Quartile

we are something collecting ourselves. is this applicable to physics? we "hear" VIBRATIONS. interesting..

Is all of this completely bull or are there some concepts that stand out as being possible? http://www.volkmar-weiss.de/chaos.html

An ego is necessary for someone who isnt ready to accept that they are one with the universe; an individuation of the indivisible.

Im thinking of gravity curving spacetime while the mass involved is moving through it. I understand the rubber sheet analogy, but space is three dimensional so you have to think of it as a stack of rubber sheets with the ball rolling in between the stack like a marble in a sandwich.

OK, so if the rubber sheet is 100m long and it takes this massive ball 5s to roll all the way across the 100m, wouldnt there still be deformation in the rubber sheet at 60m even when the ball is at 80m? In the 1s that it takes the ball to roll from 60m to 80m, the rubber sheet would not have time to return to its undisturbed position at 60m. Am I starting to make more sense? My original question about a mass MOVING through a three dimensional space and creating a sort of 'hole' in it is not a question that I ask in blind ignorance. I know that Im not very good at explaining myself thoroughly, and I apologize. Please bear with me!

Is my analogy not accurate?

Would it be too much of a stretch to say that movement of a mass creates a 'hole' in spacetime? Sort of the same way that a baseball moving through a tank of water displaces water and creates a hole for it to move through?

It has been said that the only thing that doesnt change is change itself. That is, change is constant - everything undergoes changes. In the case of a particle moving from point a to point b, time is used as a way to quantify a rate of change in position. If we dont allow the use of time to calculate this change in position, we see that the particle moves from point a to point b, but we dont see how "fast" it happens. Time is a sort of reference frame for events, its purpose is to describe rates of change. If we throw out the notion of time because it doesnt seem to exist, we would have to arrive at the conclusion that "everything just is." I think taking the notion of 'everything' to be inclusive of the entire universe and any other universes that (may or may not) exist parallel to it and eliminating the barrier of time allows a deeper understanding of infinity. In other words, the universe is a sort of perpetual motion machine.

A unification theory of gravity and electromagnetism would still fall very short of being a "theory of everything." I would think that since human beings can be considered individual 'particles' of mass (just the same as planets, which aren't particles at all but are described as such by gravity) we should also be considered in a TOE. If we werent considered in a TOE we would have to consider our mass as operating seperately from the rest of the universe, which would then keep this theory from being a theory of "everything." Perhaps it would have to do with modelling the evolution of the mind over time, to the point at which we gain "free will." Intelligent learning models sounds interesting..

Thanks!

I understood that GR is not needed for this. At least one focal point does exert gravitational force because it is the center of gravity of the sun. I understand that the other point doesnt exert gravitational force because there is no mass there to account for it, but at the same time it would seem like it does exert gravitational force because the orbit of planets is elliptical! As little as I understand about physics, I have the tendency to assume that an orbit with one focus, the sun, should tend to be circular rather than elliptical. Can the elliptical orbit of Earth be accounted for by summing the vector components of gravitational force acting on it not only from the sun but from other planets? I have checked over my logic several times to make sure im not being a retard and it looks good so please help!

I understand that there is a focus other than the Sun and that it is needed for elliptical orbits to make mathematical sense. What I dont understand is why this focus exists in physical terms, i.e., what is it and why does it exert gravitational force on planets?

It is this velocity at a right angle that I am interested in. Why does it occur if gravity is the only force present between planets in the solar system? Where does this velocity come from? i found this on the wiki for 'orbit': If there is a focus other than the sun, what is it? I am assuming that the answer to this question is explained by GR? If a baseball is inside a basketball and the basketball is in orbit around the Earth, do both the baseball and the basketball experience a gravitational force towards the Earth's center, or are they both accounted for as one mass with a center of gravity different than their individual centers of gravity?

I understand. Why do planets move in circles when gravity acts between two bodies directly? Am I missing something?

A baseball is inside a basketball. If I'm following this thread correctly, the baseball experiences no gravitational effects from the basketball because the basketball acts as a shell and shells have no gravitational force inside of them. First of all, isnt gravity supposed to act in a straight line? It would seem that the Earth would have to have some constant tangential acceleration in order to avoid being sucked into the Sun. Where does the Earth get that acceleration? What if this basketball+baseball system is in orbit around the Earth? Where is its center of gravity? On another note, would it work mathematically to model our solar system as being inside of an imaginary shell in order to calculate its gravitation on other solar systems/celestial bodies? Im thinking this could work because I imagine there is a large distance between our solar system and other solar systems, as "solar" implies the presence of a star and the nearest star to us is actually quite far away. When calculating their trip to the Moon, did NASA have to consider the gravitational effects of bodies other than the Earth and the Sun? What is the imaginary point that makes orbits elliptical in our solar system? Why does it exist, other than to account for elliptical orbits?

