Unified Field Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 Vmedvil where are you??? Why I have the impression, that in this society of scientists, only you can say something useful and scientifically correct. And why something tells me, that you are smart enough to know, when it's better to leave the scene - what makes me sad, as only your input had some actual scientific value in the current debate: me VS all others. Please come back, because when I read, what some other "scientists" around here have to say, I don't know, if I should laugh or cry... -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Vmedvil where are you??? Why I have the impression, that in this society of scientists, only you can say something useful and scientifically correct. And why something tells me, that you are smart enough to know, when it's better to leave the scene - what makes me sad, as only your input had some actual scientific value in the current debate: me VS all others. Please come back, because when I read, what some other "scientists" around here have to say, I don't know, if I should laugh or cry... So do you have some evidence that Newton's law of gravity is wrong? Because it has been very well tested ... You seem to prefer your own guess work to the results of evidence-based science. Why is that? (And Vmedvil is a complete crackpot who posts a lot of ignorant nonsense.) Edited December 26, 2017 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 7 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Vmedvil where are you??? Why I have the impression, that in this society of scientists, only you can say something useful and scientifically correct. And why something tells me, that you are smart enough to know, when it's better to leave the scene - what makes me sad, as only your input had some actual scientific value in the current debate: me VS all others. Please come back, because when I read, what some other "scientists" around here have to say, I don't know, if I should laugh or cry... Ignoring answers you don't like is not going to get you to better understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 Quote What should be clear is that the density matters only in that it tells you what the mass is. No - density tells you, what is the mass AND the size of a body. End of story - it's a simple and obvious fact and you probably don't want to disagree with those... Quote Smaller and lower density means less mass. Indeed, you can change the order of this trio - however the proper version should be: smaller and with less mass, means lower density - and sadly such statement is COMPLETELY incorrect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 7 minutes ago, Unified Field said: No - density tells you, what is the mass AND the size of a body. Yes. I said that ages ago. So all that changes is the surface gravity. Because a denser body will have a smaller radius. At the same distance, the gravity of a dense body and a less dense body (of the same mass) will be identical. So density is not, in itself, relevant. But it might tell you something about the surface of the object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 4 minutes ago, Strange said: So do you have some evidence that Newton's law of gravity is wrong? Because it has been very well tested ... It is partially wrong, as Newton didn't include the "delay" of light in space and assumed, that effects of gravity happen instantly, no matter of the distance... Quote You seem to prefer your own guess work to the results of evidence-based science. Why is that? (And Vmedvil is a complete crackpot who posts a lot of ignorant nonsense.) I prefer science, which makes sense and can be proved empirically - not only by calculations. Half of the things, which you calculated and called as a theory, don't make any sense, while some others assume the impossibility of physical measurement or even perception of any kind. Let's simply assume, that there are infinite parallel realities, which expand into infinity in a 11D space - if it can be calculated, so it has to be correct, right?.... This is, where you came: middle of a black hole (and I see a dark future for you) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 2 minutes ago, Unified Field said: It is partially wrong, as Newton didn't include the "delay" of light in space and assumed, that effects of gravity happen instantly, no matter of the distance... Which has no effect on this discussion. Quote I prefer science, which makes sense and can be proved empirically - not only by calculations. Half of the things, which you calculated and called as a theory, don't make any sense, while some others assume the impossibility of physical measurement or even perception of any kind. Let's simply assume, that there are infinite parallel realities, which expand into infinity in a 11D space - if it can be calculated, so it has to be correct, right?.... This is, where you came: middle of a black hole (and I see a dark future for you) It's not true because it can be calculated. It's accepted as true because the calculations agree with experiments. Many, many different experiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 Just now, Unified Field said: It is partially wrong, as Newton didn't include the "delay" of light in space and assumed, that effects of gravity happen instantly, no matter of the distance... How does that ave any detectable effect? 