Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
14 crawler(s) on-line.
 133 guest(s) on-line.
 3 member(s) on-line.


 amigakit,  kolla,  OlafS25

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 OlafS25:  1 min ago
 kolla:  1 min ago
 amigakit:  2 mins ago
 NutsAboutAmiga:  5 mins ago
 Gunnar:  43 mins ago
 Frank:  50 mins ago
 MickJT:  1 hr 28 mins ago
 A1200:  1 hr 52 mins ago
 outlawal2:  2 hrs 26 mins ago
 AndreasM:  2 hrs 29 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Free For All
      /  Nibiru, what if ? - part 2
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )
PosterThread
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 11:10:45
#2401 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

Quote:
@All: Is there anything in physics that prevents a negative gravity field (IE antigravity).
As presently understood, no.
I'm going to speak to the current state of our evidence and understanding. Science is continually learning so perhaps one day we'll figure out more and indeed do find a negative gravity.

Gravity does not have a negative aspect that would be necessary to create anti-gravity. As understoond gravity is the effect of matter bending space and space telling matter how to travel. For an example if you get a sheet of rubber this could be used to represent space. Putting a marble on the sheet bends the sheet. This bending of rubber represents the distortion of space. Putting a watermelon on the sheet bends the rubber even more. These two objects have a different 'gravity'.

Essentially within our universe objects could only 'depress' space in a similar manner. To create negative gravity the object would have to create a peak, instead of the valley. There's nothing we know of that can do this.

My take: What I do see is while the sheet is bent down it is creating a peak. That peak is on the bottom of the sheet. However, that region is outside of our universe. Thus, I think if anti-gravity does exist it may be a case at where an external universe is impacting our universe. However, the maths and evidence are basically non-existent. It's just my take on what might be happening if we happen to ever discover an anti-gravitational effect.

All experiments done to date aren't really anti-gravitational force. Instead they are increased magnitude of other forces. For example - superconductivity isn't anti-gravity it's increased EM such that the EM force overcomes gravity. Forces, of course, can overcome other forces. It all depends upon magnitude and direction of the forces at work in the system.

There are postulates on how anti-gravity could work. Brandenburg is one sited by Lou. The Brandenburg camp has made some grandiose claims about how this 'anti-gravity' will lead us to flying cars and faster-than-light travel. The HUGE issue in their way is they have (again to date) never sucessfully demonstrated this effect to any degree. The math may be pretty but there's a problem if you can't get the math to apply to reality.


So in short - gravity is the bending of space-time by matter. We'd have to create a negative bend of space-time and at present we know of nothing that can do this.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Niolator 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 12:27:34
#2402 ]
Super Member
Joined: 3-May-2003
Posts: 1420
From: Unknown

@ BrianK: Quote:
My take: What I do see is while the sheet is bent down it is creating a peak. That peak is on the bottom of the sheet. However, that region is outside of our universe. Thus, I think if anti-gravity does exist it may be a case at where an external universe is impacting our universe. However, the maths and evidence are basically non-existent. It's just my take on what might be happening if we happen to ever discover an anti-gravitational effect.


Couldn't the peak be in our universe but in a fourth spacial dimension? Many scientists suggest that we are actually living in a four dimensional space but we can only perceive three of them. One of the most accepted theories regarding Big Bang states that our universe is situated on the surface of an expanding, four dimensional, sphere.

A fourth dimension woould also explain the apparent weakness of gravity if it reaches into that dimension too but none of the other fundamental forces are.

Last edited by Niolator on 19-Sep-2012 at 12:28 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 13:27:50
#2403 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote:
@Lou

Top tip, don't start your case by calling those that don't agree with you "noobs". It is a derogatory term that doesn't exactly give your argument the best opening.

Tip,

Read back 119 pages and you'll see why I'm treating 2 people specifically that way.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 13:28:29
#2404 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

This Dec the Dark Energy Camera begins gathering evidence which can be used for direction observation of Dark Energy.

It'll be interesting to see what it finds. The evidence, or lack thereof, will help us better understand the Universe.

