Board index › Topical Discussion › Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

Is gravity matter? Is gravity energy?

Page 3 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

DefKoN
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 19

10 Jul 2012, 12:57 am

ruveyn wrote:
Gravitation is curvature of the space-time manifold. It is not a force.

ruveyn


or continuum



DaWalker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,837

10 Jul 2012, 1:31 am

It’s resultant effect of energy within / surrounded by, mass
Where there is change, there is energy
When confined it produces gravity to sustain, complete it’s existence
Eventually transferring its own life to form another.
Energy is perpetual, mass is the eventual lack thereof, until gravitating to it’s next form.


_________________
Respect Existence
or
Expect Resistance


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Jul 2012, 9:13 am

AspieRogue wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:



Yes I'm aware. Nonetheless, when the theory doesn't match the experimental data, you adjust the theory.
The un-renormalizability of gravity is one of the major flaws of the standard model of particles and fields.


The standard model was never made to explain gravitation.

ruveyn



And that's why it is an imcomplete scientific theory. The results of the Nesvizhevsky experiment aren't explainable via the Standard Model.


The only requirements of a scientific theory are that it is logically consistent and makes correct predictions. Completeness is not a requirement. Physics has not had a complete theory since the time of Isaac Newton. Before that it had essentially no theory.

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Jul 2012, 8:16 pm

Vigilans wrote:
One hypothesis is that elementary particles called "gravitons" are responsible for the gravity interaction


No spin 2 graviton (a boson) has every been detected.

ruveyn



AspieRogue

12 Jul 2012, 5:54 pm

ruveyn wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:



Yes I'm aware. Nonetheless, when the theory doesn't match the experimental data, you adjust the theory.
The un-renormalizability of gravity is one of the major flaws of the standard model of particles and fields.


The standard model was never made to explain gravitation.

ruveyn



And that's why it is an imcomplete scientific theory. The results of the Nesvizhevsky experiment aren't explainable via the Standard Model.


The only requirements of a scientific theory are that it is logically consistent and makes correct predictions. Completeness is not a requirement. Physics has not had a complete theory since the time of Isaac Newton. Before that it had essentially no theory.

ruveyn




The observations of ultracold neutrons(first documented in the Nesvizhevsky experiment in 2001) are experimental evidence that gravity does indeed have a quantum mechanical basis and therefore it IS indeed an actual force. The lack of a theory of quantum gravity only shows the inability of current models of quantum field theory to explain gravitation. New theories arise when new experimental discoveries are made that aren't explainable by contemporary theories. That is how quantum theory evolved in the first place.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Jul 2012, 6:39 pm

AspieRogue wrote:



The observations of ultracold neutrons(first documented in the Nesvizhevsky experiment in 2001) are experimental evidence that gravity does indeed have a quantum mechanical basis and therefore it IS indeed an actual force. The lack of a theory of quantum gravity only shows the inability of current models of quantum field theory to explain gravitation. New theories arise when new experimental discoveries are made that aren't explainable by contemporary theories. That is how quantum theory evolved in the first place.


has anyone ever observed a graviton ( a spin 2 boson that carries the gravitational force)?

All attempts to produce a quantized gravitational theory have come to grief with infinities. No one knows how to renormalize a quantum theory of gravitation.

ruveyn



AspieRogue

12 Jul 2012, 8:59 pm

ruveyn wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:



The observations of ultracold neutrons(first documented in the Nesvizhevsky experiment in 2001) are experimental evidence that gravity does indeed have a quantum mechanical basis and therefore it IS indeed an actual force. The lack of a theory of quantum gravity only shows the inability of current models of quantum field theory to explain gravitation. New theories arise when new experimental discoveries are made that aren't explainable by contemporary theories. That is how quantum theory evolved in the first place.


has anyone ever observed a graviton ( a spin 2 boson that carries the gravitational force)?


ruveyn




No. And a big reason for this may be due to the fact that observation of such a particle would require (collision)energies much larger than are possible with current particle accelerators.



Ericys
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 18
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada

13 Jul 2012, 7:21 am

I like to play with formulae and this is what I’ve come up with:

m=E/C^2

m=F/a

Fgravity = Gm1m2/r^2

Therefore:

Fgravity = G(F/a)(E/C^2)/r^2

Fgravity = G(FE/aC^2)/(r^2)

Since force and acceleration are inversely proportional to energy and the speed of light it can be said:

Fgravity= G(E1E2)/(C^4)(r^2)

Through using the formulae provided it can be said that gravity is the product of a constant (6.67428) and the energy of two particles divided by the product of the speed of light in a vacuum to the power of four (dimensionalized?) and distance between the two particles squared.

