Lord Antares Posted April 6, 2017 Posted April 6, 2017 yet, people are still saying that the light from the passing star is bending towards the sun due to its attraction to mass. No, that is wrong. Photons have no mass and are not attracted towards the sun because the mass of the sun is attracting them. They bend in the presence of the sun because the sun bends the space around. They are actually travelling in a straight line in this curved space. No one is claiming ''magical'' attraction as you put it. GR has changed all of that and there is clearer explanation of gravity. Are you not aware of GR? What you are offering is an alternative explanation for something that is already established. You need to prove that this explanation is more useful or more correct. I keep coming back to this thread because, as I had already noted, I had the same idea as you, albeit veering in a different direction than what you are discussing here. It is pointless to keep stating your idea if you cannot prove to others that it has some relation to reality. It makes sense to me as well, but that does not guarantee its validity. You need to come up with a mathematical model to prove that gravity happens because of space displacement. I was searching for that as well, but I couldn't come up with anything.
mantraphilter Posted April 6, 2017 Author Posted April 6, 2017 I think lord Antares is grasping the concept, If space is being displaced by mass, this would happen at both the large scale and the small scale, relativity would still apply, so I think it would be easier to measure it at the small scale. If the electron is trapped by the displaced space next to the proton, can the distance between the electron and its proton be measured. If it can, it seems to me that the distance from its proton would be an important number in determining how much space is being displaced. As the electron does not enter the less space farther away from its proton. this is my starting point for a formula that I haven't figured out yet. We would have to know the mass weight of the proton also. Then I have to ask myself, does every proton have the same density? because if they don't, this is going to be real hard to figure out. If you can identify any other variables that would need to be considered, please do so.
Manticore Posted April 6, 2017 Posted April 6, 2017 (edited) I think lord Antares is grasping the concept, If space is being displaced by mass, this would happen at both the large scale and the small scale, relativity would still apply, so I think it would be easier to measure it at the small scale. If the electron is trapped by the displaced space next to the proton, can the distance between the electron and its proton be measured. If it can, it seems to me that the distance from its proton would be an important number in determining how much space is being displaced. As the electron does not enter the less space farther away from its proton. this is my starting point for a formula that I haven't figured out yet. We would have to know the mass weight of the proton also. Then I have to ask myself, does every proton have the same density? because if they don't, this is going to be real hard to figure out. If you can identify any other variables that would need to be considered, please do so. Does any part of this make any sort of sense whatsoever? Edited April 6, 2017 by Manticore
Strange Posted April 6, 2017 Posted April 6, 2017 Let me put this as simple as I can, If a person thinks gravity is a magical force where mass attracts other mass, that person is wrong. You are correct. In GR, gravity is not a force. What about magnetism? Would not the light from the sun and the light from the star have the same charge, yet, people are still saying that the light from the passing star is bending towards the sun due to its attraction to mass. Light has no charge and is not affected by magnetism. So my animation is not perfect, the point is, the starlight follows the curvature of the space created by the mass of the sun, and not pulled magically by the mass of the sun. Correct. If the star were centered as directly behind the sun as it could possibly be, you would still see its light during the lunar eclipse. No. This only works for stars that are only just hidden behind the sun. The amount of deflection of light is absolutely minute. So, one way the diagram is wrong is that you cans the curve! If it were drawn accurately, it would be indistinguishable from a straight line. Starlight as it travels past the mass of the sun is not simply bending due to attraction by gravity, it is following the curvature of space. Correct. I never said that gravitational lensing is wrong. I am saying that why it occurs is not because mass is attracted to mass. Correct. The reason I believe that the "displaced stacked space" theory describes all of the nuclear forces? I am very good at building things, I can imagine a three dimensional model in my head and examine it from all perspectives before cutting my first piece of wood. I can do the same with my model of the universe, and the simplest solution to all the differences that exist in the astronomical and the quantum, is "displaced stacked space" You (and anyone else) can imagine all sorts of things that seem to work. But the only way to know if the really work or not is to test them. Assuming that your idea must be right because you can imagine it and it makes sense to you is not science and is not going to convince anyone else. Sorry, but that is just the way it is. I did not see anything that disproves the "displaced stacked space" theory The only thing that could disprove it is if you were to produce some testable predictions. And test them. All we can say is we have a model currently that works. We have no reason to think that your model works (other than your faith in it). I think lord Antares is grasping the concept, If space is being displaced by mass, this would happen at both the large scale and the small scale, relativity would still apply, so I think it would be easier to measure it at the small scale. It does happen at all scales (as far as we know). The problem is the effect is very small (which is why gravity is very weak and even a tiny fridge magnet can hold up a large weight). Because it is very small, we can only easily see it with objects the size of planets, etc. Really precise instruments can detect the gravitational effect of much smaller things. But we certainly can't measure any curvature of space for things like protons and electrons because the effect would be absolutely minute. As far as we know, curvature of space has no significant effect at those scales. What does have a much stronger effect at those scales are other things - electromagnetic forces between oppositely charged protons and electrons, the nuclear force, etc. There have been attempts to describe all these forces in the same way (in terms of curvature). The best known is Kaluza-Klein theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza–Klein_theory Note: this is very, very complicated (I certainly don't understand it). But that is because the geometry of curved spaces is complicated. And the theory has to account for forces that behave completely differently from one another in a unified way. It isn't just made unnecessarily complicated in order to confuse you! So in a sense, you are attempting something sensible with your model (coming up with a single description for all forces) but you can't just insist it is correct without showing that it is. p.s. could you break your posts up into shorter paragraphs. They get really hard to read... Thanks. If the electron is trapped by the displaced space next to the proton, can the distance between the electron and its proton be measured. One problem is that electrons do not have precise locations. They are "fuzzy" in a sense. You may have in mind the old image of an electron orbiting the atom like a little moon. But what actually happens is that the electron is "spread out" in space around the proton (in what is called an "orbital"). However, we can calculate and measure the probability of an electron being at a particular distance. We would have to know the mass weight of the proton also. Then I have to ask myself, does every proton have the same density? We do know (by measurement) the mass of the proton. And of the electron. And, don't worry, all protons are identical. And all electrons are identical.
Lord Antares Posted April 6, 2017 Posted April 6, 2017 I think lord Antares is grasping the concept, Yes. As I said, I thought about it too before this thread. To simplify, it is something like this: If you have an empty box and then you put an object into the box (like a ball). When you do that, the resulting air in the box will become more dense. There will be a lesser volume of air but a greater density. Any given distance in the box will contain more air after putting the ball in than before putting the ball in. There are some observations which make sense to me with this model. However, that is not nearly enough to be able to conclude anything. As Strange has been telling you, you will need mathematical predictions or evidence which would point to this model being more correct or more useful. As far as I'm concerned, it does not clash with any established physics because any resulting observations would still sound like GR, but there is no indication that it offers anything either. It is an alternative interpretation of GR which needs evidence. I hope you realize that further discussion on this will only make sense given that you come up with some quantifiable prediction or mathematical equation which is not made available by GR. Does this make sense to you?
mantraphilter Posted April 7, 2017 Author Posted April 7, 2017 This morning I found an article about a hadron collider in France where something happened they are having a hard time explaining. It appears during their experiments they saw the formation of a new particle with four neutrons in a stable nucleus, only thing is they cant figure out what is holding it together being that all the neutrons are neutral. Their is no magnetism happening, which is what is believed to hold an atom together. In my model there are only charged particles, uncharged particles and electrons. In my model you don't need magnetism to hold the particles together in a nucleus. While a four neutron nucleus would be rare, the space displaced by all of the particles would be enough to hold them together. I am not sure where or how to link you to the article, but if you search "four neutron particle, France hadron collider" you will probably find it. This newly found particle supports my "Displaced stacked space theory" I also found an article about a guy named "Thomas Royen" and a problem he has recently solved called "Gaussian Correlation Equality" I believe his solution, if you could apply It in three dimensions might be helpful in describing how particles are held together with out magnetism. I'll admit I didn't under stand the mathematical part of the article, only the problem he was trying to solve. I can't remember who it was that chimed in with "photons do not have mass" but, from what I have read, this argument is not solved yet either. I guess they are still on the fence about the whole wave vs particle thing. Does any part of this make any sort of sense whatsoever? I am trying to figure out what information I would need to calculate how much space is being displaced by a proton, if space is being displaced. I understand the whole electron weight vs velocity and that you can't know both variables, but all we need to know is the farthest distance that it could possibly be from its proton from the center of its protons mass, and maybe the area of the proton. Couldn't a person just calculate the area of the farthest possible orbit and subtract the area of the proton from it. The problem I think would be relativity. The electrons distance from its proton changes as space changes, so depending on where you measure the distance it could be more or less relative to the space it is in. Maybe if that distance were measured in the vacuum of space, and then compared to the measurement in space that is not the vacuum. Would this calculate Gravity?
