Strange Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 You say Protons also repel, you mean they can repel each other as well or repel something else? They repel each other because they are positively charged. At close range, they attract each other because of the strong nuclear force which overcomes the repulsion. Electrons are attracted to Protons? If yes to above, what stops them touching , becoming joined? They are attracted because they have opposite charge. There is no easy answer to this question. It comes down to quantum mechanics: there is a minium energy that an electron in an atom can have. This corresponds to it being some distance away from the nucleus.
Relative Posted August 11, 2014 Author Posted August 11, 2014 That sounds quite poetic, but it doesn't make sense (as an English sentence, I mean - nothing to do with physics) To have momentum we have to have force? a quark attracting a quark creates movement, when they join, there is force of impact, making rotation in a near vacuum? They repel each other because they are positively charged. At close range, they attract each other because of the strong nuclear force which overcomes the repulsion. They are attracted because they have opposite charge. There is no easy answer to this question. It comes down to quantum mechanics: there is a minium energy that an electron in an atom can have. This corresponds to it being some distance away from the nucleus. You mean there is an atom event horizon as such before they bond?
Strange Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 I am unsure, I can not see how that works, example - I pick up a house brick in each hand, they do not seem attracted to each other But they are. It is just very, very tiny (because they are small and gravity is weak; it takes the entire mass of the Earth to hold you on the surface). This attraction can be measured: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment I can easily lift them off the ground, but i feel they are heavy and are the same heavy at all height's They are not the "same heavy" at all heights. They are noticeably lighter at the top of a mountain. attracted by gravity but to that central point. Attracted to that central point, but not by that central point. If the Earth were a hollow spehere, with nothing at the centre, they would still be attracted to the centre (even though there is nothing there). I chuck them off a mountain, and they free fall, they are not attracted to the mountain? They are. But again, it is a very small effect. Mount Everest has a mass of about 6x1015kg, the Earth has a mass of about 6x1024kg. So the pull of the Earth will be about 1,000,000,000 times greater than the pull of the mountain. If I could drill a hole all the way through the planet, and dropped in a brick, it would stop in the middle, a central position? Eventually, yes. (It would oscillate back and forth for a while first but eventually stop at the centre, where the gravity is zero)
Relative Posted August 11, 2014 Author Posted August 11, 2014 @strange- ''They are attracted because they have opposite charge. There is no easy answer to this question. It comes down to quantum mechanics: there is a minium energy that an electron in an atom can have. This corresponds to it being some distance away from the nucleus.'' Interesting and how would this compare to the planets energy, corresponding to their distances from a nucleus, been the Sun?
Strange Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 To have momentum we have to have force? To change momentum requires a force. a quark attracting a quark creates movement, when they join, there is force of impact, making rotation in a near vacuum? This doesn't really make much sense. You can't have a free quark attracting another quark. They only exist inside protons and neutrons (and other hadrons). You mean there is an atom event horizon as such before they bond? No. There is just a limit to how close an electron can be to the nucleus. Interesting and how would this compare to the planets energy, corresponding to their distances from a nucleus, been the Sun? It doesn't compare at all. Planets are not subatomic particles and can have any orbit at all, including crashing into the body they are orbiting.
Relative Posted August 11, 2014 Author Posted August 11, 2014 @strange-''Eventually, yes. (It would oscillate back and forth for a while first but eventually stop at the centre, where the gravity is zero)'' So if the central point gravity was zero, there could be no centripetal direction of force been gravity in this instant, so according to that, the Earth can not be a sphere, and would not hold together, UNLESS, there was external acting force, isotropic to get a sphere? and that would not make sense either. How can zero, have direction of force?
Strange Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 (edited) So if the central point gravity was zero, there could be no centripetal direction of force been gravity in this instant, so according to that, the Earth can not be a sphere, and would not hold together, UNLESS, there was external acting force, isotropic to get a sphere? I don't know what centripetal force has to do with it. Yes, at the exact centre, there would be no gravity. But move away from there by a fraction of a millimetre, and there would be. All of the mass of the Earth attracts all the rest of the mass of the Earth, holding itself into a sphere. Think of a drop of water: it pulls itself into a sphere in a similar way (not due to gravity in that case, just the forces between atoms). How can zero, have direction of force? And this shows that your idea that gravity is created at the centre is wrong. Edited August 11, 2014 by Strange
Relative Posted August 11, 2014 Author Posted August 11, 2014 By centripetal force, I mean inwards force, gravity is centripetal to a central point of zero? So zero is like an isotropic centripetal plug hole ,except nothing goes down it, so there is a central void?
