 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / October 2006Can inverse gravity waves cancel out Earth's gravity in selected areas?
Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a gravity equivalent? TrekJunky > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > gravity equivalent? > > TrekJunky xxein: Who said gravity was a wave? Mark my words. Gravity is a process by which energy is transferred from an otherwise equilibrium-seeking process like expansion to areas (processes) that use it up. Tilted another way in our thinking, mass is an engine to sustain mass. It sucks energy from the otherwise equilibrium. That 'nature abhors a vacuum' is not the grandest of statements. It simply means that there is no vacuum that we can contemplate to correspond to a vacuum as such. If you are thinking about Earth-moon, don't forget the Sun. There is no non-moving point, nor a systematic point into which gravity cancels out of consideration --- much like the arrow of time (you cannot unhit your brother). Hello xxein, If gravity isn't a wave then what are they trying to do at LIGO http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/. Maybe Igor can straighten both of us out? What do you say Igor? Thanks, TrekJunky > > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > > gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > out of consideration --- much like the arrow of time (you cannot unhit > your brother). > > > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > > > gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > out of consideration --- much like the arrow of time (you cannot unhit > > your brother). >TrekJunky wrote: > Hello xxein, > > If gravity isn't a wave then what are they trying to do at LIGO > http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/. > Maybe Igor can straighten both of us out? What do you say Igor? I think he was trying to say that there are more classifications of gravity than just waves. Then there's a sticking point with some people that, even though GR predicts gravitational waves, they have never been conclusively observed. But it hasn't been for lack of trying. | Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a | gravity equivalent? | | TrekJunky Insects crawl, so why can't giraffes? > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > gravity equivalent? There's a difference between a wave and a central field. Active cancellation of gravitational waves might indeed be possible, but given that we haven't even detected gravitational waves yet, we're a long way from being able to cancel them, nor is it clear why we'd want to. To cancel the central field of a charge, you have to introduce an opposite charge, but there's no negative gravitational charge. Or you can cancel the field in a small region, where it's approximately linear, by introducing a (positive) charge on the opposite side of the region. In other words, you can cancel the earth's gravity in a limited region by suspending an extremely massive object above the earth. But since the only reason to cancel the earth's gravity is to make it easier to lift massive objects, this technique is useless. -- Ben >> Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a >> gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > reason to cancel the earth's gravity is to make it easier to lift massive > objects, this technique is useless. what he apparently means ,is, if there are gravitation waves,one, may be ,can send out other sort of gravi waves.to cancel out the 1e gravi waves,and then ,there is no more gravity and we all float, far fetched ? O yes,very. > -- Ben Hello Ben, Thanks for your input, but I would like to offer this thought which will explain one possible reason to cancel gravity waves: We could build a ship to hover or simply leave the gravity well of the Earth thereby launching the ship into space with out chemical fuel possibly. What do you think about that hypothetical situation? > > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > > gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -- Ben > Thanks for your input, but I would like to offer this thought which > will explain one possible reason to cancel gravity waves: We could > build a ship to hover or simply leave the gravity well of the Earth > thereby launching the ship into space with out chemical fuel possibly. I guessed that was what you were interested in, but as I said, the Earth's gravitational field isn't made of gravity waves, so even if we had the technology to cancel gravity waves, it wouldn't cause your ship to float. Suspending a huge mass above the Earth could cause the ship to float, but whatever technology we used to lift the huge mass could just as well be used to lift the ship directly. -- Ben > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > gravity equivalent? > > TrekJunky ------------------------- a very interesting and original question!!! good for you ! just ignore the Cynical responses it is responses of parrots thank you for your question !!! i would say that if it was not asked before you made an historic question. IMHO the answer is Yes!! but you would never notice it on our earth and not by our existing tools !! accoding to mysuggestion Gravity is a result of unbalanced push forces and if so changing the balance by changing the intensity of it at the 'proper location' will cause a change of the resulting force even until a complete mutual canceling ATB Y.Porat ----------------------------- Hello Y, If I understand you right, you are suggesting putting an object with greater gravity than a particular location into a calculated spot inorder to pull an object in another direction. I think that would be as hard as creating a mini blackhole and control it. What I suggest IMHO, is learn how to create gravity waves artifically (make something weight more or less than it would with normal Earth gravity on Earth). If we can do that, then we could create them at a frequency opposite to the Earth's gravity and allow an object to float or leave the Earth's gravity well (launch into space). Thanks, TrekJunky > > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > > gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Y.Porat > -----------------------------  SignatureBest Regards, Todd Desiato President - TJD Enterprises Toll Free: 1-877-592-1394 http://www.serversanddomains.com Looking for your next Internet Business Opportunity? Become a Web Host at http://www.Webhost.US.com > Hello Y, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Thanks, > TrekJunky There is a name for this topic of gravitation control due to the superposition of waves. It's called EGM. Delta Group Engineering has been pioneering this field for over 12 years and have more than a dozen papers on the subject. If you want to see how to control gravity using a superposition of waves, and why sub-atomic particles have the size and mass that they do, read our work. http://www.deltagroupengineering.com/publications.htm Electro-Gravi-Magnetics (EGM) Practical modeling methods of the polarizable vac. 0, I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, Glossary & Defns. Physical Constants - NIST 2002, PACS 2003 SPIE Conference - dgE (PPT): August 2, 2005 Download the "PowerPoint Viewer" (if required) Buckingham Pi Theory (by others) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 How to control gravity: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 Part 3: Summary Read, Engine Read, High Precision Read Harmonic Representation of Fundamental Particles Read The end results are amazing! Best Regards, Todd Desiato > Hello Y, > > If I understand you