One could make up a multitude of guesses.
Gravity never zero
- Thread starter Ivan
- Start date
- Status
What are those guesses ?
I guess only two guesses can be possible , either particle Neutrino causes frame-dragging or it does not cause frame-dragging . I dont know if any third guess is possible .
What you think ?
When I wrote "One could make up a multitude of guesses" it was meaning that the guesses could be on multitude of topics as well".
Hansda, GR has never explained much at a subatomic level. We can, today extend gravitational effects to an atomic scale consistent with GR, but beyond that things don't work. The GR field equations begin to generate infinities, not good.
No one has yet come up with a model for quantum gravity that can explain both subatomic scales and remain consistent with GR at macroscopic scales.
Frame-dragging is predicted from Einstein's field equations and GR, though he, Einstein was not the one to first address this. The field equations cannot be successfully applied to neutrinos and other subatomic particles, so we cannot use what little we know of frame-dragging, all of which involves macroscopic systems, and project it to the scale of the neutrino, or other subatomic particles.
No one can answer the question(s) that lie within this discussion. No one.
I don't have a problem with speculation, but it is important to always remember that it is speculation.
Could gravity be the connection between motion and mass? For a lifetime I have been intrigued as to "where gravitational potential energy was stored?" Some years ago I figured it is contained in the masses that are separated. This seemed to be supported by the occasional scientific expression. One statement by Stephen Hawking seemed to confirm what I had determined in that he said the “structural energy of the Universe was equal to the Gravitational potential energy”.
Does that mean the structure we see is actually formed by the expansion process involved since the Big Bang. Matter separating creates mass, and mass moving toward matter unravels back to motion (gravity).
I have just tried to find the reference to that statement from Stephen Hawking but couldn't find it just now.
These are personal views and untested opinion but I am hoping that it can be shown some day.
Does that mean the structure we see is actually formed by the expansion process involved since the Big Bang. Matter separating creates mass, and mass moving toward matter unravels back to motion (gravity).
I have just tried to find the reference to that statement from Stephen Hawking but couldn't find it just now.
These are personal views and untested opinion but I am hoping that it can be shown some day.
I can answer them. Answers to questions depend upon the questioner accepting the answers. But a questioner automatically becomes somebody who doesn't know the answer. If you yourself are a questioner with a quote "No one can answer the question(s) that lie within this discussion. No one." Then as a questioner who doesn't accept the answers you are a paradoxical questioner. You are a questioner who does not know something, and yet seems to know that the answers you hear are wrong. A questioner can never decide if the answers they hear are wrong because they are a questioner. If a questioner can decide that the answers they hear are wrong, then they must have an answer. For example you ask "What is 1 + 1?" I say "2". You say "Nobody knows the answer". It means that you have decided on a different answer, and shouldn't ask the question.
Of course you can. But implicit in Onlyme's statement, "No one can answer the question(s) that lie within this discussion. No one." was that no one can CORRECTLY answer the question. So that renders any of your answer moot.
That's the same paradox. To know that someone cannot answer means that you know the answer. If you don't know the answer, then you don't know if the answers are correct. Let me try it another way.. you ask what is 1 + 1 and I say 3. You then say "Nobody knows the answer", but you must know that 2 is the answer to say that nobody knows the answer.
To remove the paradox you can say "I don't know how we can be sure of the answers that we get."
Then you have a new question... "How do we validate our answers?"
Which is a much better question.
Last edited:
No, it is really not that complicated. It is rather easy to recognize nonsense. If someone give an answer that is clearly nonsense and is demonstrably incorrect then it is not necessary to know the correct answer.
An example would be if I said I have a random colored sheet of paper in the box and I don't know what color it is, and I then ask you what the color you think it is and you guess bubbles - I can be sure you are wrong.
No, it is really not that complicated. It is rather easy to recognize nonsense. If someone give an answer that is clearly nonsense and is demonstrably incorrect then it is not necessary to know the correct answer.
An example would be if I said I have a random colored sheet of paper in the box and I don't know what color it is, and I then ask you what the color you think it is and you guess bubbles - I can be sure you are wrong.
You couldn't be sure I was wrong if I said "Black" You would still have to ask how I know. Then I would maybe have a way to know.. Because there is no light in the box. To be sure that people are wrong is mental dictatorship. You set yourself up as the one that has to be right.