Stephen Stars Posted April 7, 2017 Posted April 7, 2017 I can't remember who it was that chimed in with "photons do not have mass" but, from what I have read, this argument is not solved yet either. I guess they are still on the fence about the whole wave vs particle thing. Photons have zero rest mass or invariant mass as according to science facts. Perhaps, there could be other type of mass in existence such as fluid mass, who knows? That's why the mass-energy equivalence, E=mc2.
mantraphilter Posted April 7, 2017 Author Posted April 7, 2017 So, the area of the electrons possible orbit, subtract the area of the proton, would be the amount of space being displaced and if you measure the same thing at the point where space becomes a vacuum, comparing the two would give you what? I'm not even sure if an electron would have any space between it and its proton in the vacuum of space. But if "displaced stacked space" is true, there would have to be. Although very little. If you put a pocket watch in a stationary orbit in space and keep a pocket watch in your pocket, the one in space moves faster, because there is less space farther away from the planet. The electron does not have as much space to travel to orbit its proton, that is why the watch moves faster. Is this not common knowledge?
Strange Posted April 7, 2017 Posted April 7, 2017 This morning I found an article about a hadron collider in France where something happened they are having a hard time explaining. It appears during their experiments they saw the formation of a new particle with four neutrons in a stable nucleus, only thing is they cant figure out what is holding it together being that all the neutrons are neutral. You need to provide a reference to this. It is impossible to comment on something which is almost certainly being wrongly described. Their is no magnetism happening, which is what is believed to hold an atom together. Magnetism plys NO role in holding an atom together. I am not sure where or how to link you to the article, but if you search "four neutron particle, France hadron collider" you will probably find it. You go the the address bar of you browser, select all the address (use Ctrl-A), come back here and paste the link (Ctrl-V). I have tried searching and found no such article. So you are obviously confused/mistaken about what it said. I guess you might be thinking of the recent tetraquak discoveries. https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/07/lhcb-unveils-new-particles I can't remember who it was that chimed in with "photons do not have mass" but, from what I have read, this argument is not solved yet either. I guess they are still on the fence about the whole wave vs particle thing. There is no doubt: photons do NOT have mass. And there is no doubt about the wave-particle thing either. I understand the whole electron weight vs velocity and that you can't know both variables There is no problem knowing both of these. Given the level of ignorance or confusion shown in this one post, it is hard to imagine why we should take you seriously. 1
mantraphilter Posted April 7, 2017 Author Posted April 7, 2017 You need to provide a reference to this. It is impossible to comment on something which is almost certainly being wrongly described. Magnetism plys NO role in holding an atom together. You go the the address bar of you browser, select all the address (use Ctrl-A), come back here and paste the link (Ctrl-V). I have tried searching and found no such article. So you are obviously confused/mistaken about what it said. I guess you might be thinking of the recent tetraquak discoveries. https://home.cern/about/updates/2016/07/lhcb-unveils-new-particles There is no doubt: photons do NOT have mass. And there is no doubt about the wave-particle thing either. There is no problem knowing both of these. Given the level of ignorance or confusion shown in this one post, it is hard to imagine why we should take you seriously. the particle is called a tetra neutron I do not believe magnetism holds the atom together, have only seen articles explaining the strong force with electromagnetism photons have zero rest mass but never rest, and can move a solar sail. so this implies mass. "wave vs particle thing" is referring to light as a wave or a particle. you can know either the velocity of a single electron or the weight of a single electron but not both about the same electron. and your posts read like you think you are the definitive authority on all things nuclear, my- what an ego you must have.
