Gravity never zero
- Thread starter Ivan
- Start date
- Status
That's why I was taking Hansda through his/her equations to see if Hansda could see his own mistake.
I think this is going a bit far though "Frame dragging is a result of Einstein's general theory of relativity". If Frame Dragging is for real as it seems it preceded Einstein. I am tending to think it is synonymous with Relativity but I don't really know enough about it yet.
Could this be true: "Frame Dragging is Relativity"? I have a feeling this is what Hansda wants to show.
Last edited:
That's why I was taking Hansda through his/her equations to see if Hansda could see his own mistake.
I think this is going a bit far though "Frame dragging is a result of Einstein's general theory of relativity". If Frame Dragging is for real as it seems it preceded Einstein. I am tending to think it is synonymous with Relativity but I don't really know enough about it yet.
Could this be true: "Frame Dragging is Relativity"? I have a feeling this is what Hansda wants to show.
Frame-dragging comes directly from GR and Einstein's field equations. It was first published in 1918 (the Lense-Thirring effect), I believe I have run across some reference that Einstein was involved in some of the prepublication correspondence - letters, contributing to the final publication.
I am unaware of any suggestion of any similar effect that predates GR.
Gravity not only impacts space-time but also it will also create phase changes within materials. For example, the pressures caused by gravity allows fusion. Changes in space-time alone will not do this, or else SR would cause fusion.
One way to model this is to extend GR to include this extra phase adjustment. What you would need to add to the space-time affect is another space(distance) affect. Or gravity is more like space2-time, with the additional space multiplier connected to the actual distance changes that can result in liquids from gases, for example.
One way to model this is to extend GR to include this extra phase adjustment. What you would need to add to the space-time affect is another space(distance) affect. Or gravity is more like space2-time, with the additional space multiplier connected to the actual distance changes that can result in liquids from gases, for example.
I don't mean to shift the topic, just the lack within GR for completely defining gravity has resulted in the inabilty to do a proper energy balance. The result is the need to add other forms of invisible energy.
For example, the reason the earth has an iron core is due to gravity but is not included in GR. There is a mass/density affect due to gravity, which casues an ordering in mass based on how gravity impacts mass; density.
Gravity also results in the loss of entropy compared to if gravity is not acting. Going from gas to liquids results in a net loss of entropy. Segragating iron so it ends in the core of a planet lower entropy relative to a uniform material distribution.
Since the entropy of the universe needs to increase in light of gravity lowering entropy, we need a source elsewhere, such as an expansion. Entropy can create the illusion of an anti-gravity affect.
It is too bad people memorize tradtions and never learn them well enough to see the pitfals and short comings.
For example, the reason the earth has an iron core is due to gravity but is not included in GR. There is a mass/density affect due to gravity, which casues an ordering in mass based on how gravity impacts mass; density.
Gravity also results in the loss of entropy compared to if gravity is not acting. Going from gas to liquids results in a net loss of entropy. Segragating iron so it ends in the core of a planet lower entropy relative to a uniform material distribution.
Since the entropy of the universe needs to increase in light of gravity lowering entropy, we need a source elsewhere, such as an expansion. Entropy can create the illusion of an anti-gravity affect.
It is too bad people memorize tradtions and never learn them well enough to see the pitfals and short comings.
Fusion is a phase change? It is very confusing when you makeup definitions for terms that are already defined.
Seriously, this statement actually makes sense to you?
Oh for crying out loud, would you stop posting these absurdities in the science sections and hop on over to the pseudo-science area?
The fact that the earth has an iron core is addressed by even newtonian physics. The earths core is not mentioned in GR but it can directly be infered by it. Are you kidding?
Here we go with the befuddled discussion on entropy. What is a 'net loss of entropy'?
How does gravity lower entropy?
Only in your mind.
I think it is too bad that you continue to discuss entropy when it is painfully obvious you don't even understand what entropy means!
If you started with an earth composition that was uniform and then applied gravity materials will separate based on density. Random to order means lower entropy. I am not saying there is zero entropy but net is lowering. Since the universe has entropy increasing this has to be balanced elsewhere.
Gravity creates pressure which physically lowers the distances between objects regardless of space-time reference. This is why gravity can induce phase changes, such as a solid hydrogen core in jupiter. Explain how GR explains this induced pressure dependent phase change?
Gravity creates pressure which physically lowers the distances between objects regardless of space-time reference. This is why gravity can induce phase changes, such as a solid hydrogen core in jupiter. Explain how GR explains this induced pressure dependent phase change?
As has been pointed out to you before the boundry matters. You cannot seem to get that. If I compress a gas to form a liquid you think the entropy is lowered and educated person would say the energy required to compress the gas resulted in an increase in the entropy of the universe.
For your odd earth example ponder this. Lets assume there is a molecular cloud. There is a certain amount of gravity in the cloud due to the mass of the cloud. There is a certain amount of kenetic energy due to the motion of the particles. Now for whatever reason (supernova etc) the cloud collapses. The particles in the collapsing cloud hit each other and lose KE increasing the entropy of the universe increases. The denser matterials fall towards the center of the forming planet increasing friction and increasing the entropy of the universe. The higher order of the planet comes at a cost and that cost is an increase in the entropy of the universe.
WTF does this mean? Where else?
GR and Newtonian physics both explain the force that results in the increase in the pressure. Chemistry explains the phase change. When I boil water I am using thermal energy to cause a phase change - GR is not needed. When my refrigerator condenses the refrigerant it uses electrical power through a compressor to increase the pressure for the phase change - GR is not needed. You are very confused if you think that GR has anything to do with phase changes - other than supply the gravitational force that gives rise to the pressure.
This is what I said. If we isolate the gas cloud its entropy decreases as order forms. This results in an increase in entropy elsewhere. Gravity, by causing a local loss of entropy, results in an net entropy increase in the universe. This is dark energy, since the expansion reflects an entropy increase.
How does GR do this energy/entropy balance? If does not you need to add mystery matter and energy to compensate.
Picture all the gravity in galaxies causing a local change in entropy. The work and energy given off increase the entropty of the universe. The affect should be more degree of freeom in space (expansion).
In very general terms, an entropy increase will absorb energy. This is why entropy is often assocaiated with irretrevable energy. If energy is given off then entropy is lowering, since an increase in entropy does not give off energy.
When gases turn into liquid the heat of fusion that is given off tells us that entropy is decreasing. This energy can be absrobed elsewhere to increase entropy. But the gas to liquid has decreased entropy.
GR does not do a good energy balance and therefore misses the energy given off by stars and other matter formations that is attributed to gravity induced loss of entropy. This energy will increase the entropy elsewhere, such as the expansion of the universe since expansion is endothermic.
When gases turn into liquid the heat of fusion that is given off tells us that entropy is decreasing. This energy can be absrobed elsewhere to increase entropy. But the gas to liquid has decreased entropy.
GR does not do a good energy balance and therefore misses the energy given off by stars and other matter formations that is attributed to gravity induced loss of entropy. This energy will increase the entropy elsewhere, such as the expansion of the universe since expansion is endothermic.
This is nonsense! Wrong, it does not result in entropy increasing elsewhere. What an absurd thing to say. The process of the collapse results in a net loss of usable energy not elswahere - right there. It is simply that the lost energy is in the form of photons and they do not stick around.
Entropy is dark energy - great, yet another definiton of entropy? Entropy is simply the name given to the fact that processes tend to lose useable energy. The increase in entropy for the contracting cloud example is in the form of photons. So photons are dark energy? Really - rather ironic, huh?
This is just gibberish. What energy/entropy balance are you talking about that GR must address? Now you are adding dark matter to muddy the waters evern more? Do you even know why dark matter and dark energy were theorized - here is a clue it is NOT due to the expansion of the universe that has been known about for 80 years, or even entropy.
Picture this - you taking a thermodynamics course.
I don't always fully explain what I mean. Comments and even criticism helps me to focus. Let me explain with a hypothetical example.
What we have is an open container. In the center, is a crystalization which lowers entropy, by forming order such as a perfect diamond. We can tell this loses entropy since energy is given off. Outside this central diamond is a vacuum for light years.
Because the diamond lowers entropy, energy is given off. This energy needs to be absorbed to increase entropy elsewhere, but since we have a vaccuum there is nothing material in nature, which is available to absorb the energy and increase entropy. There will be a net loss of entropy. The energy will be conserved, but it can't go into entropy due to the vaccuum. How do you increase the entropy of empty space?
This is the entropy paradox within space. There is not enough material in empty space, which can gain entropy at the rate at which energy is given off by the various entropy lowering affects induced by gravity. Rarified gases in space will get saturated in terms of entropy, since there are only so many degrees of freedom, yet so much continuous output energy. Most of the energy reaches us, untouched, even from billions of years ago. It is not being fully converted into entropy.