Last edited:
Yes, yes! I should have said, that no one could answer with any certainty, that the answer represents reality. We can all answer questions. We cannot always provide the correct or accurate answers.
Sometimes answers are, noting more than an expression of someone's imagination.
How gravity works at subatomic scales and how QM functions at macroscopic and cosmic scales is something we have not yet resolved. So any answers to questions involving such are at best speculation or imagination and sometimes just outright fantasy. (Imagination does play a roll in science. Fantasy seldom does.)
And I never understood the question to be what 1 + 1 was.... It was more along the lines of what frame-dragging effect a neutrino might have... Right?
No, it is really not that complicated. It is rather easy to recognize nonsense. If someone give an answer that is clearly nonsense and is demonstrably incorrect then it is not necessary to know the correct answer.
An example would be if I said I have a random colored sheet of paper in the box and I don't know what color it is, and I then ask you what the color you think it is and you guess bubbles - I can be sure you are wrong.
Actually he might have a chance there! Crayola does list Bubbles as a color.
That still leaves him at guessing though....
(just a little humor...)
More complicated.. yes. But you still use the word 'we', just don't include me, in 'we'. If you don't know something just put....
"Only Pincho knows the answer!"
That works even if it's just a joke.
Actually this thread like many, includes several separte discussions, at least loosely related. The one you jumped into only included you when you jumped in.
I think I was mostly responding to Hansda, in an effort to clarify speculation past and present on both "our" parts from what can be associated with observation, experience and the scope of application of GR and QM.
That said, if I use the word we in any discussion with someone other than you, you are free to assume it does not include you.., until you jump in. At which point you should expect your fantasies and speculations to be subject to the same limitations as everyone else.
Doing another search on the idea and I see a reference to it:
I am sure Hawking wrote the same or similar statement.
If the positive mass-energy is balanced with the negative GPE are they not one and the same thing? The more GPE an object has the more Mass Energy it has. This makes sense to me. But then it causes confusion as then elements and particles could potentially have differing masses depending where they are in the universe. It would depend on how far out from the gravitational attraction of the main mass it has gone. Once something begins to fall into a black hole the GPE is reducing so that would imply the mass is reducing as well. In this case the mass is being converted to kinetic energy.
So there are some consequences of my theory. Whether they hold out who knows. It will be interesting to see if science can confirm or refute any of them.
Some ideas discussed here: http://www.arachnoid.com/gravity/index.html
Last edited:
That WiKi article begins with a disclaimer that it needs attention from an expert...
The idea that inertia is emergent from an interaction between an object (composed of particles, i.e. matter) and its motion through vacuum energy or the zero-point field (ZPF), has a lot of different perspectives, approaches. Many papers... Not all consistent with one another. There is some underlying logic within many of these approaches. There is also a problem, in that where we can associate inertia and gravity as a matter of experience, it is not so easy to get gravity from the ZPF or vacuum energy. Quantum gravity is still a work very much on the drawing board...
If we were to find some confirmation of the emergence of inertia from a QM interaction, largely dependent on a particle's EM field.., the interaction of matter and vacuum energy, we would either have to assume that the equivalence principle is just coincidence or reconsider how GR is projected into the world as a curvature of spacetime.
Most of the ZPF/vacuum energy models for inertia I have looked at, pretty much boiled down to a fundamental kinetic interaction. Every attempt, so far to address gravity from a kinetic perspective has been found lacking, to completely whacko.
Note: I am not an expert on any of the ZPF inertia models. I have some trouble working my way through some of the math, they are using. Some have claimed to touch on gravity as well, but I have not seen any real connection there. Consider me an independent student on the topic and most of what I post speculation.
When you throw a ball up kinetic energy is converted to GPE till it stops and then it accelerates downward. So there is a connection between KE and GPE on a very basic level.
What I have searched for at times, and only found a few references to, is that the GPE at the highest point is stored in the mass of the ball. It is infinitesimally more massive at the top than when stationary on the ground.
Now you can imagine this is rather difficult to measure and prove, but I'm trying to figure out a way of testing it.
What were the attempts that you were referring to?
When you talk of inertia, I'm not that familiar in thinking in those terms.