1 minute ago, Unified Field said: I prefer science, which makes sense and can be proved empirically - not only by calculations. Half of the things, which you calculated and called as a theory, don't make any sense, while some others assume the impossibility of physical measurement or even perception of any kind. Science doesn't "prove" anything. But the whole point of a theory is that it is not just based on calculation but that is has also been repeatedly tested and confirmed. A theory is the nearest thing that science has to "proof". So you say you prefer science, and yet you reject the bits that don't make sense to you (because you don't understand them). That is not very rational. 3 minutes ago, Unified Field said: if it can be calculated, so it has to be correct, right? Nope. It has to be tested against observation and experiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 You should cry. ( about all the money you wasted on your education ) Buoyancy works by heavier things sinking, such that lighter things float to the top. The plasma doesn't so much rise, as get forced up by heavier air falling under it. Even in a microwave. There is NO anti-gravity. Gravity is simply determined by mass and separation, the same properties that ( somewhat ) describe density. That is the only relation, and at best, a correlation. A gas cloud as large as the Milky Way with a lower density than water could collapse into a Black Hole, but a ball Uranium with 20 times the density does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 (edited) Quote If you read the Wikipedia page on Newton's law of gravitation you will see that gravity is proportional to the mass of the planet and inversely proportional to the distance from the centre. So, if two planets have the same mass but one of them is denser then that means the volume will be smaller and the surface will be nearer the centre (smaller radius). Therefore the surface gravity will be higher (just because you are closer the centre). It is the distance that is important. The higher density just allows you to get closer. It is not the density itself that changes anything. So, if we consider a satellite in orbit above these two planets, the only thing that matters is how far the satellite is from the centre of the planet (and the mass of the planet). The density is not relevant because we are no longer considering the surface gravity. And what, if we need to consider a satellite, which suppose to orbit around a cloud of interstellar gas? Will the gravity created by this cloud be the same as a gravity created by a planet with the same size? Edited December 26, 2017 by Unified Field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 19 minutes ago, Unified Field said: And what, if we need to consider a satellite, which suppose to orbit around a cloud of interstellar gas? Will the gravity created by this cloud be the same as a gravity created by a planet with the same size? Size, no, because it depends on the mass. If the mass is not the same, the gravity will be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 Quote Which has no effect on this discussion. Oh - so it was I, who accused me of ignoring some laws, which are BTW slightly outdated? Should I then ignore similar posts in the future? Quote It's not true because it can be calculated. It's accepted as true because the calculations agree with experiments. Many, many different experiments. There are parts of GR, which simply can't be tested empirically by any mean... How to prove, that there is a time dimension, with (almost) infinite number of points (equal to Planck's Time), which exist as completely physical realities, if we have no idea, if it's even possible travel between those points? Of course - according to calculations, such travel should be possible in the future (which we still can't perceive, so there's no way of telling, how far this future might be), so possibly, when this moment will come, we will be finally able to confirm in 100%, that one of the main assumptions in GR Theory, is in fact correct... Or this - how can we prove, if for a physical object, which is moving with the speed of light, flow of time completely stops - if the same theory tells, that there's no way for a physical object, to reach the speed of light? But this also has no actual value for the discussion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koti Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 On 25.12.2017 at 12:29 AM, Unified Field said: According to mainstream science, gravity is caused by curvature of space-time, which is created by every object with rest mass. Gravity is not caused by curvature of space-time. Gravity is curvature of space-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 17 minutes ago, Unified Field said: There are parts of GR, which simply can't be tested empirically by any mean... 1. So what. If they can't be tested, then they can't be relevant to the discussion. 2. Most of your problems can be addressed by Newtonian gravity. 18 minutes ago, Unified Field said: How to prove, that there is a time dimension, with (almost) infinite number of points (equal to Planck's Time), which exist as completely physical realities, if we have no idea, if it's even possible travel between those points? 