Quantifying gravity's mechanism

[quantum_wave]

In reference to Energy and force you wrote:


This is a good example of the lack of clarity in your writing. You seem to be saying that you define energy and force differently than other people. But then I could not say for certain that you said that. I have to read between the lines and supply most of your meaning there myself. In truth I have no idea what you said above. Instead of just coming out and stating something you talk around the subject. Never getting to the point.



Ok then, what is your definition of 'energy'?

And what is your definition of 'force'?

Are they the same thing? If so then tell us why.

Please try and be clear.

First of all, its Friday night and I am nursing my Black Russian, so I'm not likely to get into the details of the definition of energy, but I will jump on that first chance I get.

At one point in this thread I actually thought maybe you were talking about GR but as I said, I had to supply my own context and try and understand your differently defined words.

As another person who briefly engaged me recently wondered, am I on to something, or just plain deluded. Actually, it is a little of both. You seem to be on the fence as to whether you want me to be wrong or you want me to be right. My bet is that I am a little of both, and the issue then boils down to which parts are which.

I gave you a sort of a challenge which you ignored:

The premise is that everything is wave energy, ... everything ... every point in space contains wave energy. If you want to help, refute that misconception on my part. Just say I'm wrong, you don't have to prove it by saying there is actually any solid particle or object out there. You don't have to say there is actually a perfect vacuum anywhere, just say you think there is something that is not composed of wave energy, and maybe suggest what that something is, and I will have something to go on.

Go ahead, just say I am wrong and give me an example of something that you think is not composed of wave energy.

There are only 3 places I have ever encountered this to such an extent. One is religion where the listener has to read into the words of the dogma his own understanding (which is not necessarily the same as the next person's). Second is advertising where they can present a jingle or some meaningless words and the consumer decides what the meaning is. Coke, its the real thing! Third is politics. And now I have to add a forth, Alternative Theories. But I actually have to go looking for these rather than have them thrust upon me like in the other subjects.

Religion, advertising, or politics ... how about just plain old alternative hypothesis. That is what I do, and I am good enough at it to make it very difficult for you to falsify. I'm not saying that to taunt you into the old rub that we can't falsify Green Meanies living inside the moon. My ideas are far from Supernatural, fantasy, religion or politics. They are based on a wide scope of alternative science from professionals and layman, and you should get over your inclination to rebuke, and think about what alternative science would be necessary to reconcile the existing inconsistent theories.

 

[Cheezle]

I gave you a sort of a challenge which you ignored:
Go ahead, just say I am wrong and give me an example of something that you think is not composed of wave energy.

I did not ignore it. I just didn't understand it. That is why I asked you about your definition of energy. Until I know what you mean by that, I can't understand what you mean by wave energy. So after you define energy, I will ask you about those spherical standing energy waves, because I don't think you understand what a standing wave is, or how it is formed. But lets get the basics down first. Energy and Force.

Religion, advertising, or politics ... how about just plain old alternative hypothesis. That is what I do, and I am good enough at it to make it very difficult for you to falsify. I'm not saying that to taunt you into the old rub that we can't falsify Green Meanies living inside the moon. My ideas are far from Supernatural, fantasy, religion or politics. They are based on a wide scope of alternative science from professionals and layman, and you should get over your inclination to rebuke, and think about what alternative science would be necessary to reconcile the existing inconsistent theories.

Once again, I did not say your ideas were like religion, or politics. I was remarking how your method of presenting your ideas was similar to the ways people promote those subjects. Note that religion and politics can be presented clearly and in a straight forward manner, but seldom are. I am not even saying you do this on purpose. But the effect is the same. The reader has to supply their own idea that they then agree or disagree with. The problem is that you define words differently and tend to present your ideas in around about way. In simpler words you are using poor communication skills. Your words have a nice smooth flow to them but you should be using expository writing techniques to present your ideas. I am not good at that either but then I am not the one presenting the Alternative Theory.

 

[quantum_wave]

I did not ignore it. I just didn't understand it. That is why I asked you about your definition of energy. Until I know what you mean by that, I can't understand what you mean by wave energy. So after you define energy, I will ask you about those spherical standing energy waves, because I don't think you understand what a standing wave is, or how it is formed. But lets get the basics down first. Energy and Force.



