A simple bench top experiment with GRAVITY . Is there anything there?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Getting a handle on GRAVITY is EASY .

Understanding GRAVITY seems difficult .

I think this bench top experiment , possibly , hints at a facet of the nature of Gravity ?

 

SETTING

 

The early founders of Quantum Mechanics based some of their early research on Observations of Phenomenon , on a ' Bench Top Setting', in the area of electronics , vacuum tubes, emission of light ranging from infra red to Ultra Violet , and it was not long before this led to the establishment of Quanta around the emission of Electro Magnetic Waves from within the Atom . ( electron energy levels, changes)

 

A close relationship was seen by Einstein and others between the ENERGY and MASS and ELECTRO MAGNETISM in a QUANTUM , Which continues to this day .

It became a quest by Einstein to forge a link into GRAVITY .

 

What is still not yet totally clear is the possible link between ALL FORCES ( including gravity) in the form of a :-

 

THEORY of QUANTUM GRAVITY .

 

The observation that I have made over the past decade or two is :-

 

That when situated on a heavy , level , polished , Granite Work Top. That :-

 

A small pile of loosely gathered PURE CHINA , PLATES , oscillate back and forward occasionally , with an elongated period of time . Going ( " clack, clack, clack, clack, clack, clack, clack ,.......)

 

I can only beleive as ' China' is a very good , electrical, non magnetic , insulator .

 

In this GRAVITY can be the sole restorative , oscillating , force , acting on the China plates.

 

I am of a mind that this phenomenon could act as the basis of an Experiment , which could shed some light on the nature and behaviour of Gravity , in Space-Time .

 

As can be seen there is already both :-

 

SPACE ( movement of accurate , measurable , distance, up and down through the gravitational field, - - . )

and

 

TIME ( specific oscillations in accurately, repeatable , periods of time ) .

 

 

possibly quantised ,not sure at this stage

 

 

MIKE

Edited September 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

What here cannot be solved by classical Newtonian mechanics?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

What here cannot be solved by classical Newtonian mechanics?

.

 

I am sure it can be solved by classical Newtonian mechanics ! As a pure individual facet of what is seen .

 

BUT

 

I just get a sneaking feeling , call it ' intuition ' if you like . That there is also an underlaying , ADDITIONAL story being told in this OBSERVATION !

 

What it is I am not totally certain , at the moment .

 

But the fact that the oscillations occur for quite some period . The fact that this is in TIME.

And that GRAVITY is the cause , making itself manifest in a very balanced , bench top environment . As part of SPACE .

 

Seems , too good to be true . SPACE-TIME and GRAVITY showing itself ' bare ' , in front of our eyes, on a granite bench . What more could a fascinated scientist ask for ?

 

Mike

Edited September 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

I just get a sneaking feeling , call it ' intuition ' if you like . That there is also an underlaying , ADDITIONAL story being told in this OBSERVATION !

 

 

As this can be described by classical mechanics (it is basically the same as a pendulum) there is no reason to evoke any additional forces.

 

 

 

But the fact that the oscillations occur for quite some period .

 

That is because the system is relatively lossless (because of the rigidity of the plates and the surface).

 

 

 

What more could a fascinated scientist ask for ?

 

That you look into the mechanics of this and find the equation that describes this (you must have done "simple harmonic motion" in your time).

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

A) As this can be described by classical mechanics (it is basically the same as a pendulum) there is no reason to evoke any additional forces.

 

 

 

B) That is because the system is relatively lossless (because of the rigidity of the plates and the surface).

 

 

 

C) That you look into the mechanics of this and find the equation that describes this (you must have done "simple harmonic motion" in your time).

.

 

A) yes . I agree with that in principal . Obviously , in addition to gravity , there are retardant forces within the material , otherwise the plates would oscillate for ever . But yes nothing new there , except they do go on for a long time , so those retarding forces are pretty clever in being minimal .

 

B) as with(A) above

 

C) yes I have in the course of years , and years ago , gone through the proofs mathematically , and appreciate there are members here who could tie me in knots , with maths and throw me to one side , for dead .

 

I am not saying these mathmatical proofs are invalid in solving my problem , but the ' bit ' That In am interested in here is :-

 

It is so exposed to view and more so to hearing ( click, click click... Etc ) and regular, precise, as to make you wonder ?

 

Just HOW is that gravity ,coming up from the centre of the Earth, how is it communicating with, or interacting with both edges, or across the China plate . To sound or manifest itself in such a precise, repetitive , oscillatory way.

 

I spent and have most of my life spent thinking and dwelling in ' wonder ' as the oscillatory way electrons move through capacitor plates to coils of wire and back again to form sinusoidal , resonant circuits , and then marvel even more and more how this is transferred via an antenna to achieve 'lift off ' as Electro Magnetic waves into the sky . But I have come to an uneasy truce with that one over my life , and still ,ponder think and accept it , for how it is , and play with it and use it as a ' Radio Amateur '

 

But this is GRAVITY , mechanical , I am not exactly in my comfort zone , but look and, listen , and wonder .

 

HOW , just HOW is that gravity , getting into those China Plates and making them oscillate like one of my radio waves ?

 

Is the presence of the mass of particles of earth , sending a field up , through the plates , are we into ' rubber sheets' . It's there 12 inches in front of my face , on one edge of the plate one moment , then click the other edge of the plate .

 

There is this curvature thing , ....

 

And when it oscillates is it producing gravitational waves , or would I need to get down to the particle level of size to see any interaction?

 

Mike

Edited September 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

It is so exposed to view and more so to hearing ( click, click click... Etc ) and regular, precise, as to make you wonder ?

 

Just like a pendulum.

 

 

Just HOW is that gravity ,coming up from the centre of the Earth, how is it communicating with, or interacting with both edges, or across the China plate . To sound or manifest itself in such a precise, repetitive , oscillatory way.

 

The gravity is not manifesting in any oscillatory way. It is (on this scale) a constant force - constant in time and across the plate.

 

 

Is the presence of the mass of particles of earth , sending a field up , through the plates , are we into ' rubber sheets' . It's there 12 inches in front of my face , on one edge of the plate one moment , then click the other edge of the plate .

 

In a case like this, you can just think of it as a constant force (Newton). Exactly the same force that holds you in your seat. Is that weird? I'm not sure.

 

 

There is this curvature thing , ....

 

Not really relevant in this case. Just a much more complicated way of coming to the same result.

 

 

And when it oscillates is it producing gravitational waves , or would I need to get down to the particle level of size to see any interaction?

 

I don't believe so. I think that would require a specific sort of asymmetry. (And they would be immeasurably small, anyway)

[ajb]

Given the length and time scales, and masses involved here you can model gravity accurately using Newton's theory. Observing these plates will not reveal anything further about gravity.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

But , below my feet is the earth .) massive , heavy , full of trillions upon trillions of tons of iron, gold, stone, diamonds magma , every element you can imagine .

 

There , down there ,

 

How is THAT LOT communicating its "PULL " so precisely , evenly ,continuously , gently , to both edges of my frail China plate , making it oscillate so accurately and beautifully .

 

You can't just say " just accept it " , think of the formulae . They don't make me go into rapture . But the idea of this all happening 12 inches in front of me does .

 

But I do not have a clue How that GRAVITATIONAL FIELD is communicating with my China Saucers? And how so precisely ? Let alone making them oscillate ?

 

Mike

Edited September 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

You are asking a question that science does not address. Newtonian gravity is a force that one massive object exerts on another. How it does this or why, we don't know. There are limited ways to test this. We can't turn it off, and we can't block it. The effect is due to mass and not other properties. That informs us in how to model the behavior, but isn't so helpful in saying how it works.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You are asking a question that science does not address. Newtonian gravity is a force that one massive object exerts on another. How it does this or why, we don't know. There are limited ways to test this. We can't turn it off, and we can't block it. The effect is due to mass and not other properties. That informs us in how to model the behavior, but isn't so helpful in saying how it works.

But surely with something

 

so massive, so all pervasive, so important , effective , so wide spread around the universe ,

 

Science ought to find out HOW IT WORKS

 

That's like owning a massive artillery tank , capable of plowing through a city centre , driving it , but not knowing how it works ? And giving it to a young child to drive !

 

That's proposperous

 

Mike

Edited September 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[imatfaal]

FFS Mike do you actually read any of the responses to your posts? I reckon a small but significant proportion include the phrase "because that is not how science works" - you have probably even been told watch Feynman on Magnets half a dozen times. After all this time and 2805 posts do you not take any notice of what the other people on this forum say?

[Strange]

.

But , below my feet is the earth .) massive , heavy , full of trillions upon trillions of tons of iron, gold, stone, diamonds magma , every element you can imagine .

 

And the fact that all of that stuff is there and completely unchanging (on the timescale we are concerned with) is exactly why the force is constant and uniform, and therefore you get the behaviour you observe.

 

 

How is THAT LOT communicating its "PULL " so precisely , evenly ,continuously , gently , to both edges of my frail China plate , making it oscillate so accurately and beautifully .

 

Who knows. All we can do is describe what it does, more or less accurately.

 

We cannot know what it "really" is. That is a meaningless question. There is a branch of philosophy that deals with such things but it is all just guesswork and opinion. I can't imagine you would find that satisfying.

[swansont]

But surely with something

 

so massive, so all pervasive, so important , effective , so wide spread around the universe ,

 

Science ought to find out HOW IT WORKS

 

That's like owning a massive artillery tank , capable of plowing through a city centre , driving it , but not knowing how it works ? And giving it to a young child to drive !

 

That's proposperous

 

Mike

 

 

It is preposterous, because that's a ridiculous analogy.

 

How do you test how gravity works?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

FFS Mike do you actually read any of the responses to your posts? I reckon a small but significant proportion include the phrase "because that is not how science works" - you have probably even been told watch Feynman on Magnets half a dozen times. After all this time and 2805 posts do you not take any notice of what the other people on this forum say?

Yes , I am an avid reader and supporter of the science forum . I am not blaming anyone . I am saying we should not use the statement " we , science , does not know how certain things WORK or why it works that way

 

We should start to tackle the problem of " finding out HOW and WHY things work the way they do " . I certainly know in engineering , you cannot just say , " we do not know how or why such and such works , engineers would get no where .

 

Similarly I am saying we, equally as scientists should say " we need to understand HOW and WHY THINGS WORK , THE WAY THEY DO "

 

No offence is intended . I am just saying , it would really help if we could address this .

 

Certainly with GRAVITY this is well overdue , surely ?

 

Mike

[swansont]

Yes , I am an avid reader and supporter of the science forum . I am not blaming anyone . I am saying we should not use the statement " we , science , does not know how certain things WORK or why it works that way

 

We should start to tackle the problem of " finding out HOW and WHY things work the way they do " . I certainly know in engineering , you cannot just say , " we do not know how or why such and such works , engineers would get no where .

 

Similarly I am saying we, equally as scientists should say " we need to understand HOW and WHY THINGS WORK , THE WAY THEY DO "

 

 

Engineering is not physics. It does not deal with the fundamental questions that physics does.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Engineering is not physics. It does not deal with the fundamental questions that physics does.

 

Yes , I can agree , whole heartedly with what you say there.

 

Even more so Physics, should , even more so, ( like a medical Consultant ) . , know even more so , all the how, where , why, which about everything , in the sciences . Not as an individual , but as a body of scientists . Surely ? If the scientists, physicists don't know , who does ?

 

Mike

 

Ps I have read and am aware of what Richard Feynman said , great to listen to his lectures. This does not alter what I have said . I am sure he would say the same , if he was alive now . Times are changing .

Edited September 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Yes , I can agree , whole heartedly with what you say there.

 

Even more so Physics, should , even more so, ( like a medical Consultant ) . , know even more so , all the how, where , why, which about everything , in the sciences . Not as an individual , but as a body of scientists . Surely ? If the scientists, physicists don't know , who does ?

