pgharvey Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 The change in spacetime geometry IS gravity. If you look at the equations, the left hand side is represents the geometry and the righthand sign is the mass-energy. Gravity doesn't cause spacetime geometry to deviate from Euclidean space. Gravity is the deviation from Euclidean space due to energy. A body in motion distorts space. The faster the motion, the more distortion. This distortion (making the space around it non-Euclidian) is called gravity. All matter in our solar system is travelling at 600 kilometers a second, as part of the Milky Way Galaxy. The cumulative effect of the distortion of space around each particle on earth, say, results in the total gravitational field around the earth. It is not the mass of the earth that causes the gravitational field, it is the motion of that mass.
ACG52 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 This does not in any way conform to actual observation of the physical universe. In other words, nonsense.
pgharvey Posted August 10, 2012 Author Posted August 10, 2012 This does not in any way conform to actual observation of the physical universe. In other words, nonsense. Gee, wouldn't exactly the same comment have been made when Einstein proposed that gravity was a distortion of space?? Gee, wouldn't exactly the same comment have been made when Einstein proposed that gravity was a distortion of space?? Here's an experiment to verify or disprove it:1. Determine the direction our galaxy is moving2. Calculate a time when a particular stretch of land on earth is aligned with/parallel to the motion of our galaxy that (ie "pointing in the same direction")3. fire a particle in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION at the same speed of the galaxy (600 km/sec) then if the theory is true, that particle should exhibit no "gravity" 1
ACG52 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Gee, wouldn't exactly the same comment have been made when Einstein proposed that gravity was a distortion of space?? No. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity was a rigorous mathematical treatment, which was recognized as being a turning point in physics. So you're comparing yourself with Einstein? 1
pgharvey Posted August 10, 2012 Author Posted August 10, 2012 No. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity was a rigorous mathematical treatment, which was recognized as being a turning point in physics. So you're comparing yourself with Einstein? My goodness I would never presume to do such a thing, but my IQ is the same as what his was estimated to be.....for what that is worth. And let's be honest...he basically pulled together what other people had posited....that is, he was "standing on the shoulders of giants" My goodness I would never presume to do such a thing, but my IQ is the same as what his was estimated to be.....for what that is worth. And let's be honest...he basically pulled together what other people had posited....that is, he was "standing on the shoulders of giants" During the nineteenth century there were several speculative attempts to show that mass and energy were proportional in various ether theories.[49] In 1873 Nikolay Umov pointed out a relation between mass and energy for ether in the form of Е = kmc2, where 0.5 ≤ k ≤ 1.[50] The writings of Samuel Tolver Preston,[51][52] and a 1903 paper by Olinto De Pretto,[53][54] presented a mass–energy relation. De Pretto's paper received recent press coverage when Umberto Bartocci discovered that there were only three degrees of separationlinking De Pretto to Einstein, leading Bartocci to conclude that Einstein was probably aware of De Pretto's work.[5
ACG52 Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 The moderators have asked me to be polite, so there's not really anything I can say to that.
pgharvey Posted August 10, 2012 Author Posted August 10, 2012 The moderators have asked me to be polite, so there's not really anything I can say to that. It is not healthy to suppress your emotions, so why don't you put that energy into giving one reason why gravity in our solar system could NOT be attributed to the cumulative effect of the distortion of space around each particle moving at 600 km/second as proscribed my the Lorentz transformation (....and even Ehrenfest's paradox!!)
elfmotat Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 My goodness I would never presume to do such a thing, but my IQ is the same as what his was estimated to be.....for what that is worth. It's not worth much. IQ is a terrible reflection of intelligence. And let's be honest...he basically pulled together what other people had posited....that is, he was "standing on the shoulders of giants" For SR, I agree. As for GR, I wouldn't be surprised if something resembling the theory wasn't seen until as late as the 50's if Einstein wasn't around.
StringJunky Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) And let's be honest...he basically pulled together what other people had posited....that is, he was "standing on the shoulders of giants" He found correlations that nobody else did or maybe could...hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it? That's all many discoveries are: pulling together what other people posited...this is the essence of real intelligence imo so one shouldn't make light of it. Edited August 10, 2012 by StringJunky
elfmotat Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 He found correlations that nobody else did or maybe could...hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it? That's all many discoveries are: pulling together what other people posited...this is the essence of real intelligence imo so one shouldn't make light of it. He has a point. SR would have been discovered soon with or without Einstein. Einstein just figured it out before everyone else.
ydoaPs Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 It is not the mass of the earth that causes the gravitational field, it is the motion of that mass.[/b] Odd, because in the rest frame of the Earth, I'm still pulled down to the surface. You might want to fix the field equations for us while you're at it. It is not healthy to suppress your emotions, so why don't you put that energy into giving one reason why gravity in our solar system could NOT be attributed to the cumulative effect of the distortion of space around each particle moving at 600 km/second as proscribed my the Lorentz transformation (....and even Ehrenfest's paradox!!) Relative to what? P.S. The answer is the actual math doesn't work out. Try it for yourself. Again, feel free to correct our equations.