Once again, I did not say your ideas were like religion, or politics. I was remarking how your method of presenting your ideas was similar to the ways people promote those subjects. Note that religion and politics can be presented clearly and in a straight forward manner, but seldom are. I am not even saying you do this on purpose. But the effect is the same. The reader has to supply their own idea that they then agree or disagree with. The problem is that you define words differently and tend to present your ideas in around about way. In simpler words you are using poor communication skills. Your words have a nice smooth flow to them but you should be using expository writing techniques to present your ideas. I am not good at that either but then I am not the one presenting the Alternative Theory.

May I ask you to specify your level of understanding of physics and cosmology? Would you say your are a professional, or a layman like I am. How many years have you spent studying science and have you ever had an alternative idea that you thought enough of to mention on a thread? What reason can you have to inquire about my so called model? Are you just trying to kill time? If you have a good understanding of generally accepted science and current theory, you should have a better sense of the positions I am taking.

Wave energy is not a new concept; water waves carry energy, sound waves carry energy, photons carry energy. Gravity wave energy might be easier to understand from the perspective of aether cosmologies, but my so called model has little correlation to the falsified and superseded luminiferous ether that carried light through space reminiscent of our great grandaddy's day, lol. It is more descriptive to say waves traverse space as if space was a medium that carries wave energy. Is the concept completely confusing to you?

 

[Cheezle]

May I ask you to specify your level of understanding of physics and cosmology? Would you say your are a professional, or a layman like I am. How many years have you spent studying science and have you ever had an alternative idea that you thought enough of to mention on a thread? What reason can you have to inquire about my so called model? Are you just trying to kill time? If you have a good understanding of generally accepted science and current theory, you should have a better sense of the positions I am taking.

I think I can understand anything you can dish out as long as you don't use too many personally defined terms. I am not a professional, but I have taken college level physics and chemistry (has it been over 40 years ago? Yes I guess it has). But I have read science books and I like to watch science lectures on youtube such as those Standford ones by Susskind. I do occasionally interface with real scientists and engineers in a professional capacity though not in a highly technical way. So call me a layman.

I have in my younger years dabbled in what you to call alternative theories, though in every case I dropped the idea as soon as I figured out what was wrong with it. So in that respect we are probably different.

Wave energy is not a new concept; water waves carry energy, sound waves carry energy, photons carry energy. Gravity wave energy might be easier to understand from the perspective of aether cosmologies, but my so called model has little correlation to the falsified and superseded luminiferous ether that carried light through space reminiscent of our great grandaddy's day, lol. It is more descriptive to say waves traverse space as if space was a medium that carries wave energy. Is the concept completely confusing to you?

I am familiar with waves so you can trust that I can keep up with any ideas there as long as you aren't redefining waves. As far as the aether goes, I don't believe in it because the Michelson Morley experiment falsified the concept. I agree with what Einstein said about the aether. That if it exists then it does not have the property of velocity. That statement makes aether theories very hard to support because it leads to some non-sensical ideas for a medium.

 

[Markus Hanke]

In my world, energy and force are very different things. Force and Energy have very concrete meanings and have different units.

I understand that force and energy aren't the same things. However, even in Newtonian mechanics I don't think about gravity as a force field, I think about it in terms of gravitational potentials. Assuming that the field is conservative, the forces are secondary phenomena and arise as the result of directional gradients. Now, I am sure you would agree that there is some merit in equating a gravitational potential with the presence of energy.

 

[Cheezle]

I understand that force and energy aren't the same things. However, even in Newtonian mechanics I don't think about gravity as a force field, I think about it in terms of gravitational potentials. Assuming that the field is conservative, the forces are secondary phenomena and arise as the result of directional gradients. Now, I am sure you would agree that there is some merit in equating a gravitational potential with the presence of energy.

Yes I can agree with what you say. It seems almost obvious that energy is more fundamental than force. In the case of gravity, the potential energy gradient produces the force. I have argued this before. In order to measure the force of gravity on a mass (weight) you have to impede the translation of potential energy into kinetic energy. And further the energy gradient is a result of the changes in space and time described in GR. Space, time and energy/mass seem to be the basis of all there is. At least I believe that, but am not schooled enough to actually state that as a fact.

