I think you know , how 'escape velocity' is calculated .
What is time??
- Thread starter Shadow1
- Start date
So what?
I'll try again:
Meaning what?
I'll ask again: where is this boundary?
If it's dependant solely on velocity then it's not exactly a "boundary" is it?
What speed do you think "space" is doing relative to Earth? How do you know?
This appears to be another one of your "Let's make something up, based on a serious lack of knowledge, and then waffle inanely when asked to justify it" attempts.
Distance travelled with escape-velocity from earth's surface , can be considered as the boundary for earth's space .
This is an entirely meangless sentence.
Escape velocity varies with distance from the Earth. Therefore, if something is moving slowly enough it can be immensely far away, yet still in orbit (free fall) round Earth.
One more time: where is this boundary?
I'll get back later with a more detailed discussion of some of your last posts, my time now is limited but as to the post above quoted...
If we assume no other interfering gravitational force and eliminate air resistance, an object that leaves the surface of the earth with "escape" velocity, will never stop moving away from the earth. At least within the context of our current understanding of gravitation and inertia. As currently understood the Earth's gravitational influence extends indefinitely away from the earth and escape velocity is the velocity required to completely offset the influence of the Earth's gravitational influence, without establishing an orbital relationship.
The real world is more complex than that, but at least within our solar system there is no part of space that is not affected gravitationally by the Earth and all other planets and moons for that matter. The earth has no associated space that is not also affected by the gravitational influence, of all other involved grabitational masses.
The moon would then be in "outer space" and yet the moon is not beyond the gravitational influence of the earth.
So what?
That does NOT, in any way, support your claim, and in fact refutes it.
Yet the Moon is, by your (false) defintion, orbiting in "Earth space".
what does any of this have to do with time?
Hansda, I have gone over what you have been saying and I have been trying to come up with some way to explain how matter, gravity and space interact, so you might understand, and I find it is at least for now beyond my ability to do so.
Space and matter, as in planets and stars, do interact in a way that suggests that space is dynamically different close to a significant gravitational source than it is at some distance from it. But that interaction is so very weakly defined that, what you are suggesting cannot occur, except perhaps in close proximity to a black hole. Even that is speculation on my part.
You cannot think of space as attached in any way to the earth or any object.
I don't know what else to say or even what to suggest you read to better understand.
Space and matter, as in planets and stars, do interact in a way that suggests that space is dynamically different close to a significant gravitational source than it is at some distance from it. But that interaction is so very weakly defined that, what you are suggesting cannot occur, except perhaps in close proximity to a black hole. Even that is speculation on my part.
You cannot think of space as attached in any way to the earth or any object.
I don't know what else to say or even what to suggest you read to better understand.
I say.. In a science thread it has to be left unsaid. But at the same time nobody can call Handsa wrong. Science is about having a valid theory, not an unspoken truth. This is a difficult image to grasp. So leave it at that. Maybe it is half, and half.
Pincho, no one has to accept what Hansda has presented as accurate. It is not consistent with experience.
There is nothing in our experience of space and matter that is consistent with matter displacing space. Though space must have some substance that leads to and allows for the dynamic interaction between space and matter, gravitation and frame-dragging, we cannot consider that substance to be in any way similar to matter, atoms and subatomic particles. The interaction is so very weak that for all intents and purposes the description of space as "empty space" is at least locally consistent with experience. The gravitational field and the frame-dragging effect of an object, both of which represent some interaction between space and the object, extends far beyond the space it locally occupies and falls off or decreases in an inverse square relationship between the involved mass and distance involved.
When Hansda claims that the earth's space moves with the earth and is stationary relative to the earth, he also implies that the involved space is separate from the "outer space". For the one, to be stationary relative to the earth while the earth and it are moving through the "outer space", requires that the earth and the Earth's space displace the "outer space" as they move through it. This is not consistent with anything that we have come to know about the way planetary systems function.
Even if one were to say that only the space that the solid material of the earth occupies, moves with it in a manner consistent with hansda's claim, it would require that the rest of space be displaced by the motion of the earth and other astronomical bodies. This again is not consistent even with the mechanics of Newton, let alone general relativity.
While what we know of the frame-dragging effect from both theory and experiment, suggests that the dragging of space by the motion of matter in space is greater near an object than it is away from that object, even within a solid planet, it can be not more than a very weak interaction. The substance of space cannot be thought of as having a particle character similar to the matter we are familiar with. It does appear to move through matter as easily as matter moves through it.
The problem I continue to run into in any attempt to try and explain the dynamics involved, is that it almost always leads to a discussion of both inertia and gravity and the causes of each.
We have no clear definition of the "cause" of inertia and beyond the curvature of space no definition of what causes gravity. All attempts to provide either are plagued with unresolved speculations.