right, you are suggesting putting an object with > greater gravity than a particular location into a calculated spot > inorder to pull an object in another direction. --------------------------------- not to pull TO PUSH!! i dont beleive in pulling at all it is IMHO at ther end of the day a push amechanism (from the back side of the two members !! iow the push from the back side of them is stronger than the push force of the front side !! just a matter of balance of opposite forces !! it is a tiny bit more complicated that the usual process that comes into thegerular mind!1 based on the existance of a basic particle that moves naturally in a curved path if you like you can get and abstarct idea by looking at rhe end of my site btw i am not sure at all thaGravity has different frequancies!!! those frequancies are anextrapolation form Em waves it could be that gravity has no 'frequamncy' at all or even just one frequency you see peole migh tbe trapped in conceptions ie if there was a success inone field of physics the authomatic step is to darg the same model of thionking to the unknown field but it is not always neccessary so !!!! ---------- I think that would be > as hard as creating a mini blackhole and control it. - i dont think that we have to go as far as to a 'black hole' in order of contradicting gravitational force !! it migh tbe somethiong much more modest -------------- What I suggest > IMHO, is learn how to create gravity waves artifically (make something > weight more or less than it would with normal Earth gravity on Earth). ---------- yet tha tis the idea but you probably heared about the mouse and cat story: th e mice decided that in oder to know when the cat is comming someone must put a bell on his neck !! etc etc (:-) so before puting the bell on the cats neck we must understand for sure how gravity is created !!! and whther all our paradigm and assumptions are right !! generally speaking fom human experience: while something is stuck in the mudd THERE IS SOME BASIC ASSUMPTION WRONG !!! so we must examione any suggestion that are possible even wild immagination . ----------- > If we can do that, then we could create them at a frequency opposite to > the Earth's gravity and allow an object to float or leave the Earth's > gravity well (launch into space). that is realy a might y worthwuile task and that is why i picked up your post so vigorously and seriously !! (while others were joking because of stupidity) Thanks Y.Porat ------------------------- > Thanks, > TrekJunky [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Y.Porat > > ----------------------------- Hey there Y, I read your whole reply and one thing sticks out in my mind. You suggest that we manipulate gravity such that it pushes instead of pulls? To me, that would be a new force that exerts force on an object by pushing it instead of pulling it. And to those that want to interupt me, I am not talking about Electro-mganetism with opposite poles. What name should we give to this new force? Or does it already have one? Cane Kostovski AKA TrekJunky > > Hello Y, > > [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > > Y.Porat > > > ----------------------------- > Hey there Y, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Cane Kostovski AKA TrekJunky ------------------------------- The puash is not as you immagine on the stright line that connects the to attracted members **it is a long a curved line that goes around and push our memners from the rare side see at the appendix of my site: one sketch is worth 500 words !!! ATB Y.Porat -------------------------------- > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > gravity equivalent? > > TrekJunky There might be, but don't confuse this with static gravity. The gravitational field of a body like the earth and a gravitational wave are two different classes of solutions to Einstein's equations and are not the same exact thing. Hello Igor, Where can I read more about your answer so that I can understand what you are saying. With my humble knowledge, I vaguely understand that you are saying that there are two kinds of gravity. I have never heard this before. I don't know if I can accept it a fact. Please help me understand. Thanks!!! TrekJunky > > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > > gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > are two different classes of solutions to Einstein's equations and are > not the same exact thing. "TrekJunky" wrote in message > Hello Igor, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> are two different classes of solutions to Einstein's equations and are >> not the same exact thing. Don't take that too literally! Both are described by a metric. In the case of "static" gravity like that of the Earth, you have a Schwarzschild metric. In the case of gravitational waves, you start with a flat space-time, Minkowski metric, and then add to that a "small" wave-like, quadrupole purtubation of flat space-time. Only two identical waves with opposite phase can cancel each other out. That is why they are not the same "exact" thing. All you would get is a superposition of the two fields, assuming they both are weak fields to begin with, where first approximations and the pricniples of superposition will hold. You can learn about these metrics in any text on GR. "D'Inverno" is a good one for beginners. Best Regards, Todd Desiato Thanks Todd, I will follow up by reading some in the next couple of weeks. TrekJunky > "TrekJunky" wrote in message > > Hello Igor, [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Best Regards, > Todd Desiato > Hello Igor, > > Where can I read more about your answer so that I can understand what you > are saying. I will essay to oversimplify it to the point where it can be easily understood... > With my humble knowledge, I vaguely understand that you are > saying that there are two kinds of gravity. I have never heard this > before. I don't know if I can accept it a fact. Please help me understand. > Thanks!!! He's saying, think of it this way: You can't cancel the charge on an electron by shining a light on it. The situations are exactly analogous. The charge on an electron is static (like in "static electricity" -- "static" means it doesn't move, there's no current). The light is an EM wave. The EM wave can cancel another wave (at a particular location) but can't cancel a static charge. Similarly, to put it crudely, gravity waves are waves are "wiggles" in the gravitational field. You could cancel one set of "wiggles" with an opposite set; then the net field wouldn't be "wiggling" anymore. But the Earth's field doesn't wiggle, it just sits there, like the charge on the electron. Adding a wave -- a set of "wiggles" -- to it would not get you anywhere with regard to "canceling" it. With regard to sound, here's the analogous situation: Atmospheric pressure is "static" -- it just sits there. Sound waves are pressure waves -- they're "wiggles" in the pressure of the air. You can cancel one sound wave with another, and get rid of the "wiggles" in the pressure at a particular place, but you can't cancel the _constant_ atmospheric pressure (and get a vacuum??) just by using sound waves of some appropriate frequency. > TrekJunky >> > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> are two different classes of solutions to Einstein's equations and are >> not the same exact thing. SignatureNospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org Hello Sal I love your essay. I totally understand it. But I have a question: What forms "wiggles" in gravity? Or more specifically, what could form waves in Earth's gravity? I think I read that