Yes, a 'dark energy' camera that captures traditional 'light'...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 13:42:07
#2405 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@Niolator

Quote:

Niolator wrote:
@Lou

Interesting that you should mention white holes as I have pondered upon those for a while. The descriptions I have seen of them picture them as giant explosions causing the matter that comes out of them to conglomerate into a black hole eventually under the influence of gravity.

I want to think of them as inverted black holes with a negative gravity field making the matter scatter before it can conglomerate.

@All: Is there anything in physics that prevents a negative gravity field (IE antigravity).

John Brandenburg's GEM theory specifically uses a 4th dimension.

Other EM pressure/shadowing theories for gravity don't use extra dimensions. Gravity is just the net of poynting vectors, hence there is no 'anti-gravity' other than generating a poynting vector in the opposite direction buy changing the EM pressure surrounding the object in question. There is science that supports this despite what the two physics noobs will tell you. There is even experiments that support this. The Casimir Effect is also an example of this. The Casimir Effect is real, meanwhile gravitons/gravity waves have NEVER been observed or measured directly. That alone puts the evidence to gravity as a side-effect of radiation pressure/shadowing compared to the traditional view at infinity to nothing.

As the physics noobs say "evidence is king" and they got nothing.
Edit: Nothing but rhetoric and religious beliefs(Gravity Is GOD), I should say..

The US Stealth fighters and bombers have been electrifying their wings to take advantage of this as well. Also:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080323143043AAtJMLZ

So again, if you want rhetoric without evidence, feel free to listen to the two physics noobs...

Last edited by Lou on 19-Sep-2012 at 01:49 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 19-Sep-2012 at 01:46 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 19-Sep-2012 at 01:45 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 19-Sep-2012 at 01:43 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
SpaceDruid 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 13:51:34
#2406 ]
Super Member
Joined: 12-Jan-2007
Posts: 1748
From: Inside the mind of a cow on a planet that's flying through space at 242.334765 miles per second.

@Lou

Quote:

Read back 119 pages and you'll see why I'm treating 2 people specifically that way.


That's entirely irrelevant. You introduced your side of the debate, not with an informed argument about why you were right and I should give you my support, but by attacking the opposition's character.

That is a very common political move done by people who don't have the support of facts, or who don't think they have an advantage in a debate and feel they need to create one.

So before any serious reading of this thread is done by me, right away I'm having the impression you need to destroy the credibility of the people, because you can't destroy the credibility of the argument they present.

I haven't picked "sides" Nor will I "fall into their [mind-]trap" The truth doesn't have a side, it is just the truth. How I decide on what is truthful does not depend on the person presenting it, it depends on what's being presented.


Now I will give you the benefit of the doubt here. Perhaps you are frustrated and spoke in the manor you did because of that frustration? I'm hardly immune to such things myself. Now if we start again with a blank slate and you not trying to influence my decision making process, that would be cool. I'm perfectly able to come to my own conclusions all by myself.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Niolator 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 13:52:44
#2407 ]
Super Member
Joined: 3-May-2003
Posts: 1420
From: Unknown

@Lou

Yes, the so called quantum gravity theory involves gravity leaking over into other dimensions, that is why it is so weak compared to the other forces. To be more exact they refer to the curled up dimensions defined by the M-theory.

Last edited by Niolator on 19-Sep-2012 at 01:53 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 14:32:26
#2408 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Niolator

Quote:
Couldn't the peak be in our universe but in a fourth spacial dimension?
Again I'm speaking about our current knowledge based on our present state of observational evidence. There 'could' be a fourth spacial dimension. In fact some theories postulate we're a subset of an 11 dimensional universe.

Quote:
but we can only perceive three of them
Not sure how we wouldn't observe other dimensions. Perhaps to clarify why this idea is confusing to me read Flatland. It discusses exactly that problem. How would a 1 dimensional creature observe us? How would a 3 dimensional creature observe higher dimensional relations. It's a good book.