If we assume the entropy of the universe has to increase over time, yet we lack the material in space needed to express this entropy, in relationship to all the gravity induced output energy, we need another universal source for the entropy. The red shift shows some of the universal energy output is being absorbed (lower energy photons), which we know is due to the expansion. This is where the entropy increase for the universe is occurring. Space-time expansion = the needed entropy increase.
Again entropy needs energy to increase. If entropy lowers, energy will be given off. If we have a vaccum how do you increase entropy with all the energy given off by entropy loss via gravity? You can't directly, so the energy is conserved as energy not entropy. If the universe red shifts the energy, energy is being absorbed by the entropy of space-time expansion. This energy/entropy balance is needed for the second law.
What we have is an open container. In the center, is a crystalization which lowers entropy, by forming order such as a perfect diamond. We can tell this loses entropy since energy is given off. Outside this central diamond is a vacuum for light years.
Because the diamond lowers entropy, energy is given off. This energy needs to be absorbed to increase entropy elsewhere, but since we have a vaccuum there is nothing material in nature, which is available to absorb the energy and increase entropy. There will be a net loss of entropy. The energy will be conserved, but it can't go into entropy due to the vaccuum. How do you increase the entropy of empty space?
This is the entropy paradox within space. There is not enough material in empty space, which can gain entropy at the rate at which energy is given off by the various entropy lowering affects induced by gravity. Rarified gases in space will get saturated in terms of entropy, since there are only so many degrees of freedom, yet so much continuous output energy. Most of the energy reaches us, untouched, even from billions of years ago. It is not being fully converted into entropy.
If we assume the entropy of the universe has to increase over time, yet we lack the material in space needed to express this entropy, in relationship to all the gravity induced output energy, we need another universal source for the entropy. The red shift shows some of the universal energy output is being absorbed (lower energy photons), which we know is due to the expansion. This is where the entropy increase for the universe is occurring. Space-time expansion = the needed entropy increase.
Again entropy needs energy to increase. If entropy lowers, energy will be given off. If we have a vaccum how do you increase entropy with all the energy given off by entropy loss via gravity? You can't directly, so the energy is conserved as energy not entropy. If the universe red shifts the energy, energy is being absorbed by the entropy of space-time expansion. This energy/entropy balance is needed for the second law.
Gravity was around long before Newton defined it. So too with frame dragging. It is a physical reality, so precedes any formula accounting for it.
That is the point I was trying to make that you can't say "Frame dragging is a result of Einstein's general theory of relativity".
Another swing - and a miss. Here is about as simple of an example that I can think of. Roll a ball down a hill. The PE is converted to KE so there is no change in the total energy. HOWEVER. There is friction from the ground (energy is given off in the form of heat) entropy increases. There is air friction (energy is given off in the form of heat) entropy increases.
This is yet another example of your inability to grasp the importance of boundries. How can you condense the gas? You either need a heat reservoir or you must increase the pressure; either way the process increases the entropy (GR is not needed I might add).
You are so far off the mark it is frightening. What makes you believe that GR is somehow required to explain the energy balance of a star?
You keep talking about entropy increasing in this spot so then entropy must increase 'elsewhere'. This is such foolish way to think of entropy. You make is sound like if I compress a gas in a cylinder then the entopy will have to increase at Alpha Centuri. If I compress a gas in a cylinder then whatever I am using as a compressor will increase the entropy and the heat coming throught the walls of the cylinder will increase the entropy.
In a literal sense you are correct. Frame-dragging did exist long befor Einstein was even born. But it was never, that I am aware of, even suggested before he published GR and it cannot be derived from Newtononian Mechanics. If it could have been, Newton would likely have been able to explain the advacement of the perihelion of Mercury.
Everything we know today, existed before we knew it. Or in the case of "made" things, at least the potential existed before the knowledge required to "make" them.
You come up with the damnest ideas. How does a diamond spotaneously form in the middle of nothing? It doesn't. Whatever process was used to form the diamond resulted in an increase in entropy. But lets continue.
No it does not.
Photons.
This is the paradox in your mind because you do not understand entropy.
Learn what entropy is and you will understand.
Energy being converted into entropy? What a meaningless statement.:shrug:
There is absolutely no requirement for material to 'express entropy'. This is all something that you have made up. It has no basis in physics.
No, not really. The universe is expanding which means there will be less and less usable energy resulting in a universe that is very, very, very close to absolute zero in the far, far future. If the universe were to stop expanding today the increase in entropy would not stop. The universe would just have the same temperature above absolute zero in the far, far future
This is such a series of confused and ill formed sentences I am hesitent to address them.
1. Entropy does not need energy - that doesn't make sense.
2. Photons travel through a vacuum so that is how entropy is increased.
3. Entropy loss via gravity - that is like saying entropy loss via electrical potential.
A rather horrific summation. Please take a physics course, I believe that the first semester or second at the latest will discuss thermodynamics.
As I was writing my previous post I was wondering about the existence of all things, and really only imaginary things can be attributed to their owners. All other things exist before they are discovered.
That aside, it was interesting that you have raised the issue of precession of Mercury’s perihelion.
It has been said that it was in part accounted for by Einstein's relativity. It has also been said that frame dragging accounts for it. But then when I tried to say that must mean relativity and frame dragging are one and the same I was shot down.
Now you are saying Newton could have used it to account for the 43 arc seconds unaccounted for if he knew about frame dragging, so are you also saying relativity and frame dragging are equivalent in this case?
Now you are saying Newton could have used it to account for the 43 arc seconds unaccounted for if he knew about frame dragging, so are you also saying relativity and frame dragging are equivalent in this case?
No, what I was attempting to say, is that IF Newtonian Mechanics and Newton's field equations had led to the discovery of frame-dragging, he would have been able to account for the perihelion advancement of Mercury. Newton's work did not make that leap... This is largely due to the ridgely fixed definition of space and time, as Newton saw them. With space fixed in the background, it could not be drug along. Even into the late 1800s and the addition of the Luminiferous aether, both space and the aether were fixed.., stationary and did not interact with matter. Hence, there could be no idea of frame-dragging.
Eimstein and general relativity did not create either gravity or frame-dragging. He and it, just provided a conceptual and theoretical framework from which they could be understood or better understood. Still he, Eimstein, was unable to explain the underlying cause or mechanism(s).
I don't think that frame-dragging IS General Relativty, any more than I believe that gravity IS General Relativity, but General relativity describes both better than any other theoretical models we have... So far...
In both cases we are still at a loss to describe the underlying mechanisms.
Edit: P.S. I am fairly certain that Newton was aware of the issue with Mercury. He just was not able to explain it with the world view of the day.
Entropy requires energy to increase. If you lower entropy, energy is given off. If entropy can form without energy then you invented perpetual motion. I can wait for you entropy to increase with nothing, lower it and get perpetual energy. You should review perpetual motion.
Instead of the diamond in the vacuum, so we don't get absurd and set up a distracting smoke scene, we have water freezing into ice because the vacuum is cold, with the release of the heat of fusion. This energy release goes into the vacuum. There is no material for conversion into entropy. The energy just lingers. You need to reread what you think you learned in physics since you demonstrate what happens when you memorize.
Since energy from the most distant galaxies can reach us, with much of this energy indirectly connected to gravity lowering entropy, then very little of this energy is converted to entropy or else we would not see as much. There is a universal entropy deficit if the second law is valid. The expansion of space-time will increase the entropy.
One way to understand how expanded space time implies higher entropy is to compare two references doing the same thing, generating entropy at the rate of X per hour in their reference. The expanded reference will appear to have a faster rate of entropy turnover compared to the contracted reference where time slows and therefore all rates of change including entropy generation slows. Expansion of space-time can express entropy faster to help ,make the most of the material that is available.
If go back to gravity equal to zero this is where space-time does not need to expand since there is zero gravity related generation of energy. The second law is all set without requiring space-time to expand to pick up the slack.
Instead of the diamond in the vacuum, so we don't get absurd and set up a distracting smoke scene, we have water freezing into ice because the vacuum is cold, with the release of the heat of fusion. This energy release goes into the vacuum. There is no material for conversion into entropy. The energy just lingers. You need to reread what you think you learned in physics since you demonstrate what happens when you memorize.
Since energy from the most distant galaxies can reach us, with much of this energy indirectly connected to gravity lowering entropy, then very little of this energy is converted to entropy or else we would not see as much. There is a universal entropy deficit if the second law is valid. The expansion of space-time will increase the entropy.
One way to understand how expanded space time implies higher entropy is to compare two references doing the same thing, generating entropy at the rate of X per hour in their reference. The expanded reference will appear to have a faster rate of entropy turnover compared to the contracted reference where time slows and therefore all rates of change including entropy generation slows. Expansion of space-time can express entropy faster to help ,make the most of the material that is available.
If go back to gravity equal to zero this is where space-time does not need to expand since there is zero gravity related generation of energy. The second law is all set without requiring space-time to expand to pick up the slack.
- Status