floersh

Well think of it this way. Pressure is applied in all directions simultaneously. So the atmosphere is not only pressing down on you but also up on you. The two (and its really millions of different force vectors) all cancel one another out. Now there is another way to think of it. Strength of force. Centrifical force is strong enough to over come gravity. (Aka the reason you can spin that water bucket upside down and the water does not fall out).. It can also overcome pressure (otherwise you wouldn't be able to spin the bucket).. Also you should keep in mind that atmospheric pressure is the result of gravity not the otherway around. If a large body like the earth did not have a strong force pulling down on the gas particles (aka our atmosphere) the gas particles would all be flung into space just as you and I would be. Also if you want to apply centrificl force to a large planet like the earth think of it this way. The earth rotates on its axis and around the sun and around the galaxy and around the universe. But if we make it simple and just take into account its rotation and its rotation around the sun. You will note that every part of the earth is on the outside of that centrifical force vector at ssome point during a 24 hr period.. And if this was the case we would experience varying strengths of force. It would be throwing us out when we were facing away from the sun (aka at night) and pulling us harder toward the surface during the day (aka when we were facing the sun). Now I can stand on a scale any where in the world at any time and I always weight the same.. So the only way it could be related to centrifical force is if all the combined motions put together all equaled out as a constant force vector toward the center of the earth.. You would be hard pressed to find circular motions that resulted in that.. There would always be a variance.. Even if it were possible to contrive a pattern of motion that would create a equal force vector toward the center of the earth it would be impossible to do both the earth and say mars without the two being located in the same place.. Now it is possible that motion at a subatmoic level may have something to do with gravity.. But there is not doubt that gravity does exist.. And that at a macroscopic level it has nothing to do with motion..

Sorry my previous response was rushed.. Your response is exactly the kind of stuff I was looking for.. A real scientific theory for what gravity is.. Although this touches more on inertia. We do know that in some way shape and form gravity and inertia are linked.. I was looking into it more and apparently they are building a new tool at CERN that is specifically designed to try and find this higgs boson. Could be quite exceiting if they are to find it. It could mean a total revolution in our understanding of a great number of things.. Although if they fail to find it it could mean doom to the standard model and decades of research.. A lot is riding on those experiements.. Lets keep our fingers crossed. Exactly. From what I can tell it seems that there are two major theories. The first is some sort of quantum interaction between various particles and zero point fields (aka the either is a zero point field) and associated drag forces that interaction creates which leads to mass, gravity and inertia in some way. The second is a very similar approach where there is a higgs field of higgs bosons that make up the ether per sey which also create a drag force on various particles which leads to mass and thus to inertia and gravity.. Can't say which is right and which is wrong or if maybe the two are interconnected. But it seems to me that the bulk of science today is leaning toward this concept of certain particles interacting with something and resulting in drag forces that are responsible for what we measure as mass but probably more descriptive of the concept of inertia. And your right. It would appear from these theories that motion is very much a part of the puzzle.. Whether that motion be macroscopic or quantum.. So in essance the trampoline (according to modern theory anyway) is either a higgs field or zero point fields or both. And the warping/bending/curving of that material/energy is due to equal and opposite reactions of particles moving through it and resulting in essentially friction/drag.. If we can (And I have every confidence that man will one day achieve this) understand how the interaction works then it opens up the possibilities of manipulating it much as we manipulate electromagnetic fields today.. Assuming we can find a means to manipulate it we could build technology that very few could even conceive of today.. Think of it. What might you be able to do if you could eliminate or minimize that drag and thus an objects apparent mass or inertia? What might you be able to do if you could say increase the drag of any object?

I am somwhat familiar with the higgs field and the Higgs boson. However, I am also familiar with the fact that it is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed. Anyway it is a piece of the puzzle..

Got it matter and energy are the same One issue here. Weight is a property of gravity. Weight can not and does not create gravity rather it is gravity that gives matter weight. Right. It makes an indention based on weight that is the result of gravity. You've heard of the chicken and the egg right? Its a good analogy except it doesn't really answer the question. I realize the GR dictates a curvature/bending/warping of space time due to mass. And that creates gravity which is really not gravity at all but angular momentum. The question is how does mass warp/bend/curve space time? I realize that matter and energy are essentially interchangable with the exception that one has mass and the other does not (in some cases anyway).. So what is it about a photon that makes it different from say a muon. Why does one have mass while the other doesn't? Is it due to the way it interacts with the background Zero Point Energy? Is the background zero point energy the medium we call space time? Is it the same interaction whatever that might be that gives one particle mass while another remains massless that also gives rise to gravity? Or Inertia? To use your own analogy. Gravity is what causes the bowling ball to create the indention on an elastic material such as the trampoline. So what is the trampoline made of???? And what is it that creates the indention if not gravity's effect on the mass of the bowling ball?