Lou brings up that "Gravity is just the net of poynting vectors" -- A Poynting vector is the direction of the energy flux of an EM field. We've no observational data to back up Lou's idea. In fact the observational data goes against Lou's idea. For example, we can block the EM Flux from outside an object or from an object. Faraday's Cage is a good example of this. However, it doesn't block gravity. And yet within the Faraday's Cage no poynting vector is observed. So I think there's something else going on that Lou isn't accounting for.

Neither is the 'Casmir Effect' anti-gravity. It's an effect of the negative forces in an energy field. Not the negative of gravity. There is a difference. For anti-gravity one would need to do something like produce a negative mass. Which again we know of no existing object that has a negative mass.

Quote:
M-theory
is exactly that 11 dimensional universe I spoke of above. M-Theory is a larger postulate combining all 5 different String Theories. To date none of those String Theories have observational support. Now this doesn't mean they aren't real. It's just that without observation evidence we can't know if they are, or are not real. As I said my response was based off our current state of evidence. Perhaps into the future we'll have sufficent, let alone some, observational evidence that'll help conclude if String or M are correct OR of it's not something all more creative that we've yet to conceive of.

Interestinly enough the current state of M-Theory makes it unobservable and also unpredictable. As such if something is unobservable we'll never be able know if it's M-Theory, God, or apeiron at work.


In Summary we have a couple of things going on. First, you asked if we can have anti-gravity. My response was very true - that by our present state of observations and understanding we cannot. Second, you purposed an unobserved and theoretical framework where anti-gravity might exist. It's interesting and great to talk about. But, it's unobserved, unusable, and unusable to date. We can't go around claiming it's true until we have some proof. Perhaps the future will bring us the evidence we need to educate us better on the subject, and thusly change our state of understanding.


 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 16:47:03
#2409 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

To correct a physics noob, the Casimir Effect was not an example of 'anti-gravity' but an example of radiation pressure even in a vacuum.

Physics noobs will be physics noobs and love misquoting me and putting words in my mouth..case in point.

Said physics noob also conveniently ignored real world uses of radiation pressure altering devices such as used on the both rocket ships and various airplanes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E2%80%93Brown_effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1igzfqrQzQ

Last edited by Lou on 19-Sep-2012 at 05:06 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 19-Sep-2012 at 05:01 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 17:41:46
#2410 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
To correct a physics noob, the Casimir Effect was not an example of 'anti-gravity'
Umm you can't say you're correcting someone when you repeat their point.

Quote:
Said physics noob also conveniently ignored real world uses of radiation pressure altering devices such as used on the both rocket ships and various airplanes...

Anti-gravity, scientifically defined, does not refer to balancing the force of gravity with some other force, such as electromagnetism. This is the definition I used as we're talking about evidenced scientific concepts.

Whereas, "Anti-gravity" is often used colloquially to refer to devices that look as if they reverse gravity even though they operate through other means. These are, as I stated, EM forces that are greater than gravity in the opposite direction. They're still EM forces not anti-gravitational.

Perhaps it's easier for you to understand this way.
F=Gm1m2/r^2 - a well known and well established formula for gravity. Big G (universal constant) times the mases of the object divided by the distance squared provides the calculation of Force. For Anti-Gravity to exist an odd number of these components must be negative. Either we create a universe with -Big G is the new universal constant. Or we have a single negative mass. Two negatives produce a positive so if we have 2 masses of less than zero it will produce gravity, not anti-gravity. r^2 will never be negative. Not only because a distance of less than zero can't exist but if it did it's squared and again a negative times a negative is always positive.

So if under the evidence available to us today to demonstrate negative gravity we could evidence it existing by demonstrating either the existence of negative mass or the existence of a negative Gravitional Constant. Neither of which is evidenced. We know of nothing that produces anti-gravity.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 17:55:18
#2411 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1223
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
Said physics noob also conveniently ignored real world uses of radiation pressure altering devices
Once again for the benefit of the hard of thinking.

We know that radiation pressure exists, and what uses can be made of it.