LIGO is designed to measure gravity waves from a pair of stars orbiting each other. You have my mind doing flips now. Thanks!!!! TrekJunky > > Hello Igor, > > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email > I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org > Hello Igor, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > are two different classes of solutions to Einstein's equations and are > > not the same exact thing. This can be found in just about any worthwhile textbook on GR. By analogy, there are only basically only two forms in EM. These are either static fields (electric or magnetic) or waves (radiation). In GR, there are many broader groupings of gravitation, based strictly on spacetime curvatures. Static and radiation are just two of them. These are sometimes referred to as Petrov classifications. More info can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrov_classification The math may be a little much for you at this point, but the section on physical interpretation may be qualitatively useful. Hello Igor, That link took me to a page that confirmed what Sal was trying explain to me. A gravity field that the Earth has is not the same as gravity waves. Thanks for the help!!!! Trekjunky > > Hello Igor, > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > The math may be a little much for you at this point, but the section on > physical interpretation may be qualitatively useful. > > Hello Igor, > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > The math may be a little much for you at this point, -------------------------------- i like that sentence : > The math may be a little much for you at this point, (:-) is it not 'a little much ' for you Igor ?? i like that pompous patronising pose !! IT IS VERY IMPRESSIVE !!! btw when ever i hear that sentence i know for sure : something is fucken there !!! (at the good innocent case at the non innocent case - something or someone is CHEATING shamelessly - there !!!!!) but the section on > physical interpretation may be qualitatively useful. thank Godness!! ATB Y.Porat -------------------------- > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > gravity equivalent? > > TrekJunky << Principle of Operation: Fig 1b shows a more detailed look at how an optical trap works. The basic principle behind optical tweezers is the momentum transfer associated with bending light. Light carries momentum that is proportional to its energy and in the direction of propagation. Any change in the direction of light, by reflection or refraction, will result in a change of the momentum of the light. If an object bends the light, changing its momentum, conservation of momentum requires that the object must undergo an equal and opposite momentum change. This gives rise to a force acting on the object. >> http://www.stanford.edu/group/blocklab/Optical%20Tweezers%20Introduction.htm http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0107015 http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm Sue... Hello Sue, For an object to have momentum (inertia), it would have to have mass. I have an amature knowledge of light being a wave of energy and at the same time have a measurable amount of mass. I don't understand the prevoius phrase, but accept it as fact. And if it is true that light has mass and intertia, it must exert a tiny bit of gravity. It's gravity affects other mass so I agree with your statement below even though the effect is minimal in the situation below. Thanks!!!! TrekJunky > > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > > gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Sue... > Hello Sue, > > For an object to have momentum (inertia), it would have to have mass. Light has angular momemtum but no mass. An attraction to all the universe is all that is necessary for inierial. http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/inertia/index.htm > I > have an amature knowledge of light being a wave of energy and at the > same time have a measurable amount of mass. How will you measure it ? > I don't understand the > prevoius phrase, but accept it as fact. And if it is true that light > has mass and intertia, it must exert a tiny bit of gravity. It's > gravity affects other mass so I agree with your statement below even > though the effect is minimal in the situation below. Thanks!!!! Ya weclomed. Sue... > TrekJunky > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > > > Sue... Hello Sue, I would like to answer you question about how I would measure the mass of light. I would like to approach it by stating a few facts to see if you agree with them: 1) Solar Sail space ships are propelled by the pressure of light on the "sails" not solar wind(subatomic particles) as some might think. 2) Light can exert pressure. 3) F(pressure)=ma [force=mass times accelleration] 4) Therefore light has mass that can be measured indirectly by measuring the force acting on the Solar Sail because the accelleration is the speed of light (C). Please tell me where I am going wrong. Thanks!!! Cane Kostovski AKA TrekJunky > > Hello Sue, > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > > > > > Sue... > Hello Sue, > > I would like to answer you question about how I would measure the mass > of light. I would like to approach it by stating a few facts to see if > you agree with them: Part of YOUR statement that an entity has certain properties includes YOUR notion of how the properities will be mesured. If you say a sack of potatoes has wight a grocer's scale is implied in the statement. Are you implying we can weigh a sack of light ? > 1) Solar Sail space ships are propelled by the pressure of light on the > "sails" not solar wind(subatomic particles) as some might think. Do you have a reference ? The matter in the solar wind it quite substantial. > 2) Light can exert pressure. How will you demonstrate it ? > 3) F(pressure)=ma [force=mass times accelleration] > 4) Therefore light has mass that can be measured indirectly by > measuring the force acting on the Solar Sail because the accelleration > is the speed of light (C). Is light so exotic that we can't get it in a laboratory? We have to go to outer space to find it? > Please tell me where I am going wrong. Thanks!!! "Electromagnetic momentum" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node90.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossbauer_effect http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html Sue... > Cane Kostovski AKA TrekJunky > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > > > > > > > Sue... > Hello Sue, > > I would like to answer you question about how I would measure the mass > of light. I would like to approach it by stating a few facts to see if > you agree with them: Light has no mass, or if it has some it is beyond any measurement accuracy. > 1) Solar Sail space ships are propelled by the pressure of light on the > "sails" not solar wind(subatomic particles) as some might think. That is not your usual notion of pressure. > 2) Light can exert pressure. Heated gas can do that also. That does not mean there is an external force acting on the gas molecules. It is the result of kinetic energy exchange of the particles in Brownian motion for work. > 3) F(pressure)=ma [force=mass times accelleration] Force is not pressure. The law you stated applies in the case of external impressed or inertial forces only > 4) Therefore light has mass that can be measured indirectly by > measuring the force acting on the Solar Sail because the accelleration > is the speed of light (C). Acceleration is not speed but the time rate of change of speed dv/dt. c is constant and dc/dt = 0 in vaccum. > Please tell me where I am going wrong. Thanks!!! In every count. Mike > Cane Kostovski AKA TrekJunky > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > > > > > > > Sue... > > Hello Sue, > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That is not your usual notion of pressure. Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple. > > 2) Light can exert pressure. > > Heated gas can do that also. That does not mean there is an external > force acting on the gas molecules. It is the result of kinetic energy > exchange of the particles in Brownian motion for work. You really need to learn some basic physics before you embarrass yourself further. Pressure is force per unit area. So please explain how you can have pressure without force? > > 3) F(pressure)=ma [force=mass times accelleration] > > Force is not pressure. The law you stated applies in the case of > external impressed or inertial forces only Even a high school physics student knows how silly that statement is. Again, your ignorance of even extremely basic physics keeps tripping you up. > > 4) Therefore light has mass that can be measured indirectly by > > measuring the force acting on the Solar Sail because the accelleration > > is the speed of light (C). > > Acceleration is not speed but the time rate of change of speed dv/dt. c > is constant and dc/dt = 0 in vaccum. Not even close. Acceleration is a vector. And vectors can change direction. So a change in speed is not necessary to have nonzero acceleration. Learn some basic physics, please. > > Please tell me where I am going wrong. Thanks!!! > > In every count. Ditto. > > > Hello Sue, > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts > force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple. Idiot. Are you the sam eposter asking these stupid questions? How do you make light change direction other than making it pass through a gravity field? You are a moron. Get lost. Mike > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > you make light change direction other than making it pass through a > gravity field? What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance. > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you > can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance. Do you think by shinning light on a mirror you exert pressure on the mirrror? where the hell did you stydy physics? Mike >> > > > > Hello Sue, >> > > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Do you think by shinning light on a mirror you exert pressure on the > mirrror? Darn right you do. The flashlight recoils, too. > where the hell did you stydy physics? Someplace reputable. > Mike Hey, boys, here's another one for the kill file! *plonk* SignatureNospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Do you think by shinning light on a mirror you exert pressure on the > mirrror? Newton's second law. Any change in momentum results in a force. How do you think a solar sail works in the first place? > where the hell did you stydy physics? You have a hell of a lot of nerve to ask anyone that question. We should be asking you. You're the ignoramous here. Plonk and gone. > > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > You have a hell of a lot of nerve to ask anyone that question. We > should be asking you. You're the ignoramous here. No, you have a lot of nerve. You learned physics probably 30 years ago in an east block starving university which superimposed dialectic materialism on top of everything and you are taking many things that are not proven for granted. I pitty you. "Steven Soter, an astronomer at the Hayden Planetarium in New York, is open to Gold's idea. He says applying conservation of momentum to photons could be a mistake. "Light is very different from matter, and one may wonder if the momentum rules are also different." ""Carnot's rule says there must be a degradation of energy in any machine that turns out free energy," Gold says. "A mirror does not have any degradation."" http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3895 have you done any experiments where you measured the force exerted by light on a mirror? And if you not, shut up you stupid idiot and stop playing smart a.s. Mike > Plonk and gone. > > > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > materialism on top of everything and you are taking many things that > are not proven for granted. I pitty you. And you would fail a high school physics test. And you're also making too many undue assumptions about me. Don't let my handle fool you. How do you know I'm not an American? > "Steven Soter, an astronomer at the Hayden Planetarium in New York, is > open to Gold's idea. He says applying conservation of momentum to > photons could be a mistake. "Light is very different from matter, and > one may wonder if the momentum rules are also different." > ""Carnot's rule says there must be a degradation of energy in any > machine that turns out free energy," Gold says. "A mirror does not have > any degradation."" > > http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3895 There is a somewhat legitimate debate on this issue, but it has to do with thermodynamics rather than classical mechanics. The main problem is that energy doesn't have to be conserved locally since it can be radiated away as heat. Momentum absolutely needs to be conserved since it is a vector. What would be carrying the excess momentum away? > have you done any experiments where you measured the force exerted by > light on a mirror? And if you not, shut up you stupid idiot and stop > playing smart a.s. Light pressure is a fact. Get over it. It's very basic physics. > > > > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Light pressure is a fact. Get over it. It's very basic physics. But you talked about Newton's lsw giving rise to that pressure and not some other effect. For that, you got no proof, do you? Get over it. You got no proof Newton's law holds in the case of light reflecting on a mirror. I am not disputing the pressure. I am disputing your explanation of it. Mike > > > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > light on a mirror? And if you not, shut up you stupid idiot and stop > playing smart a.s. This should provide everything you would need to know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure Instead of acting like a real jerk, why don't you do your own research. Google doesn't bite. > > > > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > Instead of acting like a real jerk, why don't you do your own research. > Google doesn't bite. You are the jerk. I am not disputing radiation pressure. I am disputing your explanation of it, you claimed it is a result of momentum convervation. You cannot prove that. Can you? Mike > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Mike I thought on those little solar turning thingies that the collectors are actually impelled *toward* the light source? John >> > > > > > > > > > Hello Sue, >> > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > that the collectors are actually impelled > *toward* the light source? I guess he has been waiting for someone to come up with this an example of a 'proof' of radiation pressure, so he could produce some kind of hansonlike sound, and jump up shouting that this is *not* an example ;-) Dirk Vdm And here I thought the Solar Wind was a stream of charged subatomic particles (mainly protons and electrons) flowing into space from the sun. Silly me. >>Mike wrote: >>> > > > > > > > > > Hello Sue, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>> You are the jerk. >> You cannot prove that. Can you? [Dirk] > I guess he has