Here is a good way to think of it. Spinning objects produce centrifical force as described before. Take a bucket and fill it with water. Tie a rope to the bucket and spin it around in a circle. Even if you spin it upside down the water will remain in the bucket. That is not gravity that is centrifical force. Note in the above that the water was contained on the outside of the circle. (Aka by the bottom of the bucket that was facing away from the central spining point). Now if gravity was the result of spinning don't you think since we are all sitting on the bottom of that proverbial bucket (aka the surface of the earth) that we would be thrown away from the earth rather than attracted toward it? Wouldn't we need to be on the inside of the earth in order to feel gravity? To fully illustrate my point. Take that bucket again and attach the rope to the bottom of the bucket so the open end points outward and spin it around. The water flys out in all directions doesn't it?

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of things that cannot yet be experimentally verified. Like does gravity interact at the speed of light as Einstien suggests? People have tried to verify that. In fact there was an article just a few days stating that someone had verified it. Then came the calls that the data was misinterpreted. And around in circles we go. Bottom line. There is a great deal about gravity that science has not experimentally verified and it takes for granted due to Einstiens mostly accurate predictions. (Aka he was right these 20 times so its likely he is right on all accounts).. Heck show me a scientist that will say without a smile on his/her face that he/she knows gravitons exist.. Another example of what I mean.. We know what the effects of gravity are. We THINK we know what causes gravity (Aka space time curviture) but we don't even know what space time is or how it can be curved or what matter's real interaction is with space time.. Another one for ya: Does anti-matter create normal graivty or anti-gravity. I know scientists believe it creates normal gravity. But the point is it is just a beliefe and no one really knows..

Well I found a link from this research to the DOE.. Not that it means it is accepted theory but at least its not totally fringe.. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5200267 Here is another article that I assume is the predecessor to the above article http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/9807/9807023v2.pdf It comes from the same site but details the connection between ZPF and Inertia..

Exactly. General relativity does not explain why. Not in the sense that other theories explain eletromagnatism as an example.. I have found this and am unsure how connected it really is to mainstream science. But I found it interesting.. http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0504/0504061v3.pdf Whether or not it is real science it does give you an idea of what I mean when I say how/why..

I've read general relativity and special relativity and I can say without question that man kind has no idea what causes gravity.. And neither of those theories even touch on what causes it. Beyond making some blanket statement about how mass bends space time and creates gravity wells. Like I said before. Great. How does it bend space time and what is space time if it can bend. General relativity doesn't eloborate on that. Now I have read a number of proposed theories that seem to suggest that gravity and inertia are both a product of Zero Point Energy. Of course general and special relativity don't touch on this. And as far as I know none of these ZPE theories have any real experimental evidence to support them.. I could be wrong on that..

You know I have heard so many explanatios of gravity but most are meerly descriptions of its effects. I've heard people talk about space time and how it is warped by massive objects. But no one can explain how or why massive (aka matter) warps space time or what space time is if it can be warped. Given how much science has explained and how much we know it seems a bit rediculous that we know so little about what actually causes gravity. Gravity is relative to mass. Great how? Why do more massive objects exert more gravitational force? Because it bends space time more? Ok How does it bend space time more? What is space time if it can be bent and what does mass have to do with it?

Yes.. Sort of anyway.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolaser electrolaser is a type of directed-energy weapon. It uses lasers to form an electrically conductive Laser-Induced Plasma Channel (LIPC). A fraction of a second later, a powerful electric current is sent down this plasma channel and delivered to the target, thus functioning overall as a large-scale, high energy, long-distance version of the Taser electroshock gun.

Ok assuming that is correct (which it really isn't due to 50% nuetrinos which I couldn't absorb).. How might I convert that to temperature in say Kelvin? I assume it would be a function of the chamber's material heat capacitance?

Would anybody happen to know how to calculate the heat energy this chamber would have to withstand?

Humm.. Mass = .5g + .5g = 1g / 1000 = .001kg If we annihilate only once per second then R = .001kg/s If we have a diameter of 2.5m then the radius would be 1.25m Area = 4 * pi * r^2 = 19.6349540849 m^2 c = 299792458 m/s P = R * c / A = .001 * 299792458 / 19.6349540849 = 15268.3 Pa or 15.2683 kPa Am I missing something?? I think I have all of the units right..

Ahh thats much more reasonable .5 gram antideuteron annilating .5 gram deuteron in a 2.5m diameter vaccum chamber would create 15.268 kilopascals of preasure.. Thats less than atmospheric preasure.. Would anybody happen to know how to calculate the heat energy this chamber would have to withstand?

So lets say we had .5 grams of antideuteron which we react with .5 grams of deuteron. E = mc^2 = 89.875517 terajoules Now lets say our reaction chamber is 2.5 meters in diameter (spherical) and the reaction occurs in the center roughly.. P = E/4*pi*r^2 = 4.577322538412 terapascals I would say that is not insignificant!!! I am also assuming the fact that it occured in a vaccum means nothing???

I was wondering if one were to construct a reaction camber that contains a high vaccum and were to annihilate fractions of grams of matter/antimatter (lets say p-pbar) would the resulting energy release produce any pressure on the reaction chamber's inner wall? I know that matter antimatter reactions pretty much destroy all of their input matter (assuming equal ratio) and the resulting particles would have a very small (even insignificant) size relative to the volume of the chamber. So I am going to assume that the pressure would be negligable if any at all? Am I right or wrong?