We also know the magnitude of these forces

Radiation pressure from the nearest source (distance 150 million kM) is measured in microPascals, and the radiation pressure from the nearest neighbouring star (Proxima Centauri) can be calculated but is one percent of one percent of the background pressure of the intergalactic medium, and is too feeble to be measured. This is not a significant amount of pressure.
The radiation pressure from the nearest source is insufficient to push me along the ground when the source is aligned with the horizon.
The radiation pressure between the two white dwarf stars in the system J0651 is pressing the two stars apart to the maximum of its abiliy, but even if its pressure is up in the realms of one hundred kiloPascals the two stars are still moving toward one another due to the gravitational attraction of their combined masses.

This knowledge, and these verifiable observations are in direct contradiction to the claims of somebody whose understanding of basic mathematics is even weaker than his understanding of geography.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 19:30:02
#2412 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@physics noob,


Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Said physics noob also conveniently ignored real world uses of radiation pressure altering devices
Once again for the benefit of the hard of thinking.

We know that radiation pressure exists, and what uses can be made of it.

We also know the magnitude of these forces

Radiation pressure from the nearest source (distance 150 million kM) is measured in microPascals, and the radiation pressure from the nearest neighbouring star (Proxima Centauri) can be calculated but is one percent of one percent of the background pressure of the intergalactic medium, and is too feeble to be measured. This is not a significant amount of pressure.
The radiation pressure from the nearest source is insufficient to push me along the ground when the source is aligned with the horizon.
The radiation pressure between the two white dwarf stars in the system J0651 is pressing the two stars apart to the maximum of its abiliy, but even if its pressure is up in the realms of one hundred kiloPascals the two stars are still moving toward one another due to the gravitational attraction of their combined masses.

This knowledge, and these verifiable observations are in direct contradiction to the claims of somebody whose understanding of basic mathematics is even weaker than his understanding of geography.

Just curious...why quote one thing then reply to something else? Is that senility creeping up again? Or is it more mathematical slight of hand like X=X? I especially love the bolding about knowing the magnitude of the forces when it was me that had to explain it to you and the other physics noob that EM is 38 to 39 orders of magnitude stronger than, it's side-effect, gravity.

In your complete ignorance of the concept of radiation pressure, you are looking at distant stars. You casually mention background radiation, however you forget vacuum energy...why is that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

And to quote:
Quote:
Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe. Since there is so much space, this background energy is currently estimated to make up about 73% of the total mass-energy content of the Universe! (Dark matter apparently makes up 23%, with all the atoms we know about coming in at 4%.) Current theory has it that the vacuum energy of "empty" space not only contributes to the mass-energy content, it carries the added quality of negative pressure, which provides a mechanism for the expansion to be accelerating.

Associated with the vacuum energy are the virtual particles, which are known to be particle pairs that blink into existence and then annihilate in a timespan too short for us to measure. They do this everywhere, throughout the Universe. Their behavior is codified in Heisenberg's energy-time uncertainty principle. Still, the exact effect of such fleeting bits of energy is difficult to quantify. The observed "value" of the background vacuum energy is so small, it is involved in one of the largest discrepancies in the history of physics (which is often accurate to 10 decimal places). Particle physicists, in their calculations, somehow come up with an estimate that is 120 orders of magnitude too large! Understandably, this research area is one of the least understood and most active in physics, astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.

The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the van der Waals bonds[citation needed] and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales. Using the upper limit of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy in a cubic meter of free space has been estimated to be 10^−9 Joules.[1] However, in both Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck Constant requires it to have a much larger value of 10^113 Joules per cubic meter.

Oh that's right, you don't *believe* in vacuum energy, I forgot. It's totally against your Gravity-Is-God religion...

You should go back to school...seriously...

Last edited by Lou on 19-Sep-2012 at 07:42 PM.
Last edited by Lou on 19-Sep-2012 at 07:38 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 19:36:33
#2413 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@full-time physics noob, part-time rocket scientist,

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
To correct a physics noob, the Casimir Effect was not an example of 'anti-gravity'
Umm you can't say you're correcting someone when you repeat their point.

