The unbearable lightness of being... Gravity.

[Gene Vincent]

Jinx said:

So gravity acts in a similar way to a liquid - whilst pushed at one end it pushes at the other instantaneously - though doesn't break SR or GR.....
But liquids cannot be compressed hence why hydraulics work but can the same be said about gravity?

Liquids or metals being pushed don't act instantaneously, they act just as gravity does at the speed of light.

But gravity is instantaneous in application.

To see this perhaps this analogy might work for you:-

Think of an object in front of you and it has to be moved, all the other forces have to 'move' to get their 'hands' on the object and apply their force, but gravity always has its hands on the object.

That is how 'application' differs from 'action'.

[mattnunn]

Gene Vincent said:

mattnunn said:

So Gene, are you saying anti gravity is impossible?

You can overcome gravity because it is so weak, but there is no actual -ve gravity.

Helicopters are not anti gravity machines, so I've been told by clever people in the past...

My guess is it might not be so weak for us if we migrate to another planet? We may need some way of toning down the gravity field on Alpha Century (for arguments sake) to save us being squished flat?

Possible?

[Jinx]

Gene Vincent said:

Liquids or metals being pushed don't act instantaneously, they act just as gravity does at the speed of light.

Surely I'm pushing all of the liquid or metal at the same time - ergo doesn't require information to pass along the object/medium as I am in contact with the other end as it were.

Gene Vincent said:

But gravity is instantaneous in application.

To see this perhaps this analogy might work for you:-

Think of an object in front of you and it has to be moved, all the other forces have to 'move' to get their 'hands' on the object and apply their force, but gravity always has its hands on the object.

That is how 'application' differs from 'action'.

If I am already in contact with said object I become part of the object's reference frame. As such whilst information may move through me and the object at a maximum speed of C(medium dependant) as part of the medium's reference frame I can be acted upon at all points simultaneously?

[Gene Vincent]

Jinx said:

Gene Vincent said:

Liquids or metals being pushed don't act instantaneously, they act just as gravity does at the speed of light.

Surely I'm pushing all of the liquid or metal at the same time - ergo doesn't require information to pass along the object/medium as I am in contact with the other end as it were.

Gene Vincent said:

But gravity is instantaneous in application.

To see this perhaps this analogy might work for you:-

Think of an object in front of you and it has to be moved, all the other forces have to 'move' to get their 'hands' on the object and apply their force, but gravity always has its hands on the object.

That is how 'application' differs from 'action'.

If I am already in contact with said object I become part of the object's reference frame. As such whilst information may move through me and the object at a maximum speed of C(medium dependant) as part of the medium's reference frame I can be acted upon at all points simultaneously?

It is information, the movement at one end is information about an action at the other, so the 'push' propagates at the speed of light.

I think you are not quite seeing the analogy, gravity is an integral part of mass, an attribute. In the analogy 'you' are the other forces.

[Jinx]

Gene Vincent said:

It is information, the movement at one end is information about an action at the other, so the 'push' propagates at the speed of light.

I think you are not quite seeing the analogy, gravity is an integral part of mass, an attribute. In the analogy 'you' are the other forces.

So to overcome the inertia of any object the maximum force applied will be limited by the speed of light for any length of object (as anything beyond the speed of light cannot influence the initial force required) ? Surely not?

[Gene Vincent]

Jinx said:

Gene Vincent said:

It is information, the movement at one end is information about an action at the other, so the 'push' propagates at the speed of light.

I think you are not quite seeing the analogy, gravity is an integral part of mass, an attribute. In the analogy 'you' are the other forces.

So to overcome the inertia of any object the maximum force applied will be limited by the speed of light for any length of object (as anything beyond the speed of light cannot influence the initial force required) ? Surely not?

I'm not I understand what you are saying/asking.

But if you impart an energy (push) to the end of any object however long it will result in the other end of the object moving at the length of the object/speed of light.

Always.

[mattnunn]

Gene Vincent said:

I'm not I understand what you are saying/asking.

But if you impart an energy (push) to the end of any object however long it will result in the other end of the object moving at the length of the object/speed of light.

Always.

I doubt if the Atlantic Ocean were jelly and I jumped into Morecombe bay the people in New York would jump out.

[Gene Vincent]

mattnunn said:

Gene Vincent said:

I'm not I understand what you are saying/asking.

But if you impart an energy (push) to the end of any object however long it will result in the other end of the object moving at the length of the object/speed of light.

Always.

I doubt if the Atlantic Ocean were jelly and I jumped into Morecombe bay the people in New York would jump out.

Well, the sea level rises as a result!

The energy though is dispersed and unless you are really huge then the energy is dissipated out to virtual nothingness very rapidly.