1. Science doesn't prove things. 2. We have a theory which treats time as a dimension. The theory works very well, which means we can successfully consider time as a dimension. 3. Science doesn't really deal with "physical realities". 4. In GR time (and space) are continuous, not made up of points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 Quote How does that ave any detectable effect? If the Sun would disappear, we would have some 8 minutes, before Earth would eject from it's orbit and travel into the emptyness of space... Quote So you say you prefer science, and yet you reject the bits that don't make sense to you (because you don't understand them). That is not very rational. I reject the bits, which still need to be proved by direct observation and which don't fit to the rest of model. Problem is, that science tries everything, to fix the problem, using hammers, trying to reshape some parts (what matters is the triangle inside the box, so what, if we pushed it through a round hole) and cover the remaining holes with some wooden plates. I prefer to search for some bits and pieces of better quality - and if there aren't any avaliable, I create new ones - which will in fact fit perfectly to the rest... Quote Size, no, because it depends on the mass. If the mass is not the same, the gravity will be different. Size doesn't depend on anythingm just like the mass - it's a fixed property of an object Yes - gravity will be different, if we change the mass. But gravity will be different as well, if we would stretch a planet to a size of entire star system. According to current theories, such object wouldn't create gravity - as it's radius would be too big... I think, that such object would still create a g. field - but it would be much weaker and much bigger... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 11 minutes ago, Unified Field said: But gravity will be different as well, if we would stretch a planet to a size of entire star system. According to current theories, such object wouldn't create gravity - as it's radius would be too big... Nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 27 minutes ago, Unified Field said: If the Sun would disappear, we would have some 8 minutes, before Earth would eject from it's orbit and travel into the emptyness of space... Which violates conservation of energy, so it's not an actual effect one could observe Quote I reject the bits, which still need to be proved by direct observation and which don't fit to the rest of model. Problem is, that science tries everything, to fix the problem, using hammers, trying to reshape some parts (what matters is the triangle inside the box, so what, if we pushed it through a round hole) and cover the remaining holes with some wooden plates. I prefer to search for some bits and pieces of better quality - and if there aren't any avaliable, I create new ones - which will in fact fit perfectly to the rest... But it all stems from the same model. You can't reject parts of it. This isn't physics a-la-carte Quote Size doesn't depend on anythingm just like the mass - it's a fixed property of an object Seriously? The ideal gas law is a myth? Thermal expansion? Quote But gravity will be different as well, if we would stretch a planet to a size of entire star system. According to current theories, such object wouldn't create gravity - as it's radius would be too big... I think, that such object would still create a g. field - but it would be much weaker and much bigger... Nope. Nothing in physics supports such a notion. No such thing as being too big to create gravity, either, in our theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 26, 2017 Author Share Posted December 26, 2017 58 minutes ago, MigL said: You should cry. ( about all the money you wasted on your education )Buoyancy works by heavier things sinking, such that lighter things float to the top. No - buoyancy works, because a medium with smaller density of matter, tries to get out from a medium with bigger denisty. Luckily I didn't have to pay for my education, to know such things... Quote The plasma doesn't so much rise, as get forced up by heavier air falling under it. Even in a microwave. Woow, those have to be forces, which are described by the super-special-attractive-relative laws of quantinuum reavaliableimpossibility. You should say better: "ESPECIALLY in a microwave"... Why? I don't know - as I still remain in a strong shock, after reading about so many completely new laws and still unknown forces of standard mechanics. Put your hand under the ball of plasma in a microwave owen and check if there's some cold air flowing from above - maybe if you confirm your concepts of physics, you will become famous.. Quote There is NO anti-gravity. This NO looks so certain and unquestionable, that I probably have no other choice, than believe you... Thanks! Quote Gravity is simply determined by mass and separation, the same properties that ( somewhat ) describe density. That is the only relation, and at best, a correlation. A gas cloud as large as the Milky Way with a lower density than water could collapse into a Black Hole, but a ball Uranium with 20 times the density does not. So a ball of Uranium won't fall into black hole? Interesting... Never heard about it before... Do you have some sources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 26, 2017 Share Posted December 26, 2017 4 minutes ago, Unified Field said: So a ball of Uranium won't fall into black hole? Interesting... Never heard about it before... Do you have some sources? That's not what was claimed. Collapse into a black hole, as in form one. Not meaning to fall into an existing one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) Quote Nope. Nothing in physics supports such a notion. No such thing as being too big to create gravity, either, in our theories. Really? Does a cloud of interstellar gas create gravity? It does... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-is-a-star-born/ However it's radius is big while density is small, so the edge of such cloud is very far from the center of mass - this is why it's gravity should be almost completely absent in the surrounding Quote Which violates conservation of energy, so it's not an actual effect one could observe Tell it to the scientific society - it's a generally accepted concept and is being widely used by official sources. Quote But it all stems from the same model. You can't reject parts of it. This isn't physics a-la-carte But the model is far from completion and is being constantly developed. There are some parts, which won't fit to eachother, no matter how hard you try. For example, quantum mechanics won't work with GR, because of the deterministic concept of time dimension - so why shouldn't we change the concept of time, to fix that problem? Quote Seriously? The ideal gas law is a myth? Thermal expansion? You got me - congratulations I admit my mistake 1 hour ago, swansont said: That's not what was claimed. Collapse into a black hole, as in form one. Not meaning to fall into an existing one. Oh, thanks! Then in fact it rather won't collapse into a BH, but rather cause thermonuclear reaction and turn into a beautiful mushroom cloud... Quote 1. Science doesn't prove things. Not all for sure - but it should... Quote 2. We have a theory which treats time as a dimension. The theory works very well, which means we can successfully consider time as a dimension. I have a theory, which treates the time as a wave function. It works very well for both: micro- and macroscale and is fully consistent with the laws of quantum physics - what means, that I can successfully consider time a wave function Quote 3. Science doesn't really deal with "physical realities". Probably not, as science explains the physical reality, using 11 different dimensions and unprovable theories, which look more like a cheap holywood movie, than physics... Strange times we live in... Quote 4. In GR time (and space) are continuous, not made up of points. Oh, and the BB being a POINT of the beginning? So how would you describe a moment of time using GR? How long is a current moment and when it becomes the future or past? According to Quantum Physics, there are quantitied values for the 3D space and for the time - both marked by the name of Max Planck. Question is: which concept is correct and which one is wrong? Well, existence of Planck's Lenght and Time is already confirmed by math, experiments and observation - so denying it, just because it doesn't fit into a THEORY, is probably not the smartest solution... Edited December 27, 2017 by Unified Field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 23 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Really? Does a cloud of interstellar gas create gravity? It does... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-is-a-star-born/ And if you are the same distance from the center, you will have the same gravity. Which is not zero. 23 minutes ago, Unified Field said: However it's radius is big while density is small, Which could mean a lot of mass, or not. 23 minutes ago, Unified Field said: so the edge of such cloud is very far from the center of mass - this is why it's gravity should be almost completely absent in the surrounding Small is not zero. And the overriding factor is the distance, as the force depends on r^2 23 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Tell it to the scientific society - it's a generally accepted concept and is being widely used by official sources. The context of this was about a detectable effect, and this is a thought experiment 23 minutes ago, Unified Field said: But the model is far from completion and is being constantly developed. There are some parts, which won't fit to eachother, no matter how hard you try. For example, quantum mechanics won't work with GR, because of the deterministic concept of time dimension - so why shouldn't we change the concept of time, to fix that problem? Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Gravity depending on mass is not going to go away in a quantum theory 23 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Oh, thanks! Then in fact it rather won't collapse into a BH, but rather cause thermonuclear reaction and turn into a beautiful mushroom cloud... Being flippant in the face of so many misconceptions gives the impression that you are not serious about getting answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 31 minutes ago, swansont said: And if you are the same distance from the center, you will have the same gravity. Which is not zero. Ok, but there shouldn't be no attraction of objects, which are placed beyond the cloud Quote Which could mean a lot of mass, or not. Probably couple to couple hundreds sun masses - so nothing spectacular, considering the size Quote Small is not zero. And the overriding factor is the distance, as the force depends on r^2 It's not zero anywhere - but with the increasing distance from the center of mass, it becomes such weak and insignificant, that it can be considered as zero Quote The context of this was about a detectable effect, and this is a thought experiment Ok, so maybe a better example - time, which passes from the moment, when gravitational waves were emitted, to the moment, when they were detected on Earth... Quote Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Gravity depending on mass is not going to go away in a quantum theory Don't worry - I will soon cover the problem of gravity in QM - everything will be explained But for this moment I barely manage to answer for all the questions Quote Being flippant in the face of so many misconceptions gives the impression that you are not serious about getting answers. Sometimes I can't treat seriously some of the statements, which were made in this thread. Besides, if someone slaps me in the face - I always try to pay it back (probably this is why I have already 5 negative opinions - but it does't bother me, to be the "bad guy" ) edit - 6 negatives, as someone just gave me another one .., I'm goin sleep. C'ya! Edited December 27, 2017 by Unified Field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 11 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Besides, if someone slaps me in the face - I always try to pay it back (probably this is why I have already 5 negative opinions - but it does't bother me, to be the "bad guy" ) ! Moderator Note Please note that correcting misconceptions, especially by any of our active professional physicists, is NOT meant to be a "slap in the face", nor is it meant to cast you as "the bad guy". Most people who join a science discussion site come to learn, and to banish their own ignorance. Dr Swanson obviously assumed you would want to know about any misconceptions. You're welcome here, but we do discuss mainstream science. And we attack ideas vigorously, not people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 26 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Ok, but there shouldn't be no attraction of objects, which are placed beyond the cloud There is always attraction. Not sure how to take your double negative. 26 minutes ago, Unified Field said: It's not zero anywhere - but with the increasing distance from the center of mass, it becomes such weak and insignificant, that it can be considered as zero Even for a gas cloud. 26 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Don't worry - I will soon cover the problem of gravity in QM - everything will be explained But for this moment I barely manage to answer for all the questions No point in moving forward until your misconceptions involving more basic concepts have been cleared up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 Quote Please note that correcting misconceptions, especially by any of our active professional physicists, is NOT meant to be a "slap in the face", nor is it meant to cast you as "the bad guy". Most people who join a science discussion site come to learn, and to banish their own ignorance. Dr Swanson obviously assumed you would want to know about any misconceptions. You're welcome here, but we do discuss mainstream science. And we attack ideas vigorously, not people. I don't feel offended, if someone corrects my mistakes - this is why I discuss here my ideas (to validate some of my claims). Actually, I don't get offended easily in general - but when someone starts to adress things, like my education or general intellect, he can expect, that he will get a response, which he probably won't like Dr Swanson was right - this is why I thanked him for finding a mistake, which I've made. Exactly - discussing science: this is why we all are here... Sadly, discussion is not possible, if everything, what is being said about some concept, ends on: Quote Nonsense. Not much to work with... Besides, telling, that some concepts are inconsistent with mainstream theories, or that there's still no theory, which would explain some aspects of a model, doesn't prove anything. So what, if my concept of gravity differs from the concept of gravity in GR? What matters, is the observation, measurement and empirical proof. If you want me to change the concept, you need to prove me, that my explanation is inconsistent with observable facts - and not with hypothesies or virtual calculations... Quote There is always attraction. Not sure how to take your double negative. But sometimes it so weak, that it's impossible to observe - and to make things easier, we just ignore it... Quote Even for a gas cloud. And even for a single atom - but I want to concentrate on forces, which have some real and measurable influence on the environment. Quote No point in moving forward until your misconceptions involving more basic concepts have been cleared up. Of course - just ask and I will try to give the answer... Ok, it's 3 AM in here. I'm really going sleep this time... Peace! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts