is attracted towards the 'retarded position' of the surrounding planets which is dependent on the propagation speed of gravity. The Earth is attracted towards the 'actual position' of the Sun because the gravitational field is completely symmetrical.


"Drag is a type of friction."
Friction transforms kinetic energy into heat (as long as the friction is not static).
Drag is a force applied on a mass in a direction opposite to the movement (whereby friction is one way to create this force, but it is not the only mechanism).

In a friction-free environment, the decrease in kinetic energy available with the mass (as a consequence of drag) must result into an increased kinetic energy applied to the medium. An increasing amount of medium will become dragged up to the moment when all medium is having the same velocity as the mass. (all medium = all medium on the circular path around the Sun)
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2099 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  21:26:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Bart,

What are your medium particles made of?

LB
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2099 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  09:35:53  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[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?
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1823 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  13:21:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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?
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2099 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  14:11:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2099 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  16:49:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[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).
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1823 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  20:52:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2099 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  21:09:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[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 ..."

    to

    "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?

Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2099 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  21:21:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.

Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2099 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  21:22:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2099 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  21:23:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2099 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  21:53:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.

      Get it?

    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!
    And Strange.

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.





Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2099 Posts

Posted - 21 Mar 2012 :  22:03:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.)

Go to Top of Page

Jim

1823 Posts

Posted - 22 Mar 2012 :  13:28:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2099 Posts

Posted - 22 Mar 2012 :  17:15:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
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.
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 0.39 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03