been waiting for someone to come up with > this an example of a 'proof' of radiation pressure, so he > could produce some kind of hansonlike sound, and jump > up shouting that this is *not* an example ;-) > Dirk Vdm [hanson] ahahaha... AHAHAHA...ahahahaha... AHAHAHA... whether this is an example or not is not at all important in the greater scheme of things. But Dirk, since you have referred to yourself as "The Third Kacksacker" is it not surprising that you have spotted their kacksackering above. Therefore I must give you credit for the humor you have pointed out and shown here. I have snipped all but the essentials above to show the splendid spacetime symmetry inherent in their professional kacksackering, whereby I must point out that the k -word should not be confused with a similar one that contains an "o" and a "u" instead of the "a". Here is an example of a highly paid official kacksacker at work: http://home.tiscali.be/stebune/Animal_files/elephant-shit-patrol.jpg http://www.thesidewaysguide.com/Images/Skate/SkateFeatures/SkateLists/ShitList/e lephant-LG.jpg How you, Dirk, came to anoint yourself as being the 3rd one remains somewhat of a mystery me. However I am quite sure that Androcles knows exactly why that is so... ... ahahahaha... ahahaha.... ahahanson [ snip interminable argument with "mike" ] > I thought on those little solar turning thingies that the collectors > are actually impelled *toward* the light source? Radiometers -- which is what you're talking about -- don't work by radiation pressure. Radiation pressure is far, far too small an effect to exhibit so easily! A radiometer typically consists of a light-bulb shaped thing with a needle in it and a little windmill-like thing balanced on the needle. The "windmill" has several blades, all black on one side and white on the other. The bulb is filled with gas at low pressure. Shine a light on it, and the "windmill" spins, _toward_ the white sides of the vanes (in other words, it's like there's something pushing on the black sides). The standard explanation of a radiometer is that the black side, since it reflects less of the light, absorbs more energy from the light beam, and hence gets slightly warmer. The gas molecules in the bulb, which are constantly striking the vanes and bouncing off, pick up a little more energy -- get more of a "kick" -- when they hit the warm black side than when they hit the cool white side. So the result is that there's a small but steady stream of slightly warmer air being blown from the black sides of the vanes, and the result is that the windmill spins in the direction such that the vanes move _away_ from the black sides. With all that said, I've read somewhere that there's a problem with that explanation, and attempts to model it have failed; there's apparently something funny going on at the edges of the vanes which is the "real" explanation. But whatever the details may be it's all still very much classical in scope and doesn't involve radiation pressure. Cheers... SignatureNospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > your explanation of it, you claimed it is a result of momentum > convervation. You cannot prove that. Can you? Now I know you're an a.s. You're just here to make trouble. You'll never get it so why bother. > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > Now I know you're an a.s. You're just here to make trouble. You'll > never get it so why bother. Whenever you cannot rpove your absurd arguments you call the other side an a.s? is that the kind of education you got? In this course of this thread when I mentioned a force filed you atatcked me with: "You must have gone to the matchbook university." http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/5fb8 d46356eae0a9/c79ccc0cb4514748?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativ ity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5fb8d46356eae0a9%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring= d#doc_540acc128b0709c1 Obviously, you do not understand that there is a field interpretation of GR which has nothing to do with the geometric interpretation as Feynman showed. Then, when I directed you to the proper wiki article about "force fileds" you contiinued your attack and you claimed: "Why not? Light has momentum. Momentum changing direction exerts force. And force per unit area is pressure. It's that simple. " http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/5fb8 d46356eae0a9/c79ccc0cb4514748?rnum=31&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativ ity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5fb8d46356eae0a9%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring= d#doc_f5e0ff25e3c4c6c3 You did not backup your absurd claim by neither mathematical equations nor experimental facts to show that Newton's second law applies in the case of light. But you continued your attack: "What? No mirrors in your world? You need to really learn some basic physics. And I mean from a proven reputable source. Till then, you can wallow in your own pathetic ignorance. " http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/5fb8 d46356eae0a9/967515612bde7572?rnum=41&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativ ity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5fb8d46356eae0a9%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring= d#doc_030beb1c8a4e06a6 I never talked about mirrors but even in that case it is not clear that your argument about light momentum changing direction and resulting in a force in the Newtonian sense is valid and can be proven. In short, you must have psychological problems and not a very serious physics education. Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] > > Mike I've already pointed out the actual physics involved here. If you're just too thick to understand it, that's not my problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 109 lines] > I've already pointed out the actual physics involved here. If you're > just too thick to understand it, that's not my problem. What physics? you did not show any physics. You just asserted that light obeys Newto's second law. You got no proof fo that. If you are so stupid and arrogant to think that your plain assertiosn constitute physics I feel sorry about you. It seems these unmoderated ngs is the only place you can advertise your education. I repeat again: do you have any experimental evidence light reflecting on a mirror obeys Newton's second law? If you do I will concede. If you do not, you must be ashamed of yourself. Mike > direction exerts > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Mike ---------------------- Mike dont get impresed by those little gangsters they are not scientist they are gangsters no much difference than 500 years ago !!! the only place in which there is no mass is in thier gangster brains Y.Porat --------------------------- ahahaha... Good exchange, Yehi! Great advice by you to Mike. IMHO your absolutely best tune was: "NO MASS -- NO PHYSICS" Take care, Yehi hanson >> direction exerts >> > > > > > > >> . [Mike] >> an a.s? is that the kind of education you got? [Igor] >> In this course of this thread when I mentioned a force filed you >> atatcked me with: [Mike] >> "You must have gone to the matchbook university." >> In short, you must have psychological problems and >> not a very serious physics education. >> Mike > ---------------------- [Yehi] > Mike > dont get impresed by those little gangsters [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Y.Porat > --------------------------- > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Do you think by shinning light on a mirror you exert pressure on the > mirrror? You have got to be sh.tting me. > where the hell did you stydy physics? I think the real question is what university taught you so poorly? > Mike > > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > I think the real question is what university taught you so poorly? You are another smart a.s with no real physics education to understand what is assumed and what has been proven: http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/5fb8 d46356eae0a9/158910cda36b031b?rnum=51&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativ ity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5fb8d46356eae0a9%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring= d#doc_dc60d5cb2d03369b Have you done any experiments to prove that Newton's law holds for light striking a mirror? Mike > > Mike > > > the > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Mike -------------------------- Hey Mike!! some respect for the 22 years old student from Alaska he is the manager of this ng!!! Y.Porat --------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > You are another smart a.s with no real physics education to understand > what is assumed and what has been proven: What is your physics education? > http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.physics.relativity/tree/browse_frm/thread/5fb8 d46356eae0a9/158910cda36b031b?rnum=51&hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fsci.physics.relativ ity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F5fb8d46356eae0a9%3Fscoring%3Dd%26hl%3Den%26&scoring= d#doc_dc60d5cb2d03369b You think a mirror is the same thing as a heat engine? Goddamn. > Have you done any experiments to prove that Newton's law holds for > light striking a mirror? No, but I have seen the results of a solar sail experiment plus numerous tiny demonstrations of light making a piece of foil spin. Are you proud that you are this ignorant? > Mike > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > No, but I have seen the results of a solar sail experiment plus > numerous tiny demonstrations of light making a piece of foil spin. Are you a retard? Did I dispute that? I did not. Can you prove the motion is due to the application of Newton's second law? this is the argument stupid. I wonder, if you are a gradute student as you say, how low the current standards are for admitting students in graduate programs. You have no ability to understand the essence of an argument. You will fail your oral exams I bet. > Are you proud that you are this ignorant? It is clear to the average mind that you are the ignorant one. Mike > > Mike > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Are you a retard? Did I dispute that? I did not. Can you prove the > motion is due to the application of Newton's second law? this is the Familiarize yourself with the scientific method, whining crank. One does not prove anything in science, all one can do is show that experiment is consistent with theory. Unsurprisingly, theory is in fact consistent with experiment regarding light pressure. Why is it you think Carnot's rule applies to a mirror, whining crank? Do you believe a mirror is even slightly related to a heat engine? > argument stupid. I wonder, if you are a gradute student as you say, how > low the current standards are for admitting students in graduate > programs. You have no ability to understand the essence of an argument. > You will fail your oral exams I bet. I never said I was a graduate student, whining crank. In fact, I have made it clear on many occasions that I am still an undergraduate. I suspect that your inability to read and properly process information is closely linked to your inability to comprehend modern physics. > > Are you proud that you are this ignorant? > > It is clear to the average mind that you are the ignorant one. I'm well on my way through a degree granting physics program. How about you? I asked what university taught you physics and you ignored the question. Mabey it is the case that you were never actually taught physics... > Mike > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Sue, > > > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > experiment is consistent with theory. Unsurprisingly, theory is in fact > consistent with experiment regarding light pressure. [snip retard's apologies] I asked about experiments that confirm light obeys newton's laws when reflected from a mirror? Can you point me to such experiments "undergrad"? By the way, when i was an undergrad I did not have time to eat. You seem to spend 24/7 in these ngs. You are probably a dropout. That is what the scientific method says about you stupid. Mike >> > > Hello Sue, >> > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > make light change direction other than making it pass through a gravity > field? Well, as one example, a mirror works pretty well. And by the way, that's what a solar sail is. In the simplest case of the sail perpendicular to the incoming light, the photons reverse direction when they hit the sail, their momentum flips sign as a result, and the sail gains twice the momentum of each photon in the process. The sail feels a force as a result of reflecting the light, and if someone on the ship measures the force on the sail as a whole and divides by the area of the sail, they find the radiation pressure which is being exerted on the sail. SignatureNospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email Hello Sal and Sue, Are you both telling me that radiation pressure can be caused by massless photons? Because energy reacts with matter? Has anyone ever heard that light sometimes acts as a wave and sometimes acts as a particle? I have a hard time understanding how energy can apply a force if it has no mass. I apologize for my ignorance, but I would like to learn. In my simple mind, the reaction in matter to light is heat. Is that heat from the matter or from the light? I am not good in math either and Sue sent me to a link that used variations on E=mc(squared). http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node90.html In my mind m is mass which can be converted to E (energy) and back again. How does that relate to radiation pressure? > >> > > Hello Sue, > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > area of the sail, they find the radiation pressure which is being exerted > on the sail. > Hello Sal and Sue, > > Are you both telling me that radiation pressure can be caused by massless > photons? I confess I haven't been reading Sue's posts in this thread. But that's certainly what I've been telling you, and it's probably what she's been saying, too. But again, photons have zero _REST_ mass. That means that if you could stop a photon and weigh it, while it was _STOPPED_ it would have zero mass. !!BUT!! mass == energy and a photon carries energy, so a photon in flight can also be said to have mass. There is a point here which you should be aware of: It is often said, somewhat sloppily, that objects in motion "gain mass" as they accelerate. When something is moving faster, it's "got more mass" than it has when it's moving slower. And the ratio of the "mass" of a particle moving at the speed of light, to the mass of that same particle AT REST, is _infinity_. Something moving at C is infinitely more massive than it is when it's stopped. Photons, though, would have _ZERO_ mass when they're stopped (if they could be stopped). When they're moving at C they have infinity times that much ... and infinity times zero is, in this case, a _finite_ quantity. So, photons _in_ _flight_, moving at C, do, indeed, carry mass. They have momentum, and they even have a