 

 

 

Quite the opposite, IMO. Some physics is at the cutting edge — we don't know the answers. Would you want an engineer to build a bridge who wasn't basing the design on well-established principles? I hope not. For things that are engineered, you can take them apart and look at the mechanism. In physics you get to the point where you can't take the thing apart and look at it. So how are you supposed to see how it works?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Quite the opposite, IMO. Some physics is at the cutting edge — we don't know the answers. Would you want an engineer to build a bridge who wasn't basing the design on well-established principles? I hope not. For things that are engineered, you can take them apart and look at the mechanism. In physics you get to the point where you can't take the thing apart and look at it. So how are you supposed to see how it works?

Your last point " so how are you supposed to see how it works " In physics you get to the point where you can't take the thing apart and look at it.

 

We must find a way . Poke it , prod it , do some crazy things to it . Try some wild ideas out on it . Who knows it might react like it did in the film 2001 a space odesy. A flash of light came out of the obalisk and shot off for Jupiter . When they followed it , the whole thing went " interesting " .......

 

Mike

[Strange]

Your last point " so how are you supposed to see how it works " In physics you get to the point where you can't take the thing apart and look at it.

 

We must find a way . Poke it , prod it , do some crazy things to it . Try some wild ideas out on it . Who knows it might react like it did in the film 2001 a space odesy. A flash of light came out of the obalisk and shot off for Jupiter . When they followed it , the whole thing went " interesting " .......

 

Mike

 

None of those things would take you any closer to what it "really" is. They would just tell you more about how it behaves. Which is what science does already. And all it can do: describe observed behaviour.

 

Reality (whatever it is, and whether it exists or not) is not directly measurable or detectable and so is outside the scope of science. It is in the scope of religion and philosophy. Or guesswork.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Strange

[swansont]

Your last point " so how are you supposed to see how it works " In physics you get to the point where you can't take the thing apart and look at it.

 

We must find a way . Poke it , prod it , do some crazy things to it . Try some wild ideas out on it . Who knows it might react like it did in the film 2001 a space odesy. A flash of light came out of the obalisk and shot off for Jupiter . When they followed it , the whole thing went " interesting " .......

 

Mike

 

 

"Find a way" is not particularly instructive. The way things are and the way you want things to be are two different worlds. We live in the former.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

"Find a way" is not particularly instructive. The way things are and the way you want things to be are two different worlds. We live in the former.

There may be hope ! There is an " a way "

 

I have just picked up this weeks New Scientist . The cover story is HOLES IN REALITY .

 

PHONONS . MAGNONS. EXCITONS . MAJORNAS . WEYL FERMIONS .

 

I have just got in from trip out ,( painting ) . Just bought the New Scientist . Have not read the article , the last sentence reads

 

:- " chasing particles that don't exist into the cracks between atoms might just be our best shot "

 

There you go " the cracks between atoms " !

 

Mike

Edited September 14, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

Don't expect pop science to be accurate. They use flowery language such as cracks between atoms.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Don't expect pop science to be accurate. They use flowery language such as cracks between atoms.

The New Scientist is a fairly reputable Science Journal surely ?

 

.

 

Mike

Edited September 15, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Klaynos]

It's not a journal. It's a pop science magazine. I like it but you have to be careful to interpret what it says and understand the space it operates in.

[Strange]

The New Scientist is a fairly reputable Science Journal surely ?

 

 

I'm not sure. They generally manage to avoid outright pseudoscience but they do like to report the more way-out speculative ideas (they sell better). And they don't often make it clear that it is not generally accepted (and won't follow up when it turns out to be wrong).

 

And they love front page headlines like "Einstein was wrong" (of course, when you read the article it says nothing of the sort).

 

So I would take anything I read in there with a pinch of salt, and try and find another source or review before taking it too seriously.

 

I think Scientific American, for example, has much higher standards, and is one of the best popular science magazines out there. The articles are often written by the scientists who did the work. And they usually try to make it clear when they are using an analogy to explain something.