But what I would like to know from you, is why are you are arguing with me rather than quantum_wave? You sound like you have studied physics and should understand why his alternative theory is bunk. You should see that he has conflated energy and force (as an example). And that his ideas of energy are not conservative. Why then not tell him that? I don't really care if quantum_wave has these views. But others will read them and believe them. It isn't just ignorance that is happening here in this thread, it is the spreading of misinformation. I would actually encourage quantum_wave to try and derive a system of physics from some philosophical first principles. It can be an educational experience. That is what I think he is attempting here. Unfortunately for him he has come up with what I would call pseudo-Aristotelianism. He took out the Earth, fire, air and water, and has injected aether. His ideas of inflowing and outflowing spherical standing waves are obviously non-conservative and based on misunderstandings. But more unfortunate for him is that he drinks his own poison. And most unfortunate is when somebody stumbles across this thread and decides that he is correct.

 

[Markus Hanke]

But what I would like to know from you, is why are you are arguing with me rather than quantum_wave? You sound like you have studied physics and should understand why his alternative theory is bunk. You should see that he has conflated energy and force (as an example). And that his ideas of energy are not conservative. Why then not tell him that? I don't really care if quantum_wave has these views. But others will read them and believe them. It isn't just ignorance that is happening here in this thread, it is the spreading of misinformation. I would actually encourage quantum_wave to try and derive a system of physics from some philosophical first principles. It can be an educational experience. That is what I think he is attempting here. Unfortunately for him he has come up with what I would call pseudo-Aristotelianism. He took out the Earth, fire, air and water, and has injected aether. His ideas of inflowing and outflowing spherical standing waves are obviously non-conservative and based on misunderstandings. But more unfortunate for him is that he drinks his own poison. And most unfortunate is when somebody stumbles across this thread and decides that he is correct.

I am not really siding or arguing with anyone; in general terms I am not interested in people's personal theories as they rarely contain anything of value, so I have not read most of the thread. It was just that one sentence about force and energy which sort of stood out to me, so I felt I needed to comment on it. In no way am I implying that quantum_wave's ideas hold any scientific merit.

I do agree with you that non-standard ideas need to be flagged up and pointed out, for the benefit of the casual reader.

You sound like you have studied physics

It honours me that this is your impression, but unfortunately it is not true. My academic field has nothing to do with any natural sciences, so my knowledge of physics and maths is the result of a life-long interest, and many hours of self-study from textbooks. I try to restrict myself to reputable textbooks, like the ones used in the physics curiculuum of institutions such as MIT and University of Cambridge. Textbook lists and other study materials are available on their websites. It is an ongoing, albeit not easy, journey.

 

[quantum_wave]

I think I can understand anything you can dish out as long as you don't use too many personally defined terms..

It is more than defining terms, it is about if the definition is science or not, wouldn't you agree. My hypotheses are not science, they are a hobby of mine, and so the definitions of words I use are not scientific, they are plain English to convey alternative hypotheses.

Let it be known that to protect the children who aren't old enough to know better, and yet who spend their time perusing my enormously captivating threads, sorry, but you must be 18 years old to read them. This is a part of a disclaimer that has been in effect for years, but it is worth repeating now and then when new people come along and express their concern that I am warping young minds. Please don't take anything I hypothesize about as being science.

So call me a layman.

Let's call you almost a professional then. I'm not almost a professional and so I expect criticism from professionals and almost professionals, if they state they actually read my posts and have found something specific that they can correct. I don't have the same standards for what I do as you probably have.

I have in my younger years dabbled in what you to call alternative theories, though in every case I dropped the idea as soon as I figured out what was wrong with it. So in that respect we are probably different.

Actually no, I'm just not up to your level enough to know that what I hypothesis about is wrong. Maybe someday someone will be able to show me what is wrong, instead of just saying it is wrong.

I am familiar with waves so you can trust that I can keep up with any ideas there as long as you aren't redefining waves. As far as the aether goes, I don't believe in it because the Michelson Morley experiment falsified the concept.

This is an example of why we are wasting each other's time, if time was an issue to either of us. You didn't pick up on my statement about it not being our great granddaddy's ether which was falsified and superseded by GR. If you had, you wouldn't be under the impression that MM falsified the concept of space being a medium that carries gravity waves. You being almost professional, you need to pick up on those kinds of things.

You do understand what a luminiferous ether is, right. You do equate MM with its falsification, right? And yet you have what is almost a knee-jerk response that sounds like you equate space as a medium to carry gravity waves as already debunked by MM. That is what I mean about wasting each other's time. Maybe it isn't a waste of time to learn or to educate, and so I'll hope you learned something about aether theories, and I hope I educated you, because if not, it is a waste of time for us to bicker about things you don't understand, and that you are sure I don't understand.
(1656)

 

[Markus Hanke]

sounds like you equate space as a medium to carry gravity waves as already debunked by MM.

I don't understand what you are saying here. The Michelson-Morley experimental setup has nothing whatsoever to do with gravitational waves; the sensitivity of the apparatus in question is several orders of magnitude outside of what would be needed to detect such waves. It is simply not what it was designed for - not surprisingly, since in 1887 the concept of gravitational waves was not yet in existence.

Perhaps you could clarify this a bit.

 

[quantum_wave]

I don't understand what you are saying here. The Michelson-Morley experimental setup has nothing whatsoever to do with gravitational waves; the sensitivity of the apparatus in question is several orders of magnitude outside of what would be needed to detect such waves. It is simply not what it was designed for - not surprisingly, since in 1887 the concept of gravitational waves was not yet in existence.

Perhaps you could clarify this a bit.

Do I have to, lol. You understand, and Cheezle will do a little research and understand. Anyone who has enough interest in cosmology would have learned that. Remember the disclaimer about having to be 18 to read my threads. Too bad even the over 18 crowd isn't always up to speed on the high points of science history; so Cheezle is inadvertantly giving the poor children misinformation, shame, shame .

 

[Cheezle]

It is more than defining terms, it is about if the definition is science or not, wouldn't you agree. My hypotheses are not science, they are a hobby of mine, and so the definitions of words I use are not scientific, they are plain English to convey alternative hypotheses.

Let it be known that to protect the children who aren't old enough to know better, and yet who spend their time perusing my enormously captivating threads, sorry, but you must be 18 years old to read them. This is a part of a disclaimer that has been in effect for years, but it is worth repeating now and then when new people come along and express their concern that I am warping young minds. Please don't take anything I hypothesize about as being science.
Let's call you almost a professional then. I'm not almost a professional and so I expect criticism from professionals and almost professionals, if they state they actually read my posts and have found something specific that they can correct. I don't have the same standards for what I do as you probably have.
Actually no, I'm just not up to your level enough to know that what I hypothesis about is wrong. Maybe someday someone will be able to show me what is wrong, instead of just saying it is wrong.
This is an example of why we are wasting each other's time, if time was an issue to either of us. You didn't pick up on my statement about it not being our great granddaddy's ether which was falsified and superseded by GR. If you had, you wouldn't be under the impression that MM falsified the concept of space being a medium that carries gravity waves. You being almost professional, you need to pick up on those kinds of things.

You do understand what a luminiferous ether is, right. You do equate MM with its falsification, right? And yet you have what is almost a knee-jerk response that sounds like you equate space as a medium to carry gravity waves as already debunked by MM. That is what I mean about wasting each other's time. Maybe it isn't a waste of time to learn or to educate, and so I'll hope you learned something about aether theories, and I hope I educated you, because if not, it is a waste of time for us to bicker about things you don't understand, and that you are sure I don't understand.
(1656)

When I mentioned the aether I was referring to it as the light medium. The luminiferous medium. Wow, that term just reeks of Victorian science. Because your theory seems to include aether, I commented on that. The MM experiment falsified the concept of the luminiferous aether. You can actually do this experiment at home quite inexpensively these days. The results are still the same. There is no luminiferous aether. I never said it was the carrier of gravity waves. And I would add that gravity waves have never even been detected. Their existence is purely based on theory.

 

[quantum_wave]

When I mentioned the aether I was referring to it as the light medium. The luminiferous medium. Wow, that term just reeks of Victorian science. Because your theory seems to include aether, I commented on that. The MM experiment falsified the concept of the luminiferous aether. You can actually do this experiment at home quite inexpensively these days. The results are still the same. There is no luminiferous aether. I never said it was the carrier of gravity waves. And I would add that gravity waves have never even been detected. Their existence is purely based on theory.

Well good, then are you up to speed on the idea of gravity waves (wave energy in my laymen common English) and the medium of space that can be hypothesized to carry them?

 

[OnlyMe]

I do agree with you that non-standard ideas need to be flagged up and pointed out, for the benefit of the casual reader.

All readers should begin with an expectation that anything they read in the "Alternaive Theories" folder likely represents a generally non-standard idea... (sometimes that would be a generous assessment)


This thread is in "On The Fringe" —> "Alternative Theories". Anyone reading should begin with the understanding that the content has been flagged as "non-standard" by where it is posted.

This folder is really just somewhere for folks to let their imaginations ramble, unhindered by generally accepted science. At times entertaining but not a reliable source of accepted interpretations of science.

Still, it never hurts for an informed individual to offer an substantive correction, based on a generally accepted understanding of the subject under discussion.

 

[Cheezle]

Well good, then are you up to speed on the idea of gravity waves (wave energy in my laymen common English) and the medium of space that can be hypothesized to carry them?

I would say that you don't seem to be up to speed on gravity waves. Gravity is not made of waves. Gravitational waves are not what keeps up stuck to the surface of the earth. Here, let me quote Wikipedia since you can't or won't understand anything I write.

In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity is treated as a phenomenon resulting from the curvature of spacetime. This curvature is caused by the presence of mass. Generally, the more mass that is contained within a given volume of space, the greater the curvature of spacetime will be at the boundary of this volume. As objects with mass move around in spacetime, the curvature changes to reflect the changed locations of those objects. In certain circumstances, accelerating objects generate changes in this curvature, which propagate outwards at the speed of light in a wave-like manner. These propagating phenomena are known as gravitational waves.
[...]

Some more detailed examples:

• Two objects orbiting each other in a quasi-Keplerian planar orbit (basically, as a planet would orbit the Sun) will radiate.
• A spinning non-axisymmetric planetoid — say with a large bump or dimple on the equator — will radiate.
• A supernova will radiate except in the unlikely event that the explosion is perfectly symmetric.
• An isolated non-spinning solid object moving at a constant speed will not radiate. This can be regarded as a consequence of the principle of conservation of linear momentum.
• A spinning disk will not radiate. This can be regarded as a consequence of the principle of conservation of angular momentum. However, it will show gravitomagnetic effects.
• A spherically pulsating spherical star (non-zero monopole moment or mass, but zero quadrupole moment) will not radiate, in agreement with Birkhoff's theorem.

​

The way you are talking, it seems like you think that the earth is generating gravitational waves and it is those waves that attract us to its surface. That is not true at all.

 

[quantum_wave]

I thought you read the thread. I'm almost certain I addressed that in here somewhere. Edit: see posts #56 and #57 for that. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-s-mechanism&p=3058813&viewfull=1#post3058813. Anyway, so to quote you:

I would say that you don't seem to be up to speed on gravity waves.

True, I don't understand gravity waves. I hypothesize about what I think they might be.

Gravity is not made of waves.

Oh good, thanks. That is helpful to know. I guess it is back to the drawing board for me .

Gravitational waves are not what keeps up stuck to the surface of the earth. Here, let me quote Wikipedia since you can't or won't understand anything I write.

If you are saying that gravity is not waves, then of course they could not be what keeps us "stuck to the surface of the earth". Why on earth wouldn't I accept your word for that, given that you are so up to speed that you invoke Wiki to educate me on GR as if I just became aware of it.

In Einstein's theory of general relativity, gravity is treated as a phenomenon resulting from the curvature of spacetime. This curvature is caused by the presence of mass. Generally, the more mass that is contained within a given volume of space, the greater the curvature of spacetime will be at the boundary of this volume. As objects with mass move around in spacetime, the curvature changes to reflect the changed locations of those objects. In certain circumstances, accelerating objects generate changes in this curvature, which propagate outwards at the speed of light in a wave-like manner. These propagating phenomena are known as gravitational waves.

The way you are talking, it seems like you think that the earth is generating gravitational waves and it is those waves that attract us to its surface. That is not true at all.

I did just recently tell you that I don't invoke spacetime, but I do accept the EFEs as the best quantification of the effect of gravity. But I also said that I wonder about the mechanism of gravity.

If you are OK with GR and the curvature of spacetime by the presence of matter and energy, then you are fine. If you insist I accept your view, well you should at least have something better than Wiki to convince me of the mechanism of how matter warps spacetime. Geometry and mathematics don't seem to have the ability to do something so physical as to warp space unless you define spacetime in such a way where they have the ability to do that. It is geometry and math, not a physical mechanism that you are invoking when you invoke GR. Do you agree?

 

[Markus Hanke]

If you are OK with GR and the curvature of spacetime by the presence of matter and energy, then you are fine. If you insist I accept your view, well you should at least have something better than Wiki to convince me of the mechanism of how matter warps spacetime. Geometry and mathematics don't seem to have the ability to do something so physical as to warp space unless you define spacetime in such a way where they have the ability to do that. It is geometry and math, not a physical mechanism that you are invoking when you invoke GR. Do you agree?

There is no mechanism. Curvature ( =gravity ) and energy are one and the same thing; curvature is energy. You cannot separate the two. Energy does not perform an "action" which somehow changes space-time, it is rather an intrinsic property of space-time itself. Everywhere where there is energy therefore is gravity ( =curvature ), and vice versa.

True, I don't understand gravity waves. I hypothesize about what I think they might be.

Gravitational waves are simply changes in the geometry of space-time. A good analogy is the surface of a very still body of water - if you disturb that surface in some way, ripples of water will propagate outwards from the disturbance. Same in space-time. Energy is curvature. Changes in energy are thus changes in curvature, and these propagate outwards much like the ripples on a lake. These are gravitational waves.
Examples for changes in energy distributions would be binary stars orbiting one another, or a collapsing supernova. Since gravitational waves carry energy away, we would expect the orbits of binary stars to slowly decay, which is exactly what we are seeing :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913+16

 

[quantum_wave]

There is no mechanism. Curvature ( =gravity ) and energy are one and the same thing; curvature is energy. You cannot separate the two. Energy does not perform an "action" which somehow changes space-time, it is rather an intrinsic property of space-time itself. Everywhere where there is energy therefore is gravity ( =curvature ), and vice versa.



Gravitational waves are simply changes in the geometry of space-time. A good analogy is the surface of a very still body of water - if you disturb that surface in some way, ripples of water will propagate outwards from the disturbance. Same in space-time. Energy is curvature. Changes in energy are thus changes in curvature, and these propagate outwards much like the ripples on a lake. These are gravitational waves.
Examples for changes in energy distributions would be binary stars orbiting one another, or a collapsing supernova. Since gravitational waves carry energy away, we would expect the orbits of binary stars to slowly decay, which is exactly what we are seeing :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913+16

I'll put you in the group, along with many who invoke that theory. I don't, as pointed out in posts #56 and #57 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...-s-mechanism&p=3058813&viewfull=1#post3058813. I don't disagree with you on the time delay of gravitational changes. Where we disagree is on the instantaneous effect of the curvatue of spacetime. But then, I'm the one who doesn't undertand how geometry curves spacetime, so it is my problem not yours. If you are OK with it, you are fine.

 

[quantum_wave]

I've spent too many hours fiddling with my excel spread sheet method of applying my quantum action equation of two-sphere overlaps where each sphere represents a parent wave, and where the energy density of each parent is different. I proved the equation with equal spheres to my satisfaction as reported while the thread was in P&M.

The concept seems to be the same as when the two parent spheres have the same energy density, but in order to make the equation equal 1 with differing spheres, it is a lot of trial and error to apply the excel spreadsheet method.

First I stared with the variables from the equal spheres scenario, and tweaked the radii and cap heights to calculate the scenario when the parent spheres have different energy density. Then, as if to prove the results, I drew that scenario on graph paper and measured the angles, and using the equation for sin of an angle equals opposite side divided by the hypotenuse, calculated the height of each of the spherical caps.

Darn, I couldn't make spreadsheet results agree with the drawings. Turns out I was using the wrong triangle for the height of the second cap, and went back to the drawing board.

I decided to start with the drawings, measure the angles using the right triangles, feed the variables into the spreadsheet and tweak those results until the equation equalled one. By the time the equation came out with 1, the variables had changed enough to make the angles in the drawings off by more than I could explain by rounding and measurement errors.