[Jinx]

Gene Vincent said:

I'm not I understand what you are saying/asking.

But if you impart an energy (push) to the end of any object however long it will result in the other end of the object moving at the length of the object/speed of light.

Always.

[mental exercise time]
To make an object move the force I apply at one end must be greater than the force of friction which will be dependant on the mass of the object, the friction coefficent of the object and surface and the surface area of the object in contact with the surface I am attempting to move the object across - with me?
If I apply force at one end then the contact surface area is limited by the speed of light - any of the object beyond this range cannot resist my initial force as it would require transmission of the resistance force at speeds greater than the speed of light. Therefore there would be a maximum force required to move any object of any size - clearly breaking Newton's third law.

[strudel]

Gene Vincent said:

As promised we need to take a look at Gravity.

...we start with Electromagnetism, because Gravity and EM to be closely related, but in a very intriguing way.

I think you've missed a giant step here by not explaining how, as you base the rest of your explanation on it.

[Pobolycwm]

This is because the Quantum Field that we are at present defining for what we call gravity, is mono-polar. It is part of mass and being positive in nature at all times there is no delay in the application as all the rest of the attractors are all running positive too, gravity gets the jump on everything. Thankfully it is very weak and this initial advantage is overcome readily by the other forces.

It also helps us understand the London Dispersion Force which previously, and rather mysteriously, allowed non-polar atoms to interact as if they were charged.

The most extraordinary 'possible' outcome of this new understanding is that it may just hold the clue as to the nature of the Fine Structure Constant, by 'perhaps' acting as a form of 'synchromesh' between interaction... but... BUT... why this would appear 'like' a particle that behaves 'like' it is composed of 12 Quarks is at the moment totally beyond my present understanding.




Why throw in the London dispersion force ? I was quite happy with it being a weak Van der Waals type force between uncharged particles

Where do the 12 quarks come from and what is the Fine Structure Constant?

I was enjoying following this thread, reading it through for the first time and really appreciating GV's analogies, but I have just
been torpedoed below the waterline, and feel as someone I used to work with ( he was a janitor ) would say .... been educated beyond his intelligence .....a term reserved for managers who generally didn't have a clue

[Mr Whippy]

MiseryStreak said:

I've often disliked the rubber sheet analogy in describing the curvature of spacetime created by gravity. OK, massive objects will fall towards each other, but how are they falling? In a zero gravity environment, the rubber sheet will be flat as pancake. As an analogy it is miserably self referential and inadequate.

Please, please, please find the Graviton soon. We really need to know which tree to bark up, and help smash this list down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quantum_field...

Yep using a sliver of 2d rubber sheet to explain a 3d volume is horrible, more so because forcing the silver of 2d into the 3rd dimension to imply that 'effect' makes people see the thing as something that happens in a 3rd spatial dimension.

Why they don't just portray a 3d mesh with the grid tighter near large masses? Seems to make things make more sense.

Though I then wonder, to get higher density grid lines to represent the bent space time, do we need to stretch some out-lying ones to make it make sense... or do we simply introduce more grid lines to represent the bent space time?

Then I thought using colour makes more sense since it doesn't imply a distance (again making us think of spatial things in our limited 3d perception), where red is highly warped space time, green less so?


The rubber sheet type analogy only works nicely because if you send a ball across in a straight line it bends... oooo


Good thread so far, I'm a bit confused but keep re-reading

Dave

[Jinx]

Jinx said:

[mental exercise time]
To make an object move the force I apply at one end must be greater than the force of friction which will be dependant on the mass of the object, the friction coefficent of the object and surface and the surface area of the object in contact with the surface I am attempting to move the object across - with me?
If I apply force at one end then the contact surface area is limited by the speed of light - any of the object beyond this range cannot resist my initial force as it would require transmission of the resistance force at speeds greater than the speed of light. Therefore there would be a maximum force required to move any object of any size - clearly breaking Newton's third law.

Continuing with this train of thought (should really have got off at the last station) - we get to the rather startling conclusion that the amount of force required decreases with the amount of time that force is applied (as the inertia to that force is limited to the speed of light) .
This would then lead to the energy required for expansion at the start of the universe being a lot lower than calculated from the expansion effects (given the time this energy/force was applied) . Hence removing the necessity for dark energy to exist (or at least the amount of dark energy required) and changing all known physics. All based on the immutability of C
QED
Now where's my Noble prize.......

this effect can be demonstrated when applying a short sharp tap to get something moving as opposed to the continuous push

Edited by Jinx on Thursday 8th November 08:59

[SMGB]

Jinx said:

Continuing with this train of thought (should really have got off at the last station) - we get to the rather startling conclusion that the amount of force required decreases with the amount of time that force is applied (as the inertia to that force is limited to the speed of light) .
This would then lead to the energy required for expansion at the start of the universe being a lot lower than calculated from the expansion effects (given the time this energy/force was applied) . Hence removing the necessity for dark energy to exist (or at least the amount of dark energy required) and changing all known physics. All based on the immutability of C
QED
Now where's my Noble prize.......

this effect can be demonstrated when applying a short sharp tap to get something moving as opposed to the continuous push

Edited by Jinx on Thursday 8th November 08:59

Re give it a tap, or whacking a recalcitrant 1/2 shaft with a hammer. Look up impulse in wikipedia. This is why a big hammer swung slowly works better with an imapct driver.
Stiction is a well known phenomenon and is caused by microscopic effects like cold welding . Newtons laws specifically exclude friction and stiction. When you push on a block of wood sitting on a bench the push cannot travel faster than the speed of light, as can the reaction into you finger so it all cancels out.
I think forces are more likely to travel in solids/liquids at the speed of sound

[Jinx]

SMGB said:

Re give it a tap, or whacking a recalcitrant 1/2 shaft with a hammer. Look up impulse in wikipedia. This is why a big hammer swung slowly works better with an imapct driver.
Stiction is a well known phenomenon and is caused by microscopic effects like cold welding . Newtons laws specifically exclude friction and stiction. When you push on a block of wood sitting on a bench the push cannot travel faster than the speed of light, as can the reaction into you finger so it all cancels out.
I think forces are more likely to travel in solids/liquids at the speed of sound

Sorry I was begin facetious with the footnote my apologies for the confusion (hence the smilie at the top) the rest though was semi-serious .....

[SMGB]

Jinx said:

SMGB said:

Re give it a tap, or whacking a recalcitrant 1/2 shaft with a hammer. Look up impulse in wikipedia. This is why a big hammer swung slowly works better with an imapct driver.
Stiction is a well known phenomenon and is caused by microscopic effects like cold welding . Newtons laws specifically exclude friction and stiction. When you push on a block of wood sitting on a bench the push cannot travel faster than the speed of light, as can the reaction into you finger so it all cancels out.
I think forces are more likely to travel in solids/liquids at the speed of sound

Sorry I was begin facetious with the footnote my apologies for the confusion (hence the smilie at the top) the rest though was semi-serious .....

K, no worries, Those of us with some physics edumication can feel a bit sorry for those without who suddenly start trying to understand the universe without at least an A level. The standing on the shoulders of giants thing.

[Gene Vincent]

strudel said:

Gene Vincent said:

As promised we need to take a look at Gravity.

...we start with Electromagnetism, because Gravity and EM to be closely related, but in a very intriguing way.

I think you've missed a giant step here by not explaining how, as you base the rest of your explanation on it.

You're right, I'll address that shortly.

[Gene Vincent]

Pobolycwm said:

Why throw in the London dispersion force ? I was quite happy with it being a weak Van der Waals type force between uncharged particles

Where do the 12 quarks come from and what is the Fine Structure Constant?

It still is under the umbrella of a VdW force, but just having a name does not explain how this interaction occurs.

The FSC is an oddity, it appears to be a particle but isn't, but this phenomena is quite possibly linked to all the VdW type phenomenon, if the FSC alpha particle did actually exist it would have to behave as if it were composed of 12 quarks, but quarks also don't exist as such just their residual behaviour hangs around.

We spoke previously of the instaneous transition of the macro-micro worlds well we may be getting an insight as to why this transition is both instantaneous and effectively impossible to nail down.

It is an exciting time in Maths.

[Pobolycwm]

I can understand why we can never seperate a quark to "see" it , but on what basis do quarks not exist? If we can see their effect does that not imply their existence ?

The standard model which is still 100% validated confirms their existence

Maths has gone off in some funny directions before, ie I am no great fan of brane or string theory.......but there again I am not a mathematician

[Gene Vincent]

Pobolycwm said:

I can understand why we can never seperate a quark to "see" it , but on what basis do quarks not exist? If we can see their effect does that not imply their existence ?

The standard model which is still 100% validated confirms their existence

Maths has gone off in some funny directions before, ie I am no great fan of brane or string theory.......but there again I am not a mathematician

Quarks cannot exist at all below many million degress C.

It is not that temperature anywhere in this cosmos.

So the compression and interaction of probabilities that would form a quark if there were sufficient energy added (in the form of heat) can only influence the behaviour of (say) a proton or the alpha particle of the FSC.

The standard model includes the above, it does not confirm their 'existence' just the material to form them if the conditions are right (very hot Cosmos).

Strings and Branes do have something to contribute but so far nothing like the promise they were once thought to hold.

At these scales particles no longer exist at all.