Quote:
Said physics noob also conveniently ignored real world uses of radiation pressure altering devices such as used on the both rocket ships and various airplanes...

Anti-gravity, scientifically defined, does not refer to balancing the force of gravity with some other force, such as electromagnetism. This is the definition I used as we're talking about evidenced scientific concepts.

Whereas, "Anti-gravity" is often used colloquially to refer to devices that look as if they reverse gravity even though they operate through other means. These are, as I stated, EM forces that are greater than gravity in the opposite direction. They're still EM forces not anti-gravitational.

Perhaps it's easier for you to understand this way.
F=Gm1m2/r^2 - a well known and well established formula for gravity. Big G (universal constant) times the mases of the object divided by the distance squared provides the calculation of Force. For Anti-Gravity to exist an odd number of these components must be negative. Either we create a universe with -Big G is the new universal constant. Or we have a single negative mass. Two negatives produce a positive so if we have 2 masses of less than zero it will produce gravity, not anti-gravity. r^2 will never be negative. Not only because a distance of less than zero can't exist but if it did it's squared and again a negative times a negative is always positive.

So if under the evidence available to us today to demonstrate negative gravity we could evidence it existing by demonstrating either the existence of negative mass or the existence of a negative Gravitional Constant. Neither of which is evidenced. We know of nothing that produces anti-gravity.

If 2 forces have the same unit of measure and when combine net one force, WTF does is matter what the sources are? Heck, you still haven't even found the source of gravity so how do you know it to be unique and separate? I know, just *assume* what you think you know is correct, right?

If you move it is because there is a net force. A net force is a net force and FORCE IS FORCE, oh master of nitpicking wording while missing the point at hand...

Last edited by Lou on 19-Sep-2012 at 07:39 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 19:40:36
#2414 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Again we already talked about RP and considered it. Your claim we did not is a lie. In the past I linked to the Radiation Pressure Table within our Solar System I also compared the amount of RP forces against the Gravitational forces. No so suprise RP forces from the sun are many times less than the Gravitational forces.

It appears you may have forgotten this part of the past conversation I have not.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 19:53:11
#2415 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Again we already talked about RP and considered it. Your claim we did not is a lie. In the past I linked to the Radiation Pressure Table within our Solar System I also compared the amount of RP forces against the Gravitational forces. No so suprise RP forces from the sun are many times less than the Gravitational forces.

It appears you may have forgotten this part of the past conversation I have not.

You claim of considering it is amusing.
You site sources of it but ignore the source of most of it, the vacuum.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 19:53:39
#2416 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Niolater

Gravity on TLC Created based on our current state of knowledge. (The best we can do as we'll never know what the future brings.)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 19-Sep-2012 21:56:12
#2417 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
If 2 forces have the same unit of measure and when combine net one force, WTF does is matter what the sources are?
Today science recognizes there are 4 fundamental forces in the universe. Each works in a different way. These are weak, strong, EM, and gravitational.

Quote:
Heck, you still haven't even found the source of gravity so how do you know it to be unique and separate?
Gravity is considered unique because it's properties appear to be independent of EM (and the other forces.) Things that impact EM don't impact Gravity in the same manner. The ratios are off. For example, remove an electron and incongruent amounts of EM and Mass is removed.

For example, we use EM shielding on satellites because larger amounts of very small forces can short out the motherboard. Interesting enough the weight of the EM shielding means we need to eject more mass (rocket) to get the satellite into orbit. Had EM been the same as gravity the shielding would create a reduction in gravity's effect too. Meaning the added mass would be inconsequencial or even benefical.

Quote:
If you move it is because there is a net force.
Of course the forces net to what they net. However, this doesn't mean that RP is the predominate force in the movement. You claim that only Radiation Pressure is pusing the planets. There are other forces at work. And in fact Gravity is the majority of the forces. Importantly we can measure these different forces. By doing that we can see the magnitude of gravity from the sun on the earth is incredibly larger than the small amount of RP from the sun that exists.