Could it be said then that the intensity of sound varies with the amount of displacement caused in a composite system by kinetic energy transfer? This displacement would then be high when the difference in speed between the two objects in collision is high because they are transferring large amounts of kinetic energy? When a ball at 15m/s hits a ball at 10m/s, much less kinetic energy is transferred than if that ball at 10m/s were actually at rest. I think this has to do with relativity, especially considering that two objects undergoing uniform acceleration will appear to one another to be still, and when one object begins increasing its acceleration and thus experiences jerk, it will be accelerating from the other object's pov until it returns again to a state of (increased) acceleration and will appear to have a uniform velocity with respect to the object that doesnt change acceleration. Yes/no? But certainly the movement of a composite system determines the movement of every particle within it at all times? If a ball is moving with uniform v=30m/s, every particle within it is at rest relative to every other particle. But if the ball gains or loses KE, it produces a compression wave with speed proportional to the structural rigidity of the composite system. If it gains or loses KE in a smaller amount of time, the intensity of this compression wave is higher and thus more audible. Ah yes thank you. Gauss' Law has interesting implications, then, when it is applied to large bodies of mass and their related gravitational field. Their gravitational influence also behaves as though it originates from an infinitely small point, even though these large masses are obviously not infinitely small points. I tend, for whatever reason, to see the same sort of behavior in sound mechanics. It is difficult, however, to reconcile the two in any way without considering a composite system as a "particle." I see your point. Why can't it work both ways - movement of the pile determines position of the rocks within it and at the same time the position of the pile relative to other "piles" around it, and movement of the rocks determine position of the pile as well as position of the rock relative to the other rocks within the pile. I tend to think of existance as a giant, multidimensional, self-similar fractal. Is it so hideous if you can figure it out so easily? Good to hear!

It has zero rest mass, but its always moving at the speed of light. Is that right?

Notice I use "particle" in quotations, denoting the special definition I give it - "a unit of matter that is observable on a macroscopic level." I understand that macroscopic objects arent necessarily considered particles. I think what I am trying to say is that the iron beam is a macroscopic "composite particle," which (as far as I know) is an idea/definition that science does include. But sound is a compression wave that travels through matter. I assume that it is caused by the displacement of atoms, which is why swansont mentions that "There are no infinitely rigid materials." If the elementary particles cannot be compressed because their size (mass) is too small, then the position of atoms in spacetime would be the only factor determining the position of the sub-atomic particles that make up atoms, similar to rocks in a bucket. Wherever the bucket goes, the rocks go. Is this true? a few edits to my original post.. Otherwise, I dont see the reasoning behind mathematically referring to particles in collision as single particles. It would seem that they should always be referred to as complex systems of smaller, more fundamental particles. Thanks again!! If this goes on much longer I might have to start paying you all for tutoring me on this

What if it was one gigantic iron beam What would it take for there to be infinite rigidity in a solid? Infinte lattice energy? I think Im having trouble understanding how it could be possible that the position of an observable macroscopic particle can be completely determined by the compression wave that travels through the particle's individual atoms. In the case that the "particle" Im talking about is the iron beam starting at rest, it makes more sense to me that when a force acts on it, its position in spacetime would begin changing a small amount before the compression wave travels all the way through it. Otherwise, I dont see the reasoning behind mathematically referring to particles of any mass as single particles. It would seem that they should be always be referred to as collections of smaller particles. I appreciate your patience with me and this topic!

Yes of course. But you COULD say that KE is lost if you are looking specifically at the kinetic energy of the system of two colliding particles and disregarding all other types of energy. Then it can be lost because it is transferred. This is what I meant. I have another question, this time more closely related to what I am trying to understand. Imagine 10,000 iron balls hanging by nylon thread from a ceiling. They are hung in a line so that each one is touching the one next to it and they are all at rest. A sensitive pressure sensor of some sort is put at one end, barely touching the 10,000th iron ball. Then a small force is applied to the first ball in the direction of the axis that passes through the center of each ball. Wouldn't the force travel along these 10,000 iron balls with a speed much faster than c?

Thank you swansont I dont understand how it can be considered a collision. Are they actually colliding? Isnt most of this interaction based on gravity? Maybe it would have been a better question if I had been more exact. If an iron ball with v=100m/s hits another iron ball at rest and the collision is perfectly elastic, how long after they make contact will the ball at rest begin moving?

Hi, I have a handful of questions about collisions and sound. Thanks for stopping by. How fast does kinetic energy transfer between two objects in a perfectly elastic collision? Does a perfectly elastic collision ever occur outside of a lab? What happens to the kinetic energy that is lost in an inelastic collision? Now, I dont know if these questions should be in another thread in another forum, so I will post them here as well. They are questions about sound. I know that the speed of sound varies in different mediums. Does sound have kinetic energy, since it is a compression wave? Could it be said that as a medium increases in hardness/stiffness/rigidity, the speed of sound increases in that medium? Does sound, being a compression wave, have a particle? How does sound fit in with the principles of wave-particle duality? Thanks!

i think you might be thinking of (length of time that an evolving organism spends in the "primate" section of the evolutionary timeline)/(average length of life of the organism while in the primate section) = number of generations of that organism that occur during that section the wiki article for primates says that they appeared sometime in the mid-late cretaceous, which is a period that lasted from 145 million years ago to 65 million years ago. so primates must have been around from 105 million years ago to 65 million years ago. something that must also be kept in mind when thinking about the speed of evolution in primates is that they underwent a type of accelerated evolution as a result of gaining understanding through tools and fire and whatnot. im just musing. in the event that i am terribly wrong or make no sense whatsoever, please ignore this post =D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variables i too am "convinced that god does not play dice"

hmm thank you in my post, "event horizon" refers to the size of an atom's sphere of gravitational influence on other atoms. at what point in space around the atom does the atom's gravitational field cease to affect the atoms around it? what about its electromagnetic field? what happens if we represent the electromagnetic force as a curvature in the variables that make up an electromagnetic field, as was done with gravity and spacetime? does that make no sense?