gravitational field, just like anything else which has mass. Does this help at all? (By the way I may get yelled at for this post, since I've been pretty sloppy with the terminology. But I think the main points, as stated here, are not too misleading.) > Because energy reacts with matter? Has anyone ever heard that > light sometimes acts as a wave and sometimes acts as a particle? I have a [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> divides by the area of the sail, they find the radiation pressure which >> is being exerted on the sail. SignatureNospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org > > Hello Sal and Sue, > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > !!BUT!! mass == energy and a photon carries energy, so a photon in flight > can also be said to have mass. I am aware of the idea below, that is the main reason I suspect that for there to be Force over an area (Pressure), it must be caused by mass however little of it there is. And I would argue that a photon at rest has something close to Zero mass but not quite. E=mc squared: m=c squared/E: c=square root of (E/m) so you could solve for m if E is known, or is this equation merely the transition between matter and energy? > There is a point here which you should be aware of: It is often said, > somewhat sloppily, that objects in motion "gain mass" as they accelerate. [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email > I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org >> > Hello Sal and Sue, >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > there to be Force over an area (Pressure), it must be caused by mass > however little of it there is. As I already said a moving photon has "mass", or as it's more often called, "mass-energy". But _all_ the "mass" of a moving photon is due to its motion. If you could take that away, the "resting photon" would be found to have no mass. > And I would argue that a photon at rest has > something close to Zero mass but not quite. E=mc squared: m=c squared/E: > c=square root of (E/m) so you could solve for m if E is known, or is > this equation merely the transition between matter and energy? Yes, that is just the conversion between mass and energy, and the "c^2" is just a somewhat irrelevant conversion factor. In relativistic units we define c=1, and it reads E = m and that's hard to do too much with, isn't it? Conventionally, we define gamma = sqrt(1/(1-v^2)). If "m" is the rest mass of a particle, then when it's moving, its "mass-energy" or, if you will, its effective mass (the mass a stationary observer would measure) is given by m*gamma When v=1 (which is the speed of light in relativistic units) we have gamma = 1/0 ~ infinity and if the particle has NONZERO _rest_ mass, then its total mass-energy while traveling at SOL will be infinite. But photons have zero rest mass, so when they're traveling at SOL their mass-energy isn't necessarily infinite. Before you express any more opinions about what is "really true" of photons or light or mass or anything else having to do with relativity I would suggest that you learn enough about the field to have some idea what you're talking about. Get a book and read it (don't try to learn it exclusively from random websites on the internet and conversations with randoms on sci.physics.relativity, that's just a way to become a crank, not a way to get educated). There are a lot of reasonable introductory books on the subject. One is "Relativity, the Special and the General Theory" by Albert Einstein. It's a slim volume, it's readable, it's available cheap from Dover, it's available even cheaper as a used book, and it's available for free from Project Gutenberg. >> There is a point here which you should be aware of: It is often said, >> somewhat sloppily, that objects in motion "gain mass" as they [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] >> Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email I can be also contacted >> through http://www.physicsinsights.org SignatureNospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org [And see my previous post also -- this one is sort of an afterthought] > Has anyone ever heard that > light sometimes acts as a wave and sometimes acts as a particle? Yes of course. In general you can think of it in whichever way is the most convenient in a particular situation. If you're brilliant you can think of it both ways at once but most of us need to be content with just using one of the models at a time and not worrying too much about the fact that they're apparently contradictory -- welcome to the weird world of quantum mechanics. For understanding radiation pressure you're probably best off thinking of it as a particle and forgetting about the wave nature; you can deal with radiation pressure either way but believe me the wave approach to this is harder (check out antenna theory some time). > I have a > hard time understanding how energy can apply a force if it has no mass. I > apologize for my ignorance, but I would like to learn. In my simple mind, > the reaction in matter to light is heat. When matter absorbs radiation, something inside it jiggles as a result (the radiation gets turned into linear motion of some charged particle, someplace -- typically an electron). That jiggling of particles within a solid shows up macroscopically as heat. When matter _reflects_ radiation it doesn't get hotter (it didn't absorb any energy, after all). > Is that heat from the matter or > from the light? I am not good in math either and Sue sent me to a link [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> -- >> Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email SignatureNospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org > Hello Sue, *ahem* I haven't been reading Sue's posts in this thread but if she's up to her usual form you may wait a long time before you get a simple, straightforward answer from her. She posts a lot of interesting links but tends to answer questions with questions. > I would like to answer you question about how I would measure the mass > of light. OK, first point: Light has zero _rest_ mass. In other words, hypothetically, if you could stop a photon and weigh it, it would weigh nothing. (You can't stop one, of course, they always travel at C.) However, light has energy, and energy is equivalent to mass, so a photon in flight does carry something which could reasonably be called "mass". A closed box covered on the inside with perfect mirrors which has lots of photons bouncing around inside it would weigh _more_ than the same box without the photons. > I would like to approach it by stating a few facts to see if > you agree with them: > 1) Solar Sail space ships are propelled by the pressure of light on the > "sails" not solar wind(subatomic particles) as some might think. Exactly. (The solar wind, OTOH, most likely just punches little holes in the sails and makes periodic maintenance necessary...) > 2) Light can exert pressure. Yes. It's often called "radiation pressure". In fact, inertial containment fusion devices are designed to use the radiation pressure of a large number of very powerful lasers to smash a tiny bead of frozen heavy water with such force that the hydrogen fuses. (NB -- there are other things going on in such a device and the pressure exerted on the pellet by ablating D2O no doubt plays a role too but the radiation pressure is certainly a big part of it.) > 3) F(pressure)=ma [force=mass times acceleration] 4) Therefore light > has mass that can be measured indirectly by measuring the force acting > on the Solar Sail because the acceleration is the speed of light (C). You may