whiskers Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 Senses? what senses? Who is talking about touching smelling or feeling? I am talking about discovering what it is so we can manipulate it. What kind of forum is this where I only see amature responses? Is this a student based forum? I also favor discovering things without using the senses. Let's continue this conversation telepathically, shall we? 3
jajrussel Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 Why wait for the graviton to be discovered. Just figure out how to manipulate the Higgs particle?
jajrussel Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) The question was, what is gravity. Acceleration is an effect, so it is not gravity. If acceleration increases an objects mass then I could say that the objects gravity can be manipulated by acceleration, but if this what is happening? What is causing the acceleration? Can an object just accelerate on its own? It is more like a sharing of energy between two objects with a governor determining just how much energy is shared. Is gravity the geodesics of the mass systems, or are the geodesics the effect? Geodesics are even more interesting because it only takes the introduction of another force to effect a change. What is the geodesic of a cup in free fall compared to a cup sitting on an inclined plain? Neither, are gravity. They are effects. Is gravity an effect? An increase in mass implies an increase in gravity, so it would seem that gravity is an effect of mass increase. Is there any reason to assume it is the other way around? If it is an effect is it an object? Doesn't it become more like distance? Something that can only be manipulated be changing something that possess substance? Edited February 23, 2015 by jajrussel
Nicholas Kang Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 According to the equivalence principle, gravity and acceleration are the same thing. Try studying Einstein`s Theory of Relativity, that deals with non-linear motion of relative moving objects. Strictly speaking, if you study Einstein`s special theory of relativity, you will find out that as speed increase, the mass of an object will increase. Such phenomenon are only obvious when speeds approach appreciable fractions of the speed of light in vacuum, c. I haven`t study GR, though, as it is too hard for my level. Second thing, by invoking E=mc2 , mass and energy are equivalent. Thus apart from increase in mass, an increase in energy will also result in increase in gravitational field strength. In fact, you car`s tyre has gravity, since moving gas/air particles in it has momentum, thus posses pressure. And since the particles are moving very slow compared to the speed of light, they pose relatively weak gravity. Not to mention E=hv, which is an equation derived from Quantum mechanics, relating energy and frequency of quantum/microscopic particles. What is gravity? Is it an effect? It is an effect of its own and it affects other objects lie in its "pathway"-curvature of space-time. It bends light, distort images form distance galaxies and quasars, creating Einstein`s Ring and Einstein`s Cross. Gravity creates gravity as in space-time continuum. What is gravity? The answer depends on your perspective. Scientifically, gravity is FG=M1m2/r2 This classical mechanics, derived form Newtonian physics, for further understanding (modern physics), kindly refer to other resources. Thanks Philosophically, it all lies in your belief. Whether you call it an effect, or phenomenon, etc. Physics is not about wordy explanation, but simple, precise formula, presented mathematically and objectively. Distance, displacement, volume, length etc. are physical quantities. If you keep on asking on, you can have infinite questions like what is length, what is voume, what is distance?... I only know one thing, Physics is all about physical quantities, like Maths is all about numbers. No numbers, no maths ; no physical quantities, no physics. Physical quantities are abstract, they are described mathematically. it is not an object, nor it is an effect. It is a phenomenon, which happens on an object directly or indirectly. You measure and investigate the effect of gravity on objects like moon, earth,etc. Gravity is abstract, like distance. Only when I walk, you can know my walking distance. Only when you move near to the speed of light, you can measure its effect, so gravity is not about what is it philosophically, but its effect and changes. Asking what is gravity while not answering it in a scientific way is like asking why is there gravity? Simply put, why gravity exist?