Strange Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 By centripetal force, I mean inwards force, gravity is centripetal to a central point of zero? Centripetal force is only relevant to something moving in a circular path. So, in the case of the moon or the ISS, gravity provides the centripetal force to keep them moving in a curved path. So zero is like an isotropic centripetal plug hole ,except nothing goes down it, so there is a central void? There is not a central void because of the pressure of 6000km of rock pressing down.
Relative Posted August 11, 2014 Author Posted August 11, 2014 Centripetal force is only relevant to something moving in a circular path. So, in the case of the moon or the ISS, gravity provides the centripetal force to keep them moving in a curved path. There is not a central void because of the pressure of 6000km of rock pressing down. Sorry im still not getting it. To simplify, we remove the Earth's layers down to the outer core, this would still hold together without any crust etc?
Strange Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 To simplify, we remove the Earth's layers down to the outer core, this would still hold together without any crust etc? You mean, make a smaller Earth? Would it hold together? Like the moon, for example? I think that shows the answer is yes. I'm not sure what there is to "get". The mass of the Earth (or the Sun) attracts and holds itself together. In the case of the Earth, it helps that it is solid, which also holds it together. But as the Sun and Jupiter show, a mass of gas can hold itself together equally well.
swansont Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 Particles in the solar winds, are these not considered high energy? Is the Northern lights, a result of solar particles colliding with our atmosphere particles? Yes. High energy particles are in the solar wind and are colliding with other particles in our atmosphere. Electrons are attracted to Protons? If yes to above, what stops them touching , becoming joined? They are attracted, but with a free electron and proton, there is nothing they can form so they can't join. A neutron has more mass that a proton+electron, so energy would not be conserved. When you solve the physics equations, the lowest energy state is that of a hydrogen atom.
Relative Posted August 12, 2014 Author Posted August 12, 2014 (edited) Thank you for the education, You mean, make a smaller Earth? Would it hold together? Like the moon, for example? I think that shows the answer is yes.I'm not sure what there is to "get". The mass of the Earth (or the Sun) attracts and holds itself together. In the case of the Earth, it helps that it is solid, which also holds it together. But as the Sun and Jupiter show, a mass of gas can hold itself together equally well. Not a smaller Earth like the moon, more like a rewind through time, taking away the Earth's layers until we are left with just the core. I would understand gravity and all mass attracted to mass, if it were not for cores. I understand gas clouds and can see that been mass attracted to mass, but how , why, if, buts, do we have a liquid/fluid/none solid, center core? The core obviously comes before the outer layers of Earth, so how's that work then? Electrons are attracted to Protons?If yes to above, what stops them touching , becoming joined? ''They are attracted, but with a free electron and proton, there is nothing they can form so they can't join. A neutron has more mass that a proton+electron, so energy would not be conserved. When you solve the physics equations, the lowest energy state is that of a hydrogen atom. '' Rephrase - An atom that has an electron/electrons already attached to the Proton, the Electron shell, and the space between the Proton and electron presumably, why can the electron not touch the Proton? If opposites attract , example magnets which stick together, why does the opposite an electron not fix directly to a proton. The lower energy state atoms are the more buoyant atoms? Energy is attracted to energy, mass been energy ? I sink in water because of gravity? Water has a different viscosity/density to rock/ground/Earth, I can not sink by adding energy and momentum in the right direction? The atmosphere again is a different viscosity to water, if i could add more velocity to my movement and more energy I could fly? If I could run at 1000 mph , I would be weightless? I drive 100 miles directly East going with the Earth's rotation from point A to point B. At one hundred miles per hour. My rival drives from point B to point A, directly West going against the Earth's rotation. At the same mph. Both journeys take 1 hr. However from a stationary satellite, above point A and Point B, the satellites record two different times? Sorry I am just curious about this? This is to do with time dilation. Satellite B witnesses starter A , moving towards it at 1100mph? Satellite B witnesses starter B, moving 900mph away from it? satellite A , witnesses starter A , moving away at 1100mph? satellite A, witnesses starter B , moving away at 900mph? I already know, that both journeys no matter what between the set points will be conclusive and always one hour. We add light to the equation, has in time dilation theory, and look what happens, no time dilation, no change? I make Earth transparent, yellow represents light, all observers see light at the same time, no dilation? What in seconds was the result difference in the flight test of the Caesium clock, and how does this compare to the difference in the gravity at the altitude the aeroplane flew at compared to the gravity on the ground?. Edited August 12, 2014 by Relative
Strange Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Thank you for the education, Not a smaller Earth like the moon, more like a rewind through time, taking away the Earth's layers until we are left with just the core. Then the pressure would reduce and the temperature would drop until you are left with a ball of iron. why, if, buts, do we have a liquid/fluid/none solid, center core? Temperature and pressure. The core obviously comes before the outer layers of Earth, so how's that work then? I don't think that is true. An atom that has an electron/electrons already attached to the Proton, the Electron shell, and the space between the Proton and electron presumably, why can the electron not touch the Proton? Because there is a minimum energy that the electron can have. That minimum energy keeps it away from the proton. The lower energy state atoms are the more buoyant atoms? No Energy is attracted to energy, mass been energy ? No I sink in water because of gravity? Yes Water has a different viscosity/density to rock/ground/Earth, I can not sink by adding energy and momentum in the right direction? Rock is solid, water is liquid. You can't sink through a solid: that is what "solid" means. The atmosphere again is a different viscosity to water, if i could add more velocity to my movement and more energy I could fly? If you had wings. You may hvae heard of birds and aeroplanes? If I could run at 1000 mph , I would be weightless? No. I drive 100 miles directly East going with the Earth's rotation from point A to point B. At one hundred miles per hour. My rival drives from point B to point A, directly West going against the Earth's rotation. At the same mph. Both journeys take 1 hr. However from a stationary satellite, above point A and Point B, the satellites record two different times? The satellites would record the same time but different speeds and distances. This is nothing to do with time dilation. It is known as "Galilean Relativity" (after Galileo, who first pointed out that all measurements of movement are relative to who measures them).
Relative Posted August 12, 2014 Author Posted August 12, 2014 Thank you , and what about the final questions with the yellow diagram and question comparing gravity with altitude? and sorry just cant understand this statement - ''Because there is a minimum energy that the electron can have. That minimum energy keeps it away from the proton.'' How can a energy difference stop opposites attracting? would there not just be less attraction? and quarks attract each other, how can two of the same join to make a proton?
Strange Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Thank you , and what about the final questions with the yellow diagram and question comparing gravity with altitude? Your yellow diagram doesn't make much sense. The presence of light has nothing to do with time dilation. As for: "What in seconds was the result difference in the flight test of the Caesium clock, and how does this compare to the difference in the gravity at the altitude the aeroplane flew at compared to the gravity on the ground?" I'm not sure what you are referring to. Perhaps this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment and sorry just cant understand this statement - ''Because there is a minimum energy that the electron can have. That minimum energy keeps it away from the proton.'' The closer the electron gets to the proton, the less energy it has. In the same way, when you lift something up it gains potential energy and when you drop it, it loses that energy. For complex reasons (that are way beyond me and therefore beyond you) there is a minmum energy the electron can have in an atom, so there is a minimum distance it can "fall" towards the proton. and quarks attract each other, how can two of the same join to make a proton? But the quarks don't touch each other either. (For similar, even more complex reasons.)
swansont Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 Because there is a minimum energy that the electron can have. That minimum energy keeps it away from the proton. It's also because the electron is not a little ball that would stick to a proton. It's a wave, and it does have some chance of being found inside the proton. But it won't stay there because as you correctly point out, its allowed energy does not allow it to be at rest. But the underlying truth here is that applying classical physics isn't going to get you to understanding what's going on.
Strange Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 It's also because the electron is not a little ball that would stick to a proton. It's a wave, and it does have some chance of being found inside the proton. But it won't stay there because as you correctly point out, its allowed energy does not allow it to be at rest. I have found in the past that adding more detail with Relative just leads you deeper into the quagmire!
Relative Posted August 12, 2014 Author Posted August 12, 2014 I am referring to Hafele–Keating experiment? ''Your yellow diagram doesn't make much sense. The presence of light has nothing to do with time dilation.'' Light is used in special relativity to show the difference, using observers. referring to 3.10 minutes onwards in this link? replace Adam and Sarah with snowmen , and then lets see if time is different. A clock is an invention, how can this be remotely correct? Sarah the snow women who has the same mass as Adam the snow man, experiences greater gravity force? Adam is also travelling a greater circumference than Sarah?
swansont Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 I am referring to Hafele–Keating experiment? ''Your yellow diagram doesn't make much sense. The presence of light has nothing to do with time dilation.'' Light is used in special relativity to show the difference, using observers. referring to 3.10 minutes onwards in this link? Yes, light is used in an example. It's called a light clock. The advantage is that there are no mechanical moving parts to confuse the discussion, since time dilation is not a mechanical defect of a clock, though some try to write it off as such. What in seconds was the result difference in the flight test of the Caesium clock, and how does this compare to the difference in the gravity at the altitude the aeroplane flew at compared to the gravity on the ground?. Near the earth's surface clocks run about a part in 1016 faster for every meter above sea level. The equation for the fractional frequency change is gh/c2 The timing difference would depend on the altitude and the duration of the flight.
Relative Posted August 12, 2014 Author Posted August 12, 2014 I am not trying to write it off has a mechanical defect, the whole concept is just so incorrect, using 1 dimension thought, and a man made laser, change the laser to a light bulb, or change the spaceship for a Sun, all observers see the light as in reality of the yellow drawing. I just do not get it, it does not work, a parlour trick. You can not change the angle that is cheating, you are not changing , slowing down anything, you are directionally aiming a laser. It is a gimmick. 1 dimensional thought?
swansont Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 I am not trying to write it off has a mechanical defect, the whole concept is just so incorrect, using 1 dimension thought, and a man made laser, change the laser to a light bulb, or change the spaceship for a Sun, all observers see the light as in reality of the yellow drawing. I just do not get it, it does not work, a parlour trick. 12.jpg You can not change the angle that is cheating, you are not changing , slowing down anything, you are directionally aiming a laser. It is a gimmick. 1 dimensional thought? No, it's not a gimmick. It's the result of c being the same in any frame, which has solid theoretical backing and the theory has solid experimental confirmation. If c is invariant then length and time are not absolute.
Relative Posted August 12, 2014 Author Posted August 12, 2014 No, it's not a gimmick. It's the result of c being the same in any frame, which has solid theoretical backing and the theory has solid experimental confirmation. If c is invariant then length and time are not absolute. Ok, I do understand what Einstein was saying, but it is still 1 d thought and still changing the rules of the physics involved. Natural light, is constant to all observers unless obstructed, we all see light at the same time, since when does light, return to the Sun? I just can not see how this works. Its bending the laws of Physical process surely?
Strange Posted August 12, 2014 Posted August 12, 2014 I am referring to Hafele–Keating experiment? Yep. That's the link I provied. ''Your yellow diagram doesn't make much sense. The presence of light has nothing to do with time dilation.'' Light is used in special relativity to show the difference, using observers. Light is used to explain it. Time dilation still happens, even with no light present. replace Adam and Sarah with snowmen , and then lets see if time is different. It won't make any difference. A clock is an invention, how can this be remotely correct? Why is the fact it is an invention be relevant? A clock measures time. Sarah the snow women who has the same mass as Adam the snow man, experiences greater gravity force? If they have the same mass, then the experience the same gravitational force. But that has nothing to do with time dilation. I just do not get it, it does not work, a parlour trick. It doesn't matter whether you get it or not. It doesn't matter whether anyone gets it or not. It happens. We can measure it. The light clock example in that video may not be the best way of understanding it (I struggled with it when I first saw it). Ok, I do understand what Einstein was saying, but it is still 1 d thought and still changing the rules of the physics involved. You obviously don't understand, or you wouldn't reject it. Natural light, is constant to all observers unless obstructed, we all see light at the same time, since when does light, return to the Sun? I just can not see how this works. Its bending the laws of Physical process surely? Light in that video is just used as an example to explain things. Time dilation does not depend on the presence of light. It does not depend on whether or not everyone sees the same light or not. It does not depend on light being from the sun or elsewhere.
Relative Posted August 12, 2014 Author Posted August 12, 2014 If the relativity thinking is wrong, then so must be the rest. Earlier in my questions, a house brick up a mountain would weight less, so experiences less gravity the more altitude. ''Near the earth's surface clocks run about a part in 1016 faster for every meter above sea level. The equation for the fractional frequency change is gh/c2 The timing difference would depend on the altitude and the duration of the flight.'' How would this compare to the gravity difference? At altitude the Caesium clock would run faster because of less gravity surely? ''The timing difference would depend on the altitude'' and gravity is different depending on altitude? Has anyone took a Caesium clock up a mountain and left it static to try that compared to sea level?
Recommended Posts