Quote:
You site sources of it but ignore the source of most of it, the vacuum.
Again we can measure the RP and EM forces at work with instruments. If the vacuum is doing anything it's effects are at best insufficently small to push a planet. How do you conceive the Casmir Effect working? It's only applicable at really short distances. Your statements make it seem as if you believe Casmir Effects extend between the planets and sun. Am I reading you right?

Last edited by BrianK on 19-Sep-2012 at 11:29 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 19-Sep-2012 at 09:58 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 20-Sep-2012 0:51:31
#2418 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 4169
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
If 2 forces have the same unit of measure and when combine net one force, WTF does is matter what the sources are?
Today science recognizes there are 4 fundamental forces in the universe. Each works in a different way. These are weak, strong, EM, and gravitational.

So says you and a highschool physics book.
We already know that "weak" is magnetism. I have presented papers from researchers who believe "strong" is a gravitational-like effect if you solve for the Schwartzchild proton. You really have no evidence of gravity(and strong) as being unique, only observational evidence that "something" makes things attract.

Quote:

Quote:
Heck, you still haven't even found the source of gravity so how do you know it to be unique and separate?
Gravity is considered unique because it's properties appear to be independent of EM (and the other forces.) Things that impact EM don't impact Gravity in the same manner. The ratios are off. For example, remove an electron and incongruent amounts of EM and Mass is removed.

For example, we use EM shielding on satellites because larger amounts of very small forces can short out the motherboard. Interesting enough the weight of the EM shielding means we need to eject more mass (rocket) to get the satellite into orbit. Had EM been the same as gravity the shielding would create a reduction in gravity's effect too. Meaning the added mass would be inconsequencial or even benefical.

Scale.
Is it rocket science to understand that a magnet held firmly in place can attract metal away from the ground? Why is this so hard to understand that local effects trump global. Just like there are black holes within black holes. This applies to gravity otherwise the moon couldn't orbit the earth and it would orbit the sun, just as the sun orbits the galaxy, etc... So local EM effect trump the stellar ones....but the stellar ones are still in play as that's what keeps us orbiting a larger source... Again, not rocket science.

Quote:

Quote:
If you move it is because there is a net force.
Of course the forces net to what they net. However, this doesn't mean that RP is the predominate force in the movement. You claim that only Radiation Pressure is pusing the planets. There are other forces at work. And in fact Gravity is the majority of the forces. Importantly we can measure these different forces. By doing that we can see the magnitude of gravity from the sun on the earth is incredibly larger than the small amount of RP from the sun that exists.

I can claim this and it's 2 effects, pressure and shielding. Shielding causes attraction, pressure between galaxies causes "expansion of the universe". There is physical evidence of this meanwhile the same observations for gravity are the same for radiation pressure and shielding theories only Gravity has anomilies that pressure and shielding can explain. Again, no gravitons = no gravity. Gravity has zero unique applicable evidence.

Quote:
You site sources of it but ignore the source of most of it, the vacuum.
Again we can measure the RP and EM forces at work with instruments. If the vacuum is doing anything it's effects are at best insufficently small to push a planet. How do you conceive the Casmir Effect working? It's only applicable at really short distances. Your statements make it seem as if you believe Casmir Effects extend between the planets and sun. Am I reading you right?
[/quote]
Yes. Planets with their thickness become good shields...however they can only shield to 100% and that's why after a certain radius, they get classified as "gas giants" (graviational point of view) because the shielding strength increase becomes a function of the radius...so their foolishly computed density goes down. This is why small objects that shield fully, like quasars are considered "dense" (gravitational point of view), though they still push a little with their light output.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 20-Sep-2012 3:02:10
#2419 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
We already know that "weak" is magnetism.
Yes and no. EM and Weak do combine into a unified symmetry above 100GeV. This condition is likely to have existed soon after the 'Big Bang'. However this condition doesn't exist now. At our lower energies these appear to be different. Weak transmits by 3 bosons and EM by the photon. So their methods of communication are also different. Those different particles are arrived at because of the EMW symmetry breaking. It's not true to say weak is magnetism. It's more true to say EM and Weak were part of a unified symmetrical field sometime during the condition of the 'Big Bang' and since in our universe they have broken in two.