whiskers Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 In curved space-time, motion in a straight line becomes falling downward. http://www.physics.ucla.edu/demoweb/demomanual/modern_physics/principal_of_equivalence_and_general_relativity/curved_spacetime.html
jajrussel Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 (edited) According to the equivalence principle, gravity and acceleration are the same thing. Try studying Einstein`s Theory of Relativity, that deals with non-linear motion of relative moving objects. Strictly speaking, if you study Einstein`s special theory of relativity, you will find out that as speed increase, the mass of an object will increase. Such phenomenon are only obvious when speeds approach appreciable fractions of the speed of light in vacuum, c. I haven`t study GR, though, as it is too hard for my level. Second thing, by invoking E=mc2 , mass and energy are equivalent. Thus apart from increase in mass, an increase in energy will also result in increase in gravitational field strength. In fact, you car`s tyre has gravity, since moving gas/air particles in it has momentum, thus posses pressure. And since the particles are moving very slow compared to the speed of light, they pose relatively weak gravity. Not to mention E=hv, which is an equation derived from Quantum mechanics, relating energy and frequency of quantum/microscopic particles. What is gravity? Is it an effect? It is an effect of its own and it affects other objects lie in its "pathway"-curvature of space-time. It bends light, distort images form distance galaxies and quasars, creating Einstein`s Ring and Einstein`s Cross. Gravity creates gravity as in space-time continuum. What is gravity? The answer depends on your perspective. Scientifically, gravity is FG=M1m2/r2 This classical mechanics, derived form Newtonian physics, for further understanding (modern physics), kindly refer to other resources. Thanks Philosophically, it all lies in your belief. Whether you call it an effect, or phenomenon, etc. Physics is not about wordy explanation, but simple, precise formula, presented mathematically and objectively. Distance, displacement, volume, length etc. are physical quantities. If you keep on asking on, you can have infinite questions like what is length, what is voume, what is distance?... I only know one thing, Physics is all about physical quantities, like Maths is all about numbers. No numbers, no maths ; no physical quantities, no physics. Physical quantities are abstract, they are described mathematically. it is not an object, nor it is an effect. It is a phenomenon, which happens on an object directly or indirectly. You measure and investigate the effect of gravity on objects like moon, earth,etc. Gravity is abstract, like distance. Only when I walk, you can know my walking distance. Only when you move near to the speed of light, you can measure its effect, so gravity is not about what is it philosophically, but its effect and changes. Asking what is gravity while not answering it in a scientific way is like asking why is there gravity? Simply put, why gravity exist? Now the topic is back to being one of science. To ask what is gravity is a science question. To so why is also a science question. To say that gravity must be fully understood to take advantage of the effect is philosophical. To say that one must be a scientist to ask what is gravity is also philosophical. To ask what, why, what if, these questions are not philosophical, though what if can be considered speculative. Speculation doesn't necessarily mean philosophical. Consider the cup on the inclined plain compared to the cup in free fall.? You wrote, ( What is gravity? The answer depends on your perspective. Scientifically, gravity is FG=M1m2/r2 ) The incline determines the cups direction, and the time it will take before the two objects meet. So it would seem to determine the mass of the cup. The cup is accelerating more slowly over time, and the distance it has to fall is increased by the incline. The formula suggest an equality between the two cups should exist at all points. The radius in the formula does not appear to be affected by time, but then is time reflected in the formula? Also, what about the cups mass increase? In the two considerations wouldn't the total energy have to be the same for both cups when all masses finally meet? What I am suggesting is that there is no distinction between gravity and energy except in how, or what we are measuring. And for clarifications sake the cup on the incline is actually moving down the incline. Edited February 23, 2015 by jajrussel
Reaper79 Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Didn't someone say once, that gravity has a relationship with mass, and mass was governed by the Higgs field? The Higgs has only just been located, iirc 124.6 GeV. in the LHC Geneva. So if you are looking for your hover board from back to the future 2, or similar you'll need to wait a few more years, until we learn if we can manipulate the Higgs field in a manner to counter gravity without the use of already known mechanics. As yet there is no way to make something heavier or lighter without adding or removing mass, or acting upon it with acceleration or zero G. Where ever there is mass, there is gravity, and until someone figures out how to counter the Higgs that will remain true, as for what gravity is? As far as I know its the cumulative mass of atomic structures in any given space at any given time. -1
jajrussel Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Didn't someone say once, that gravity has a relationship with mass, and mass was governed by the Higgs field? The Higgs has only just been located, iirc 124.6 GeV. in the LHC Geneva. So if you are looking for your hover board from back to the future 2, or similar you'll need to wait a few more years, until we learn if we can manipulate the Higgs field in a manner to counter gravity without the use of already known mechanics. As yet there is no way to make something heavier or lighter without adding or removing mass, or acting upon it with acceleration or zero G. Where ever there is mass, there is gravity, and until someone figures out how to counter the Higgs that will remain true, as for what gravity is? As far as I know its the cumulative mass of atomic structures in any given space at any given time. Good answer.
andrewcellini Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) Why wait for the graviton to be discovered. Just figure out how to manipulate the Higgs particle? barring the feasibility, this assumes incorrectly that the higgs mechanism is the origin of all mass (i believe it accounts for about 1 % of the mass of a baryon). it gives rise to mass in elementary particles such as an electron (fermions) or W and Z bosons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson Edited February 24, 2015 by andrewcellini
jajrussel Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Actually I wasn't really serious. It just makes more sense to me to work with what you are more certain exist. I do not assume it is the origin of mass, it is said to be a mass determiner per particle, therefore a controlling mechanism. Manipulate the higgs, control the mass.
andrewcellini Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Manipulate the higgs, control the mass. if we're being creative (and again barring feasibility) why not "manipulate" the strong force? it also gives rise to mass, most of the mass in a proton is due to the strong interaction. i think this is well outside the scope of this thread and the subforum (this is in classical physics after all). Edited February 28, 2015 by andrewcellini
jajrussel Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 if we're being creative (and again barring feasibility) why not "manipulate" the strong force? it also gives rise to mass, most of the mass in a proton is due to the strong interaction. i think this is well outside the scope of this thread and the subforum (this is in classical physics after all). You have given me something else to consider, and attempt to learn about. At the offset out would appear that manipulating the strong force might have two effects. One, might be greater mass due to more binding, which might create things that do not normally exist under normal circumstances. Two, might be for what does exist under normal circumstances to never bind, or perhaps worse come a part. The Higgs manipulation might have the same effects? The ideal effect would be to keep things as they are constructively with their total mass only being effected. If you consider the system as an order of steps the Higgs seems to be necessary before the strong force. We tend to think of things in scale, huge, big, little, smaller. It seems to me that manipulating the strong force might give us a totally different scale. The strong interaction seems dependent on the Higgs. The original question was what is gravity? It became clear quickly that what was actually wanted could only be reasonably discussed as speculation.
michel123456 Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) But our greatest insights into gravity have come from the recognition of the equivalence of the force we feel standing here on earth and the force we feel when accelerating at 9.8m/s^2 We know exactly how to produce it (with mass, energy, momentum, pressure or acceleration). Of course. But I am not sure why you randomly exclude acceleration, as it is the same thing: it is indistinguishable from gravity. He was asked what it "really" is. That is not a question that science can answer. No. (Usual caveats of "according to our current best theories" etc.) Although, being in free fall does a pretty good job of hiding it. Look at those guys in the space station; it looks like they are in zero gravity. According to the equivalence principle, gravity and acceleration are the same thing. Try studying Einstein`s Theory of Relativity (...) I agree: gravity IS acceleration. That should ring a bell. That should mean that all massive objects and particles are in a state of acceleration. Edited March 1, 2015 by michel123456
Strange Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 That should mean that all massive objects and particles are in a state of acceleration And that is true (unless they are in free fall).
michel123456 Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 And that is true (unless they are in free fall) But even in free fall a massive object exerts gravity upon other objects.
Robittybob1 Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 But even in free fall a massive object exerts gravity upon other objects. Like you are referring to the Earth free falling around the Sun but the Earth still produces a force on us standing on the Earth. True.
michel123456 Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Like you are referring to the Earth free falling around the Sun but the Earth still produces a force on us standing on the Earth. True. Yes.
Strange Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 But even in free fall a massive object exerts gravity upon other objects. Of course. But it isn't experiencing acceleration.
michel123456 Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Of course. But it isn't experiencing acceleration. Which should be the most surprising thing, since it is in state of acceleration but without feeling the force we call gravity. It is like equilibrium was arising from acceleration.
hoola Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) " Of course. But it isn't experiencing acceleration" ....that would be true if it was the only object in the universe. Even if it was the only object, there would the gravitational effects internal to the tree, with all parts experiencing gravity's "accelerative like forces" with exception of the point at center of mass... Edited March 1, 2015 by hoola
Strange Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 " Of course. But it isn't experiencing acceleration" ....that would be true if it was the only object in the universe. Then it couldn't be in free fall.
hoola Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 the top would be attracted ,or feel accelerated to, the roots...and vice versa
Strange Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 the top would be attracted ,or feel accelerated to, the roots...and vice versa I have no idea what you are trying to say.
hoola Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 take any object, the extremes of length of the object attract one another....as it generates a gravity field. This action holds together the object and therefore, it acts as a compressive force, or self gravity, functionally equivalent to acceleration, varying as distance from center of gravity. Only one point at the theoretical center of mass would have the gravity field neutralized, therefore escape any accelerative force. So the universe is allowed one point in this thought experiment, that is allowed freedom from accelerative forces.
Strange Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 take any object, the extremes of length of the object attract one another....as it generates a gravity field. This action holds together the object and therefore, it acts as a compressive force, or self gravity, functionally equivalent to acceleration, varying as distance from center of gravity. Only one point at the theoretical center of mass would have the gravity field neutralized, therefore escape any accelerative force. So the universe is allowed one point in this thought experiment, that is allowed freedom from accelerative forces. OK. I see what you mean. All parts of the object would be undergoing acceleration except that central point. Which, ironically, would be the point of greatest gravitational potential (or, equivalently, space-time curvature).
Recommended Posts