run into trouble and get the wrong answer if you try to apply Newtonian mechanics to the problem since photons -- particles of light -- are distinctly non-Newtonian. However the basic idea is certainly right: if you measure the pressure exerted by light you will get some idea of the "mass" it must be carrying with it. But you need to be careful of exactly what you mean by "mass" and how you define it and how you try to calculate the "mass" of the light. > Please tell me where I am going wrong. Thanks!!! You're not going wrong, as far as I can see, but in order to get any real numbers out (at least, with any assurance that they were correct) you would need to go quite a bit farther into the theory of relativity. > Cane Kostovski AKA TrekJunky > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >> > > >> > > Sue... SignatureNospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > gravity equivalent? Therre is but the effect is not what you think. L-5 is a point where there is zero gravity because gravitational fields cancel. Notice the difference: there are two notions here, the notion of a gravitational field and of a gravitational wave. The first cannot be cancelled and it is empirically measured (just drop an apple) The second arise as a mathematical derivation and cannot be detected yet or maybe never. Gravitational ways are ripples in the gravitational field caused by sudden change in mass-energy distributiion. It is practically impossible to cancel out gravitational waves but even if you could do that gravity will still be there. Think of it this way: you can cancel out sea waves but the water is still there and you get boyancy. To get rid off boyancy you must remove the water. Therefore, to ged rid off gravity ytou must remove all mass -energy causing it. It is merely not enough to cancel out the waves as in the case of the water example. Mike > TrekJunky > > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > > gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Gravitational ways are ripples in the gravitational field caused by > sudden change in mass-energy distributiion. Actually, gravitational waves are ripples in spacetime created by changes in the quadrupole moment of a mass distribution. > > > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > > > gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Actually, gravitational waves are ripples in spacetime created by > changes in the quadrupole moment of a mass distribution. They [grav waves] cannot be that since if that is the case then spacetime must be an actual medium rather than a mere mathematical concept. There is no evidence for that, i.e. spacetime is an unobservable entity. You better stick with the field interpetation when trying to explain to beginners basic concepts and also remember that the geometric interpretation is just a model with no evidence whatsoever that it relates to some kind of physical reality. However, the field interpretation is more common sensical and easier grasped by entry level students exposed to Newtonian mechanics. Mike > > > > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > > > > gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > concept. There is no evidence for that, i.e. spacetime is an > unobservable entity. Waves have never required a medium. Aether was dead in the water a long time ago. > You better stick with the field interpetation when trying to explain to > beginners basic concepts and also remember that the geometric > interpretation is just a model with no evidence whatsoever that it > relates to some kind of physical reality. Then why has GR passed every test so far? > However, the field interpretation is more common sensical and easier > grasped by entry level students exposed to Newtonian mechanics. Field = Geometry in GR. > > > > > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > > > > > gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Then why has GR passed every test so far? It has passed some tests in a limited domain of application. GR neither explains quantum efefcts nor other effects such as gravitomagnetic where iit fails. It is just a mathematical model which now many experts in the field think has nothing to do with the mechanisms of physical reality. > > However, the field interpretation is more common sensical and easier > > grasped by entry level students exposed to Newtonian mechanics. > > Field = Geometry in GR. But not force field. Mike > > > > > > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > > > > > > gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > in the field think has nothing to do with the mechanisms of physical > reality. No one is claiming that GR is compatible with QM. That's one of the big condundrums of the day. Gravimagnetic? Obviously you've never heard of the Kerr metric and the concept of frame-dragging. What do you think Gravity Probe B is testing? And uneducated "experts" are everywhere. But just because some idiot objects to something that is completely out of his realm of understanding, doesn't mean there is any serious problem. > > > However, the field interpretation is more common sensical and easier > > > grasped by entry level students exposed to Newtonian mechanics. > > > > Field = Geometry in GR. > > But not force field. You must have gone to the matchbook university. > > > > > > > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > > > > > > > gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > completely out of his realm of understanding, doesn't mean there is any > serious problem. Hey stupid, graviuty probe got nothinh to show. > > > > However, the field interpretation is more common sensical and easier > > > > grasped by entry level students exposed to Newtonian mechanics. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You must have gone to the matchbook university. Listen crank, if you do not know what force field is, that is because you whole educaion is from these ngs and it happens that the term is seldomly mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_field_%28physics%29 Get a life punk. People like you cannot be distinguished from trash. Mike > > > > > > > > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > > > > > > > > gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Get a life punk. People like you cannot be distinguished from trash. I guess I was wrong. You must have gotten your physics education on the internet. Too bad for you. No wonder you don't understand any real physics. > > > > > > > > > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > > > > > > > > > gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > the internet. Too bad for you. No wonder you don't understand any > real physics. You still do not know what a force filed is idiot? Mike > > > > > Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a > > > > > gravity equivalent? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Then why has GR passed every test so far? GR has failed two of the most important direct tests: gravitomagnetic London moment and Pound-Snider. Some version of GP-B analysis will likely be massaged to keep the 'faithful' reaching deeper into their pockets. http://einstein.stanford.edu/ Sue... > > However, the field interpretation is more common sensical and easier > > grasped by entry level students exposed to Newtonian mechanics. > > Field = Geometry in GR. [...] > GR has failed two of the most important direct tests: > gravitomagnetic London moment Why doesn't gravitomagnetism work in London at the moment? I suppose the clay's to soggy in this weather? |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message