The intriguing aspect of this formulation is that the only way it can be disproven is by disproving either Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein, which would turn the entire scientific world upside down. I say this because the whole idea about M-theory is that wherever theories overlap they are to be equally capable in determining the outcomes of the event in which they describe. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein describe what mass is and they must be one of three possibilities:

• Both correct
• One wrong
• Both wrong

When I say deimensionalized I’m referring to the fact the speed of light is not being “squared” and it is not being “cubed” it is including also the fourth dimension to account for its area including the time factor.



Last edited by Ericys on 13 Jul 2012, 8:37 am, edited 3 times in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Jul 2012, 8:20 am

Ericys wrote:
I like to play with formulae and this is what I’ve come up with:

m=C^2/E

m=a/F

Fgravity = Gm1m2/r^2

Therefore:

Fgravity = G(C^2/E)(a/F)/r^2

Fgravity = G(aC^2/FE)/ (r^2)

Since force and acceleration are inversely proportional to energy and the speed of light it can be said:

Fgravity= G(C^4)/(E1E2(r^2))

Through using the formulae provided it can be said that gravity is the product of a constant (6.67428) and the speed of light in a vacuum to the power of four (dimensionalized?) divided by the product of the energy of two particles and the distance between them.

The intriguing aspect of this formulation is that the only way it can be disproven is by disproving either Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein, which would turn the entire scientific world upside down. I say this because the whole idea about M-theory is that wherever theories overlap they are to be equally capable in determining the outcomes of the event in which they describe. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein describe what mass is and they must be one of three possibilities:

• Both correct
• One wrong
• Both wrong

When I say deimensionalized I’m referring to the fact the speed of light is not being “squared” and it is not being “cubed” it is including also the fourth dimension to account for its area including the time factor.


Your formulas are wrong.

ruveyhn



Ericys
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 18
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada

13 Jul 2012, 8:34 am

Quote:
Your formulas are wrong.

ruveyhn


Fixed

And after thinking past my initial observation i notice i have not actualy put my input on what exactly gravity is. I just attempted to explain myself using formulae already written out by dead people.

Gravity is light with different time distorting properties. These properties are dependant on the level of energy or wavelength of the light. Which can very well explain what dark matter or dark energy is; it is wavelength of light which we have not yet attained the means of measuring and of which human kind has no ability of directly perceiving (senses).



AspieRogue

13 Jul 2012, 8:09 pm

Ericys wrote:
Quote:
Your formulas are wrong.

ruveyhn


Fixed

And after thinking past my initial observation i notice i have not actualy put my input on what exactly gravity is. I just attempted to explain myself using formulae already written out by dead people.

Gravity is light with different time distorting properties. These properties are dependant on the level of energy or wavelength of the light. Which can very well explain what dark matter or dark energy is; it is wavelength of light which we have not yet attained the means of measuring and of which human kind has no ability of directly perceiving (senses).



Have a look at the Einstein Field Equations which deal with gravitational energy via the stress-energy tensor.



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

13 Jul 2012, 11:03 pm

Both wrong



AspieRogue

13 Jul 2012, 11:46 pm

Inventor wrote:
Both wrong


Who you talkin to?



salem44dream
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2012
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 699

14 Jul 2012, 9:38 pm

I think it's funny that scientists declare things "wrong" when in fact we don't know anything for sure. Einstein's rules of relativity at this point in time have almost become as "sacred" as when The Church said the sun orbited around the earth.



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

15 Jul 2012, 4:52 am

AspieRogue wrote:
Inventor wrote:
Both wrong


Who you talkin to?


Ericys

Mass exists, but we do not know why.

Mass to Newton is what made his Gravity math work.

Mass to Einstein made his Energy math work.

Everything left over goes here, makes anything work.

Later study, the Atoms do not have the Particles to account for their Mass, and the missing difference? The Higgs Boson, which fills the space left.

We are making wild guesses, when the numbers do not work, fill in the space with Dark Energy.

I mostly go with Newton because I live in a Local and mostly Stable System. One Star, out to the Boundry Layer where it's Domain ends.

I am a Cosmic Hick. It is big enough for me. I have plenty of unanswered local questions.

My main questions are about the nature of Time.



AspieRogue

16 Jul 2012, 1:20 am

salem44dream wrote:
I think it's funny that scientists declare things "wrong" when in fact we don't know anything for sure. Einstein's rules of relativity at this point in time have almost become as "sacred" as when The Church said the sun orbited around the earth.




Well astrophysical data for the most part corresponds to the predictions of General Relativity at astronomical scales....But what I find astonishing is how guys like ruveyn consider the Standard Model to be as sacred as the Holy Bible and anything which cannot be explained by it has to be either an emergent effect generated by something else. The human scientific mind is very conservative and often does not accept change even when there is evidence for it. After all....

Quote:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.


-Max Planck