pgharvey Posted August 14, 2012 Author Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) Odd, because in the rest frame of the Earth, I'm still pulled down to the surface. You might want to fix the field equations for us while you're at it. You and the earth are both travelling at 600 km/sec as part of the galaxy, and both have a gravitation field as a result Relative to what? P.S. The answer is the actual math doesn't work out. Try it for yourself. Again, feel free to correct our equations. Edited August 14, 2012 by swansont fix quote tags
swansont Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 You and the earth are both travelling at 600 km/sec as part of the galaxy, and both have a gravitation field as a result We are also moving at 30 km/s with respect to the sun, meaning this speed changes from 570 to 630 km/s (or thereabouts) annually. We should see 10% fluctuations in gravity over the course of the year if you are correct. Do we see this? 1
ydoaPs Posted August 14, 2012 Posted August 14, 2012 You and the earth are both travelling at 600 km/sec as part of the galaxy, and both have a gravitation field as a result No, the galaxy is moving 600km/sec relative to me! The Earth and I are stationary. Why am I pulled toward it? Also, plug 600 km/s into the SR equations and tell me if the effect is anywhere close to enough. Hint: it's not........unless you've fixed our equations for us.
pgharvey Posted August 15, 2012 Author Posted August 15, 2012 ydoaPs - thanks for taking the time to reply to my idea even though you obviously find it irritating lol. I appreciate your comments..... One observation: I saw the solar system (and therefore the earth) as being in one of the spiral arms of our galaxy and was referring to the whole kit and kaboodle (earth, solar system and galaxy) ALL moving at 600 km/sec. The earth and I each have a gravitational field as a result of our motion as part of the galaxy, and so while the earth and I can be considered "at rest" with respect to each other, it is the interaction of those two gravitation fields caused by galaxial motion that makes each "pull" towards the other.
ACG52 Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 I saw the solar system (and therefore the earth) as being in one of the spiral arms of our galaxy and was referring to the whole kit and kaboodle (earth, solar system and galaxy) ALL moving at 600 km/sec. Relative to what?
pgharvey Posted August 15, 2012 Author Posted August 15, 2012 The cosmic background radiation?? Here is an interesting thread on the same idea http://www.ted.com/conversations/10916/movement_causes_gravity.html
John Cuthber Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 Things are moving faster at the equator than at the poles, but the apparent effect of gravity is bigger at the poles than at the equator. Once you allow for the bulge and the centripetal forces, the apparent weight is the same. Also Cavendish's experiment wouldn't make sense.
pgharvey Posted August 15, 2012 Author Posted August 15, 2012 Speed at the equator (1/2 km/sec) is insignificant compared to the 600 km/sec of the galaxy, so the contribution to gravity would be pretty well undetectable "A body in motion distorts space.The faster the motion, the more distortion."
swansont Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 Speed at the equator (1/2 km/sec) is insignificant compared to the 600 km/sec of the galaxy, so the contribution to gravity would be pretty well undetectable "A body in motion distorts space.The faster the motion, the more distortion." You appear to have ignored my point about the 30km/s motion around the sun. What about that?
ACG52 Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 A body in motion distorts space.The faster the motion, the more distortion." In motion relative to what? Faster relative to what?
pgharvey Posted August 15, 2012 Author Posted August 15, 2012 The Cavendish was designed on the false premise that two lead balls have some kind of gravitational attraction to to each other..... like magnets. The experiment still makes sense and works, because the two lead balls are actually drawn to each other by the interaction of their respective gravitational fields...fields created independently by the motion of both balls (600 km/sec) as part of the galaxy, not some spooky quasi-magnetic attraction between the two masses
swansont Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 The speculations rules demand that you back up your assertions. I have raised a point that must be addressed. Here is another: The Cavendish was designed on the false premise that two lead balls have some kind of gravitational attraction to to each other..... like magnets. The experiment still makes sense and works, because the two lead balls are actually drawn to each other by the interaction of their respective gravitational fields...fields created independently by the motion of both balls (600 km/sec) as part of the galaxy, not some spooky quasi-magnetic attraction between the two masses Then why do all objects gravitationally attract in accordance to their mass? Why don't we see a variation as the speed changes, as with the planets? Closed orbits require a force that drops off as 1/r^2. A speed-dependent force doesn't do this. How can you have closed orbits?
John Cuthber Posted August 15, 2012 Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) Speed at the equator (1/2 km/sec) is insignificant compared to the 600 km/sec of the galaxy, so the contribution to gravity would be pretty well undetectable "A body in motion distorts space.The faster the motion, the more distortion." Do you know how good a modern analytical balance is? You can usually use a good one to measure changes in atmospheric pressure (indirectly). 1 part in 1200 would be trivial to measure. Edited August 15, 2012 by John Cuthber
Recommended Posts