I think the problem is that I should be using the sin for one of the cap heights and the cos for the other, maybe, but I'm putting that part of the quantification project on the back burner since this is no longer in P&M, and since I don't expect to be getting any mathematical help with such an impractical exercise even if it was in P&M.

I'll bring it back to the front burner later, but I believe my problem lies in not making the proper distinction between when to use the sin and the cos.

Sin of angle A gives me the opposite side divided by the hypotenuse. Isn't it right then that the cos of angle A gives me the adjacent side divided by the hyotenuse. OMG, just typing that out tells me where I think I made the error. For both caps I need to use the triangle where the length of the side opposite of the angle I'm using gives me radius minus height. Then since I know the radius, and since the sin calculation gives me the radius minus the height of the cap, I simply subtract R-h from R to get h. Oh well, back to the drawing board to test that out later. I know you are waiting with baited breath for me to say I proved the equation for spheres of differing energy densities, lol.
(1758)

 

[Cheezle]

Why on earth wouldn't I accept your word for that, given that you are so up to speed that you invoke Wiki to educate me on GR as if I just became aware of it.
I did just recently tell you that I don't invoke spacetime, but I do accept the EFEs as the best quantification of the effect of gravity. But I also said that I wonder about the mechanism of gravity.

Ah yes, the evil untrustworthy wikipedia. Kill the messenger! When I posted the wiki info, I read it first and decided that I agreed with it. I didn't just accept it as the source of all truth. I vetted the info before posting it.

If you are OK with GR and the curvature of spacetime by the presence of matter and energy, then you are fine. If you insist I accept your view, well you should at least have something better than Wiki to convince me of the mechanism of how matter warps spacetime. Geometry and mathematics don't seem to have the ability to do something so physical as to warp space unless you define spacetime in such a way where they have the ability to do that. It is geometry and math, not a physical mechanism that you are invoking when you invoke GR. Do you agree?

It seems to me that you are being a bit hypocritical on this issue. After all you are invoking trigonometry to tell matter how to move. Here let me modify what you just said to fit your predicament.

Trigonometry and excel spreadsheets don't seem to have the ability to do something so physical as to cause objects to move unless you define gravity's effect on matter in such a way where they have the ability to do that.​

And that is exactly what you are doing here. You are redefining the laws of nature to fit some preconceived notion of how it all must work. And you are invoking mathematics as a physical mechanism in your theory. The only difference between mathematics for spacetime curvature and trigonometry is the difficulty. So in effect your problem with curved spacetime is one of ignorance and maybe a little hubris. If you took the time to study the mathematics and its history then you would probably be quite comfortable with curved spacetime as a description of gravity. And I would go further and say that if you were talk about gravity to someone who had never taken even arithmetic, then you would find that they would find your idea that matter was effected by trigonometry to be fantastical. After all gravity is simple. Things always fall down and never fall up.

 

[quantum_wave]

Ah yes, the evil untrustworthy wikipedia. Kill the messenger! When I posted the wiki info, I read it first and decided that I agreed with it. I didn't just accept it as the source of all truth. I vetted the info before posting it.



It seems to me that you are being a bit hypocritical on this issue. After all you are invoking trigonometry to tell matter how to move. Here let me modify what you just said to fit your predicament.

Trigonometry and excel spreadsheets don't seem to have the ability to do something so physical as to cause objects to move unless you define gravity's effect on matter in such a way where they have the ability to do that.​

And that is exactly what you are doing here. You are redefining the laws of nature to fit some preconceived notion of how it all must work. And you are invoking mathematics as a physical mechanism in your theory. The only difference between mathematics for spacetime curvature and trigonometry is the difficulty. So in effect your problem with curved spacetime is one of ignorance and maybe a little hubris. If you took the time to study the mathematics and its history then you would probably be quite comfortable with curved spacetime as a description of gravity. And I would go further and say that if you were talk about gravity to someone who had never taken even arithmetic, then you would find that they would find your idea that matter was effected by trigonometry to be fantastical. After all gravity is simple. Things always fall down and never fall up.

I don't think so. I'm putting you in the same category with Prof.Layman, to whom I not longer respond. Have fun with responding to that, lol.