My understanding is that the more massive an object is this implies the more inertia is has to a change velocity, but that is about as far as it goes.
So inertia is proportional to mass.
What were the attempts that you were referring to?
When you talk of inertia, I'm not that familiar in thinking in those terms.
My understanding is that the more massive an object is this implies the more inertia is has to a change velocity, but that is about as far as it goes.
So inertia is proportional to mass.
Mass is defined by its resistance to a change in motion, which is at least a definition of inertia. An object's inertia does vary with its mass, but then so does its gravitational field and through the principle of equivalence, the inertial resistance an object experiences when under uniform accelleration, is equivalent to the force it experiences within a gravitational field.
Inertia and gravitation do seem to be associated in some way. Historically and even to a large extent today, Mach's principle is seen as an explaintion of the connection between inertia and gravity. But it does not explain how and it has not been encorporated into GR in an entirely consistent way.
As I have mentioned, there are also many different approaches to explaining inertia derived from QM. It seems to me that there is some merit to at least the general mechanisms involved. But these attempts seem to be lacking considerably in the area of providing similar mechanisms for gravitation.
This leaves a big question mark, where though experience and observation tell us that inertia and gravity are connected, the theories we use to explain each don't work well with each other.
As far as kinetic models of gravity, the best known would be the LeSage model, though he was not the first to suggest it... Repeatedly these models have been shown to be disfunctional, at least as presented. There are some other similar models out there, but most slide further down the hillside into the Fringe science swamp.
Gravity does result in kinetic relationships between objects, but the kinetic relationship is not the source of gravity. It is an outcome.
As I mentioned earlier, there are some theories of inertia involving the ZPF and matter, that seem to follow reasonable logic. The biggest problem I see there is that if they are an accurate description of the mechanism underlying inertia, they also suggest that gravity should have some similar underlying kinetic basis. And there is the nut, we have no kinetic model for gravitation that is even close reaching agreement with GR.
Now I want you to use your imagination right. Say if for some unknown reason whenever a mass was put on a frictionless surface it would accelerate to the North, so it is given the term the force of Norgravity and it is shown to always move toward the Pole and the strength Force = NGm*M/R^2. NG being the norgravitational constant.
So it is like gravity but makes objects slide rather than fall. So when you do your traditional experiments to measure the inertial mass of something you have to take this additional force into account.
You push your mass East West and it travels in a virtual straight line and doesn't slow down. Push it to the North it has a higher acceleration and than when pushed to the South. In fact it tends to slow and stop and then return when pushed to the South. We call an object in this state having Potential Norgravitational energy.
Inertia is the same in all directions but gravity (norgravity) has a direction of force. It would be the inertia of the mass that stops a mass from accelerating instantly to the speed of light. Gravity (norgravity) acts at the speed of light, it would love to push these objects around at the speed of light but the inertial mass stops it from achieving that velocity instantly.
The only time mass approaches the speed of light is as matter falls under the influence of gravity into a black hole. I am sure the rate of orbital rotation is more than is accountable by the conservation of the angular momentum. (This would be worth checking out, for we say things fall into a BH but in the end they orbit them rapidly at the point of going through the event horizon.
Well that is my understanding from study years ago, is this still accepted?
So it is like gravity but makes objects slide rather than fall. So when you do your traditional experiments to measure the inertial mass of something you have to take this additional force into account.
You push your mass East West and it travels in a virtual straight line and doesn't slow down. Push it to the North it has a higher acceleration and than when pushed to the South. In fact it tends to slow and stop and then return when pushed to the South. We call an object in this state having Potential Norgravitational energy.
Inertia is the same in all directions but gravity (norgravity) has a direction of force. It would be the inertia of the mass that stops a mass from accelerating instantly to the speed of light. Gravity (norgravity) acts at the speed of light, it would love to push these objects around at the speed of light but the inertial mass stops it from achieving that velocity instantly.
The only time mass approaches the speed of light is as matter falls under the influence of gravity into a black hole. I am sure the rate of orbital rotation is more than is accountable by the conservation of the angular momentum. (This would be worth checking out, for we say things fall into a BH but in the end they orbit them rapidly at the point of going through the event horizon.
Well that is my understanding from study years ago, is this still accepted?
- Status