Graviton collisions

mechanic
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 10 months ago #4466 by mechanic

Replied by mechanic on topic Reply from

From rush:

A. -gravitational force is the gradient of the gravitational potential (it says nothing, but if you know the math you can conclude some things and it is useful)
B. -gravitational force is "something" that make all massive bodies be attracted one to each other. F=GMm/r^2. That is the Newton's definition for gravitational attraction between two bodies. Again, it says nothing about what really is "gravity".
C. -Gravity is a curvature of spacetime. That is the non-sensical Einstein's definition because there is NO such a thing as "curved space".

A. It says nothing to you rush. It says a lot to others.

B. F = -GMm/r^2 or better F = -GMmr/r^3 , in other words what you've put down is half correct. It says a lot to me, you saying it says nothing to you, good for you...

C. Gravity is not curvature of spacetime. Gravity is the effect of curved space-time causing bodies to follow geodesic paths. Dr. Van Flandern is wrong; the bodies have momentum in the first place as, in his own words, "everything has a momentum in the universe", therefore his point of no mechanism for initiation of motion is wrong. You think is non-sensical while you really don't even understand what's the story here.

"Learn to walk before you fly"

Time to fix some cars.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

rush
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 10 months ago #4649 by rush

Replied by rush on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Mechanics:
A. It says nothing to you rush. It says a lot to others.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I only can speak for myself. If I am here it is because I want to discuss things in a different approach. If I would want exactly what Newton or Einsteins says, I would pick a book at the library. It would be a waste of time to come at this message board.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Mechanics
B. F = -GMm/r^2 or better F = -GMmr/r^3 , in other words what you've put down is half correct. It says a lot to me, you saying it says nothing to you, good for you...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Why minus? It is arbitrary. You define it the way you want. The term r^3 comes just from the unit vector direction. You put the same formula but in vector notation. For most of practical situations, we use r^2. Also, I did not say that it is not useful. I use Newtons equations a lot.

What is mass? Why mass seems to attract mass? That is the fundamental question. It is not answered by Newton's equations.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Mechanics:
C. Gravity is not curvature of spacetime. Gravity is the effect of curved space-time causing bodies to follow geodesic paths. Dr. Van Flandern is wrong; the bodies have momentum in the first place as, in his own words, "everything has a momentum in the universe", therefore his point of no mechanism for initiation of motion is wrong. You think is non-sensical while you really don't even understand what's the story here.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The geometric interpretation shows that spacetime and the gravitational field is "the same thing". I could not have put the accurate definition, but the non-sense is implicity even if you say that "gravity is the effect of that curvature". It is still meaningless and does not help us to understand what gravity really is. Curvature of spacetime? How can a spacetime has a curvature? Do you think spacetime does really exist? Well, maybe in your mind...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

mechanic
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 10 months ago #4650 by mechanic

Replied by mechanic on topic Reply from

From rush:

Do you think spacetime does really exist? Well, maybe in your mind...

Spacetime is ALL that exists. It's all over you. Look around you. Your problem is you denying what's all around you and it ain't straight, I tell you that much. As a matter of fact, apart from human creations show me something that's at least "space-straight". You won't find anything rush. All is curved in space and when you add time to that you get the brilliant concept of curved space-time. Your infinity is just you loopping around in finite curved space-time.

What is mass? Why mass seems to attract mass?

Why do you think that mass attracts mass? Newton never made such a absurd claim. He only talked about attractive forces making no hypotheses about their cause. Newton made a mathematical model only and a very good one. Van Flandern makes a hypothesis attributing gravity to gravitons. He must prove it and it may be that he will one day but gravity's still an attractive force, whether pushing together or pulling together.

If you want to question fundamental quantities of physics like mass, you got a long way to go, or go a long way back, maybe 4,000 years back and find out what has been said about it. That's a dead end approach to physics and it won't gets you anywhere rush. Even Newton did not question mass, he started with one type and ended up with two types, inertial and gravitational. Mass is all over the place, why are you worrying about it?

Time to fix some cars

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

rush
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 10 months ago #4651 by rush

Replied by rush on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Mechanics:
Spacetime is ALL that exists.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

It is untrue. Space AND time does exist as measurements, not as "things". And they are different concepts.

I'd be glad if you can prove me logically that spacetime does exist.

Spacetime is a diagram having an axis depicting a certain amount of the passage of time and another measuring certain distances in space. Here, both time and space are certainly required, indeed. Most descriptions of a spacetime diagram claim that the space part of the diagram represents all other dimensions, but in fact the diagram is only 2d (a distance plane and a time "plane")and it has/uses only coordinates to depict any event. And yet some argue that is reality!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Mechanics:
It's all over you. Look around you.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

What I can see are bodies around me. I can not see spacetime, I can not see space and I can not see time. I can make a chart and there I can define spacetime just like this: as a chart.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Mechanics:
Your problem is you denying what's all around you and it ain't straight, I tell you that much. As a matter of fact, apart from human creations show me something that's at least "space-straight". You won't find anything rush. All is curved in space and when you add time to that you get the brilliant concept of curved space-time.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The brilliant concept. Yes, it is only a concept in our minds. All that does exist are bodies. You can measure length, widht, time, etc. But it just implies that humans want to make calculations to conclude things, not that such a things does in fact exist as "things". Well, maybe someday you can bring me a piece of spacetime...can you?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Mechanics:
Why do you think that mass attracts mass?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Who say I think that? Can't you read? I put why mass "seems" atract mass. I don't know what trully happens. And you don't know as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Mechanics:
Newton never made such a absurd claim. He only talked about attractive forces making no hypotheses about their cause.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

What is force?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Mechanics:
Newton made a mathematical model only and a very good one. Van Flandern makes a hypothesis attributing gravity to gravitons. He must prove it and it may be that he will one day but gravity's still an attractive force, whether pushing together or pulling together.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You say that is absurd claim that mass attract mass but you say gravity is an attractive force. Attractive force of what? Again, what is force?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Mechanic:
If you want to question fundamental quantities of physics like mass, you got a long way to go, or go a long way back, maybe 4,000 years back and find out what has been said about it. That's a dead end approach to physics and it won't gets you anywhere rush. Even Newton did not question mass, he started with one type and ended up with two types, inertial and gravitational. Mass is all over the place, why are you worrying about it?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You don't need to worry about my questions if you don't want. Relax and go to fix your cars because it seems to me that you are already knows everything about physics. You don't need to worry about anything more, so go to bed and sleep or do what you want.

And yes, I'll keep question fundamental things in physics. Are you gonna kill me for it?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

jacques
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 10 months ago #4495 by jacques

Replied by jacques on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Mechanic:
If you want to question fundamental quantities of physics like mass, you got a long way to go, or go a long way back, maybe 4,000 years <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
I think you most go back to the Greeks: that's when the concept of matter over a 3-D space took form. The materalist way of thinking was born. Before that phenomenon were caused by gods and spirits.
Since that time, we human invented good mathematical equations that map evolution of mater in this 3-D space. At speed, mass, time and scale limits, the formulas are complicated by Lorentz transformation, and quantum equations.
The most important thing we can learn from E=mc^2 is that mass is not a fundamental quantity. So our Eucledian view of the world, made of mass and energy moving in 3-D is incomplete.
I am reading the THE RECIPROCAL SYSTEM [url] www.rsystem.org/ [/url] they propose "motion" for the fundamental quantity. This universe of motion is 3-D. It's called reciprocal because motion is space over time and space is 3-D because it is an aspect of motion and so is time 3-D the reciprocal aspect of motion. Mass and energy are combinations of different motion. I found it very interesting !
Somebody ever read those books? What is your opinion on this theory?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.274 seconds