Yes, frame-dragging does suggest that space is to some extent twisted and drug along by the motion of an object, both angular and linear, (though the linear aspect is only implied and has never been experimentally confirmed).., but once again that interaction is very weak and it falls off very rapidly even within the atmosphere. And likely even within the solid substance of the earth.
It is my belief and opinion, that we will one day describe both gravity and inertia as quantum phenomena or as emergent from quantum phenomena. In doing so it may very well be that space is also redefined such that it has a texture, a smallest part or dimension. I am unsure that even should we discover a rigorously consistent quantum description of gravitation, inertia and space, it will be something that we are able to experimentally confirm. The interaction between space and matter appears to be at a scale that is beyond our ability to directly observe.
That time is yet in our far distant future I fear. And until it arrives our best understanding of how gravitation functions is represented by general relativity. While what we may know in the future may achieve some better understanding of what causes gravitation, it will almost certainly remain consistent with the predictive success of general relativity, as we currently understand it.
Even should we set aside the physical projection of curved space and frame-dragging, Hansda's model it not consistent with the predictive aspects of GR.
It doesn't matter to me does it, I've already got something that works, but I am saying in this thread it is better not to say either way. One thing I would like to re-examine.. the weak force.. if countering an opposite force.. is not so weak. It would just appear weak. That's all.
Please note.. science thread.. I put 'IF'
Last edited:
What i have presented is logical . Maybe it wasnt viewed this way earlier .
Space can be thought of as consisting of photon-like particles which are massless but respond to gravity . If these photon-like space-particles can respond to gravity ; there is a chance that , space-particle can remain attached with matter-partcle .
For any matter to exists , it requires some space . If our earth's atmosphere can move alongwith our earth ; our earth's space also can move alongwith our earth or atleast it is displacing the space-particles .
I am saying that our earth including the earth's atmosphere , which moves alongwith the solid mass of our earth ; either moves space or atleast moves the space-particles .
Frame-dragging implies existence of space-particles or relative motion between two layers of space .
I think inertia is a theoretical concept(where there is no external-force) whereas gravity is a practical effect due inertia .
Concept of inertia is to understand force or curvature-of-spacetime .
Effect of frame-dragging is quite similar to dragging effect of fluid mechanics .
Possibility of space-particle can solve this speculation .
If we can distinguish space and spacetime ; this problem can be resolved .
I agree that curvature of spacetime causes force , as explained in GR .
Last edited:
hansda,
Could you start adding some returns or blank lines between quotes and your responses? It is very difficult to quote your posts. The quote comes out as one long paragraph.
Though there are some, aspects of what you are saying that have similarities with frame dragging, the idea that there is any "displacement" of space by any gravitationally significant object would be immediately observable in the interaction between objects, that is not consistent with experience. Orbits in the solar system would not be stable.
The kind of dynamics it appears you are proposing should have been detectable by many experiments already conducted. Space seems to be neither fixed in a Newtonian background or "attached" to matter in any ridgedly define way.
Space and matter must have an very very weak dynamic relationship to be in agreement with what we observe of gravitation and solar orbits.
Any further discussion will require that you clean up your posts, such that they parse properly when quoted.
Could you start adding some returns or blank lines between quotes and your responses? It is very difficult to quote your posts. The quote comes out as one long paragraph.
Though there are some, aspects of what you are saying that have similarities with frame dragging, the idea that there is any "displacement" of space by any gravitationally significant object would be immediately observable in the interaction between objects, that is not consistent with experience. Orbits in the solar system would not be stable.
The kind of dynamics it appears you are proposing should have been detectable by many experiments already conducted. Space seems to be neither fixed in a Newtonian background or "attached" to matter in any ridgedly define way.
Space and matter must have an very very weak dynamic relationship to be in agreement with what we observe of gravitation and solar orbits.
Any further discussion will require that you clean up your posts, such that they parse properly when quoted.
I have edited my earlier post with space .
No, space cannot be thought of as made up of photon like particles. You can't just make up stuff and proclaim that it is real. The entire paragraph is complete nonesense.
I know that some of the concepts in physics seem really strange but they are FIRMLY grounded in mathematics and observation. Physicist don't just sit around and come up with weird ideas with no evidence, which is exactly what you are doing.
Do you believe in some sort of space-particles ?
I am just trying to explore possibilities .
So, other paragrapns are ok with you .
So, you agree some concepts are strange . Can you give some examples , which you found strange .
I am not arguing against mathematics and observations . But i am trying to argue against concepts .
Do you mean to say that physicist have found out all the answers , to the events of the nature ?
Examples can be given (other than frame-dragging ) , which can show that space moves physically .