Strange Posted April 7, 2017 Posted April 7, 2017 the particle is called a tetra neutron Wow. You are right. I hadn't come across this before: [Ctrl-C ... Ctrl-V] https://phys.org/news/2016-12-short-lived-tetraneutron.html Fascinating stuff. I do not believe magnetism holds the atom together, have only seen articles explaining the strong force with electromagnetism There is no connection between the strong nuclear force and electromagnetism. If you could only provide a link to one of these articles ... photons have zero rest mass but never rest, and can move a solar sail. so this implies mass. It implies energy and momentum. Not mass. Photons have zero mass. That is why the move at the speed of light. "wave vs particle thing" is referring to light as a wave or a particle. And no one is on the fence about this. you can know either the velocity of a single electron or the weight of a single electron but not both about the same electron. You are thinking of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which limits the accuracy with which the position and momentum of a particle can be known. There are other complementary pairs, such as energy and time. But weight (mass) and velocity are not a complementary pair. The mass of an electron is know. It is always the same. And, as we can measure the velocity of an electron as accurately as we wish, we can know both the mass and velocity.
swansont Posted April 7, 2017 Posted April 7, 2017 This morning I found an article about a hadron collider in France where something happened they are having a hard time explaining. It appears during their experiments they saw the formation of a new particle with four neutrons in a stable nucleus, only thing is they cant figure out what is holding it together being that all the neutrons are neutral. Their is no magnetism happening, which is what is believed to hold an atom together. Magnetism is decidedly NOT what physicists think hold nuclei together. It's the strong interaction, which acts between the nucleons. (But neutrons have a magnetic moment, so it's not true that there is no magnetism happening) Still waiting on an explanation of how light from a hidden star can bend away from the sun and still hit the earth, which is what you said is a prediction of your conjecture. Or a proper explanation of your drawing, which has light curving both away and then toward the sun. I do not believe magnetism holds the atom together, have only seen articles explaining the strong force with electromagnetism You should look at some mainstream physics then, instead of crackpot sources. The strong force is not connected with magnetism.
mantraphilter Posted April 8, 2017 Author Posted April 8, 2017 Magnetism is decidedly NOT what physicists think hold nuclei together. It's the strong interaction, which acts between the nucleons. (But neutrons have a magnetic moment, so it's not true that there is no magnetism happening) Still waiting on an explanation of how light from a hidden star can bend away from the sun and still hit the earth, which is what you said is a prediction of your conjecture. Or a proper explanation of your drawing, which has light curving both away and then toward the sun. You should look at some mainstream physics then, instead of crackpot sources. The strong force is not connected with magnetism. The light from the hidden star travels toward the sun. The space around the sun is filled with light radiating out from the sun. The sun light and the star light share the same properties. The star light does not enter the space that is already filled by the radiating sunlight, but instead seeks the path of least resistance somewhere farther from the sun where the vacuum of space, and the space filled with light from the sun would be equivalent to each other allowing the star light to travel through it. This point of equivalent space would exist as a sphere around the entire sun, and would be unique to each starlight that comes near the sun, as every star has different degrees of brightness and would there fore find its own equivalent point between the sunlight radiating out from the sun and the space farther away where the sunlight is not as concentrated due to the more space that it is entering, the same space that is being displaced by the suns mass, but also being filled with the suns radiating light. We already know that mass warps space, in the case of the sun that space is filled with light. In the case of a planet, that space is not filled with light, allowing the light to enter the "more" space that is being displaced by the mass of the planet. this is my explanation of gravity. On the whole "wave vs mass" thing. I am thinking that the light is a wave until it gets obstructed by mass at wich point the waves stack up on themselves creating an electron. or "wave vs particle" If the sunlight charges the mass of the planet does the dark side of the planet loose its charge? because if this is true, It could explain the rotation of the planet through electro magnetic attraction. On a lighter note, I bought some glass beads and krazy glue so I can build a model of an atom in order to find out if the Fibonacci sequence has anything to do with how the protons stack themselves together in the nucleus. It's hard to count the space in close stacked orbs with out being able to mark where you have already counted Of course they can move in different directions in the same space. Take two laser pointers and place them at right angles so the beams cross: the light from each is travelling in different directions while travelling through the same space. Or just turn on two different lights in your house. I find it odd that someone who doesn't even understand how light and vision work, can be so certain that the whole of optics, geometry, and two theories of gravitation ar it is also theoretically possible for them to cancel each other out. Not likely, but possible
Lord Antares Posted April 8, 2017 Posted April 8, 2017 So, the area of the electrons possible orbit, subtract the area of the proton, would be the amount of space being displaced and if you measure the same thing at the point where space becomes a vacuum, comparing the two would give you what? But you would need to know the exact number of atoms (and protons and electrons if you insist) in an object you wish to calculate this for. An easier way would be to look at the object as a whole, let's say the earth or the sun. You would need to take into account its mass and size, but also its density. Since there are smaller object which are more massive than larger ones, they exhibit more gravitation and according to this, more space displacement. So xyz dimensions are not enough. You need to take into account the density of the object as its atoms could be much less densely packed than in another object. A smaller, more dense object would displace space in a more ''dramatic'' manner. Think of black holes. Providing evidence for mathematics like this may be near impossible, so good luck.
Strange Posted April 8, 2017 Posted April 8, 2017 So, the area of the electrons possible orbit, subtract the area of the proton, would be the amount of space being displaced and if you measure the same thing at the point where space becomes a vacuum, comparing the two would give you what? I'm not even sure if an electron would have any space between it and its proton in the vacuum of space. But if "displaced stacked space" is true, there would have to be. Although very little. One way of measuring the spacing of electrons from the nucleus is by spectral lines emitted by atoms. Atoms in space have exactly the same spectral lines as atoms on Earth (or close to the Sun or anywhere else)
swansont Posted April 8, 2017 Posted April 8, 2017 The light from the hidden star travels toward the sun. The space around the sun is filled with light radiating out from the sun. The sun light and the star light share the same properties. The star light does not enter the space that is already filled by the radiating sunlight, but instead seeks the path of least resistance somewhere farther from the sun where the vacuum of space, and the space filled with light from the sun would be equivalent to each other allowing the star light to travel through it. This point of equivalent space would exist as a sphere around the entire sun, and would be unique to each starlight that comes near the sun, as every star has different degrees of brightness and would there fore find its own equivalent point between the sunlight radiating out from the sun and the space farther away where the sunlight is not as concentrated due to the more space that it is entering, the same space that is being displaced by the suns mass, but also being filled with the suns radiating light. We already know that mass warps space, in the case of the sun that space is filled with light. In the case of a planet, that space is not filled with light, allowing the light to enter the "more" space that is being displaced by the mass of the planet. this is my explanation of gravity. That doesn't answer my questions. I asked for an explanation of how light from a hidden star can bend away from the sun and still hit the earth, which is what you said is a prediction of your conjecture. Or a proper explanation of your drawing, which has light curving both away and then toward the sun. ——— Mass warping space is GR, which completely explains the light path, leaving no room for your model. They can't co-exist. One way of measuring the spacing of electrons from the nucleus is by spectral lines emitted by atoms. Atoms in space have exactly the same spectral lines as atoms on Earth (or close to the Sun or anywhere else) And shifts in these lines are explained by relativity, again leaving no room for alternate explanations.
mantraphilter Posted April 8, 2017 Author Posted April 8, 2017 That doesn't answer my questions. I asked for an explanation of how light from a hidden star can bend away from the sun and still hit the earth, which is what you said is a prediction of your conjecture. Or a proper explanation of your drawing, which has light curving both away and then toward the sun. ——— Mass warping space is GR, which completely explains the light path, leaving no room for your model. They can't co-exist. And shifts in these lines are explained by relativity, again leaving no room for alternate explanations. This answer does explain how the light from the star could travel and bend around the gravitational warping of the sun. you just cant accept it because it means you have to adjust your already complete, without a doubt, understanding, of how gravity works. But you would need to know the exact number of atoms (and protons and electrons if you insist) in an object you wish to calculate this for. An easier way would be to look at the object as a whole, let's say the earth or the sun. You would need to take into account its mass and size, but also its density. Since there are smaller object which are more massive than larger ones, they exhibit more gravitation and according to this, more space displacement. So xyz dimensions are not enough. You need to take into account the density of the object as its atoms could be much less densely packed than in another object. A smaller, more dense object would displace space in a more ''dramatic'' manner. Think of black holes. Providing evidence for mathematics like this may be near impossible, so good luck. We do not need to count every atom or figure the density, only take one atom, place the atom at the planets surface, calculate the area of the possible orbit from its proton, then calculate the area that the proton occupies, and subtract the proton area from the possible orbit area, then calculate the same thing for the atom at the point where space becomes a vacuum, then compare these figures to the distance between the two points where you took both measurements, would this give a formula for gravity? Somehow I think that the area that the planet occupies would have to play a role in the formula, if it's going to tell us anything. So the information we need is, proton area, possible orbit area, taken at surface location, and vacuum location, the distance between the two points where the measurements were taken, and the area that the planet occupies. how to arrange them in a formula? I'm still thinking about that.
swansont Posted April 8, 2017 Posted April 8, 2017 This answer does explain how the light from the star could travel and bend around the gravitational warping of the sun. No, really, it doesn't. At the very least your level of detail is sorely lacking. You mention zero about what makes light bend one way or another. "The star light does not enter the space that is already filled by the radiating sunlight, but instead seeks the path of least resistance somewhere farther from the sun where the vacuum of space, and the space filled with light from the sun would be equivalent to each other allowing the star light to travel through it. This point of equivalent space would exist as a sphere around the entire sun" First of all, the amount of light in a space has no effect on whether more light can enter the space. Photons are bosons; you can cram as many of them into a space as you want. If the light is taking this "path of least resistance", why does it bend away from the sun, and then suddenly bend back toward it? That space should be "filled" with your nonsense stacked space, and even higher densities of sunlight. You have repeatedly claimed that the light bends away from the sun. What makes the light bend toward the sun, as shown in your diagram?
Lord Antares Posted April 8, 2017 Posted April 8, 2017 We do not need to count every atom or figure the density, only take one atom, place the atom at the planets surface, calculate the area of the possible orbit from its proton, then calculate the area that the proton occupies, and subtract the proton area from the possible orbit area, then calculate the same thing for the atom at the point where space becomes a vacuum, then compare these figures to the distance between the two points where you took both measurements, would this give a formula for gravity? Somehow I think that the area that the planet occupies would have to play a role in the formula, if it's going to tell us anything. So the information we need is, proton area, possible orbit area, taken at surface location, and vacuum location, the distance between the two points where the measurements were taken, and the area that the planet occupies. how to arrange them in a formula? I'm still thinking about that. No, that's wrong. How would you not need to figure density into the equation? Your mathematics would say that the bigger the volume of a body, the stronger the gravitation (''space displacement'') effect. This is wrong as smaller bodies can exert stronger gravitation if they are more dense. You need both the volume of the body (which is your ''area that the planet occupies'' ) and the density of the object, as both are responsible for the strength of the gravitational filed. This would give you the true ''are that the matter of body occupies''. What density would just looking at the atom assume? Or are you somehow trying to calculate this for a single atom, instead of a body? If so, 1) It doesn't really work that way 2) It's virtually untestable. Experimentation would be easier on the large scale.
mantraphilter Posted April 9, 2017 Author Posted April 9, 2017 No, really, it doesn't. At the very least your level of detail is sorely lacking. You mention zero about what makes light bend one way or another. "The star light does not enter the space that is already filled by the radiating sunlight, but instead seeks the path of least resistance somewhere farther from the sun where the vacuum of space, and the space filled with light from the sun would be equivalent to each other allowing the star light to travel through it. This point of equivalent space would exist as a sphere around the entire sun" First of all, the amount of light in a space has no effect on whether more light can enter the space. Photons are bosons; you can cram as many of them into a space as you want. If the light is taking this "path of least resistance", why does it bend away from the sun, and then suddenly bend back toward it? That space should be "filled" with your nonsense stacked space, and even higher densities of sunlight. You have repeatedly claimed that the light bends away from the sun. What makes the light bend toward the sun, as shown in your diagram? Does light not travel in a wave? I've always thought it does. Is the wave length the same in the starlight as the sun light? or is the wave length relative to the space it is traveling through. Would the waves cancel each other out? If light does not travel in a wave and is only a photon or (boson?), your point might be valid. No, that's wrong. How would you not need to figure density into the equation? Your mathematics would say that the bigger the volume of a body, the stronger the gravitation (''space displacement'') effect. This is wrong as smaller bodies can exert stronger gravitation if they are more dense. You need both the volume of the body (which is your ''area that the planet occupies'' ) and the density of the object, as both are responsible for the strength of the gravitational filed. This would give you the true ''are that the matter of body occupies''. What density would just looking at the atom assume? Or are you somehow trying to calculate this for a single atom, instead of a body? If so, 1) It doesn't really work that way 2) It's virtually untestable. Experimentation would be easier on the large scale. OK, so density would also have to be a variable in the equation. If we could find the "imaginary" point at the center of the mass of the planet, and compare that to the distances where we took the measurements of our, proton area, and farthest possible electron orbit, at both surface and vacuum point. would that not somehow include the density factor? So, all the information that would have to be included in the equation would be as follows. The "weight of the planet", the "area of the planet" the "middle planetary area point distance to the surface location point" at which we calculate the "area of the proton", and the "farthest possible orbit area of said proton". Then "middle planetary area point distance to the vacuum point" at which we calculate the "proton area", and the "farthest possible orbit area of said proton", and also, the "distance between the surface point and the vacuum point" If we used all of these pieces of information in our formula, what order would the calculations have to be made?, and, wouldn't that give us a number value of gravity for said planet? Or would this be futile because gravity changes with mass. As soon as a meteor comes down you would have to recalculate the whole thing. What good would knowing a number value for gravity do anyway, it does not change the world we live in.
mantraphilter Posted April 9, 2017 Author Posted April 9, 2017 couldn't sleep, I just realized by reading your post again that my language is improper, area refers to a two dimensional space, I should be using the word volume, as it applies to three dimensions.
swansont Posted April 9, 2017 Posted April 9, 2017 Does light not travel in a wave? I've always thought it does. Is the wave length the same in the starlight as the sun light? or is the wave length relative to the space it is traveling through. Would the waves cancel each other out? If light does not travel in a wave and is only a photon or (boson?), your point might be valid. Yes light is a wave. Also a photon. Why does the light bend toward the sun, after it has bent away from the sun?
mantraphilter Posted April 10, 2017 Author Posted April 10, 2017 Yes light is a wave. Also a photon. Why does the light bend toward the sun, after it has bent away from the sun? Think of a buoy floating in the ocean, the wave approaches the buoy, the buoy does not stop the wave. the wave only slightly peaks at the point where it contacts the buoy and then sort of collapses around the buoy to reconnect on the other side of the buoy, continuing on its way. Depending on the angle the wave approaches the buoy, more or less water will move around either side of the buoy as the wave collapses around it, and reconnects on the other side. The same thing is happening as the starlight (A three dimensional wave) approaches the sun. (the buoy). My picture is only a two dimensional attempt to describe this. The wave of light could move to either side of the buoy, and maybe travel both sides, as a wave does but, you have to think of this in three dimensions. " both sides"? that's two dimensional language. The starlight wave could be surrounding the three dimensional sun as it passes it, and depending on its angle of approach, well, you get the idea! One way of measuring the spacing of electrons from the nucleus is by spectral lines emitted by atoms. Atoms in space have exactly the same spectral lines as atoms on Earth (or close to the Sun or anywhere else) So. I have a very small ruler, and I am standing on the surface of the planet. I measure the distance the electron is from the proton of an atom. Then, I pack up the atom and the ruler, hop aboard a rocket and blast myself into space. Then, I perform the same measurement with the same atom and the same tiny ruler. Of course it will measure the same, the tiny ruler is made of atoms also, Duh! Its electrons will also be the same distance from its protons. Relativity.
swansont Posted April 10, 2017 Posted April 10, 2017 Think of a buoy floating in the ocean, the wave approaches the buoy, the buoy does not stop the wave. the wave only slightly peaks at the point where it contacts the buoy and then sort of collapses around the buoy to reconnect on the other side of the buoy, continuing on its way. Depending on the angle the wave approaches the buoy, more or less water will move around either side of the buoy as the wave collapses around it, and reconnects on the other side. The same thing is happening as the starlight (A three dimensional wave) approaches the sun. (the buoy). My picture is only a two dimensional attempt to describe this. The wave of light could move to either side of the buoy, and maybe travel both sides, as a wave does but, you have to think of this in three dimensions. " both sides"? that's two dimensional language. The starlight wave could be surrounding the three dimensional sun as it passes it, and depending on its angle of approach, well, you get the idea! The sun is really, really big, as compared to the wavelength of visible light. As is the path of travel as the light passes by the sun. Why does the light bend toward the sun, after it has bent away from the sun?
Recommended Posts