Quote:
I have presented papers from researchers who believe "strong" is a gravitational-like effect if you solve for the Schwartzchild proton
Again we're at your failing to understand what evidence is. 'Papers' that 'Believe' are postulates not evidence. Remember my explaination was based on the evidence we have to date. Perhaps you'll have some evidence here in the future.

Quote:
You really have no evidence of gravity(and strong) as being unique
Actually we do. Communication of the Strong is via the Gluon. Gravity is via the Graviton. Gluons have been observed. Gravitons haven't been observed. Importantly Gluons have been observed to have a lack of gravity-like behaviors. If such evidence existed, as you indicate, then we'd have 3 fundamental forces. Where the Gluon communicated the Gravity-Strong forces. Also, I find it interesting you now try to stick Gravity onto Strong when for so many pages you tried to tell us that Gravity is EM. Changing your mind?

Quote:
There is physical evidence of this meanwhile the same observations for gravity are the same for radiation pressure and shielding theories only Gravity has anomilies that pressure and shielding can explain. Again, no gravitons = no gravity.
You seem internally conflicted here. First you tell us that Gravity is part of EM. Then you tell us that Gravity is part of Strong. Now you tell us that Gravity doesn't exist at all. You really should make up your mind on your explaination.

Also, be sure to not conflate the unproven to the unproveable. Even if we don't have proof for a graviton that doesn't mean you get to claim that we must accept X as true. You must do the leg work to evidence X as being true. You like to skip that step. We don't get to accept it's RP because we haven't found the Graviton. You need to evidence it's RP. Since I can block RP and this doesn't block Gravity I think you have lots of Evidence to build. If they were one in the same they should have the same effects when exposed to elements that control them. What we have observed is they don't do this and are therefore said to be unique.

Quote:
Planets with their thickness become good shields...however they can only shield to 100% and that's why after a certain radius, they get classified as "gas giants" (graviational point of view) because the shielding strength increase becomes a function of the radius
HUH this makes no sense whatsoever. Where'd you come up with the 'shielding' bunk? Scientists aren't classifying based on shielding.

Classification of objects are done by us based upon the composition of matter here on earth. Rock is the term we consider a solid and those objects in the universe made up of metals and silicon. Ice is the term we give to objects comprised of water and ammonia. Gas is the term where the composition is primarily hydrogen and helium. The 'Gas Giant' is a planet comparised primarily of hydrogen and helium (gas) and much larger than earth (giant). There also are 'Gas Planets' which are hydrogen and helium but sized slightly larger than earth. As such 'Gas Giant' can actually be a misnomer. For example, Jupiter is primarily composed not of gaseous hydrogen but thought to be some layers of liquid hydrogen and hydrogen in superfluid state. We should call it a Superfluid Giant. But, simply that's not how the scientists decided to write the classification.

...

I don't know if @Niolator is reading this. I wanted to get back to the importance of a 'Graviton'. M-Theory is comprised of String Theories (all of the 5 primary one's). And the existence of a graviton is assumed within all 5 of those String Theories. If the Graviton doesn't exist it's a nail (or should we say 5 nails) in M-Theory too. Thought you might like to know that little fact.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Niolator 
Re: Anybody remember Nibiru?
Posted on 20-Sep-2012 7:10:13
#2420 ]
Super Member
Joined: 3-May-2003
Posts: 1420
From: Unknown

@BrianK

I did not write that I am a fan of M-theory, quite the opposite. A theory that involves 7 dimensions that we can not detect or predicts a lots of things we can't verify through observation within the closest million years is not a solid theory according to me. That the maths invovled is so advanced that you have to be a supersavant to be able to understand it doesn't make things better. As everything in science: The simpler the better.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle