Jump to content

Nature of mass gravitation


Recommended Posts

Hello forum/ RichardHarris123 

What causes earth or other massive bodies to produce gravitation/ gravitational field? 

What is the essence of gravitational force? 

All comments are welcomed.

 

Edited by Nucejoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the question is still unanswered.  Are there particles called gravitons?  We don't even know what causes mass, is it matter that reacts with the Higg's boson?  

18 minutes ago, Nucejoe said:

Hello forum/ RichardHarris123 

What causes earth or other massive bodies to produce gravitation/ gravitational field? 

What is the essence of gravitational force? 

All comments are welcomed.

 

What about magnetism then?  We probably have discovered all of the properties but the actual cause? 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think  material entities can exist only in a relevent field,  that is for an entity to come to existance a field is required for it to exist in, such field may momentarily  pop into existance just for the force to exist in, or it can also be a pre existing permanat  field.  Some loosely call permanat field ,  eternal field.

So my defintion of force is, the tendency of a force field,"  a relevent field" to resist movement or transfer of enrgy in the field manifests as force. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, RichardHarris123 said:

As far as I know, the question is still unanswered.  Are there particles called gravitons?  We don't even know what causes mass, is it matter that reacts with the Higg's boson?  

What about magnetism then?  We probably have discovered all of the properties but the actual cause? 

Tonights story will  put me into sleep, hopefully the story helps understand " the how and the why" 

Photons are force carriers and can  exist only if in high speed motion,( to exist it needs  a field or a host to accomodate it  )  once their state of motion undergoes a change or come dead  stop, it would need another host ( a system or a field) so  ( delivers)  some or all its cargo  ( some of its host disqualify it as a guest) it would  anhilate if it stops dead , if it got energy left and moves, its  a new photon carrying less force poping  into existance instead . The  delivered cargo is  "THE MAGNETIC FORCE" 

 It constantly forces its cargo into any system it can, metal molecules are such sytems, delivered cargo excites orbital electrons to higher orbits and increases the  frequency of thier spin ( voltage) , electrons de excitation takes place in the magnetic  field of the metals atom, so this de excitation energy goes into making of a new photon, which enters the neighboring system doing the same, as the polarity of all metal molecules in a magnet are arrayed in same direction, no atom can host the photon for good( no vacancy just a short stop) , thats  the photon is kicked out of the other end of the magnet but photon  wont gives up ( if it gives up it dies) so it enter the other pole of the magnet, goes througn the same interactions and repeats the same journey,  the magnet is the closest field to the photons ,  photons stay around the magnet to exist. 

Your question is where is the source of energy for all this motion.  

Little energy leaves the system, most remains in. 

So magnets are good for many years, but are not eternal.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, grsnovi said:

Isn't this a topic for cosmologytalk.com? 🙂

Physics is the study of laws of material existance. Cosmology is the study of cosmos by the laws of physics. 

Rgds

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nucejoe said:

Physics is the study of laws of material existence. Cosmology is the study of cosmos by the laws of physics.

I don't know how you can separate them.

There are some many yet-to-be-know aspects to physics. What is dark energy? Why is there so little mass accounted for? There are HUGE galaxies being discovered so far back in time by JWST that shouldn't be that large at that time in the cosmos.

I would love to have a better understanding of the current model.

- G

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Klassiker said:

Good question, wrong section.

klassiker,    Which one is the right section.

 

This thread was started upon request by  RichardHarris.

Gary , Cosmology was not my scholastic decipline. Did you like my story, any question for indepth detail?  or mechanisms? 

Richard,    like any other material entity mass is the manifestation of resistance  ( in higg's field ) against motion of energy.   Mass is essentially  THE MOTION. 

Where there is no motion, there is no time no space. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Nucejoe said:

Hello forum/ RichardHarris123 

What causes earth or other massive bodies to produce gravitation/ gravitational field? 

What is the essence of gravitational force? 

All comments are welcomed.

 

 Matter causes spacetime to curve, which gives the effect of gravity.

Planets are not orbiting, but travelling in a straight line in curved spacetime. 

From a falling apples' frame of reference, it is not accelerating but travelling at constant speed in curved spacetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mikepilk said:

 Matter causes spacetime to curve, which gives the effect of gravity.

 What property of matter curves spacetime? and by what  mechanism? 

Einstein simply showed an observerd effect.  Didn't understand whats at work creating the effect.

Newton declaired  laws of gravitation universal. We now know he was wrong. 

1- Quantum mechanics shows  laws of gravitation not to be universal.

2- Does gravitation exist , to declair its laws universal.  your saying gravition does not exist  so newton has declaired  universal laws for something that doesn't exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Nucejoe said:

 What property of matter curves spacetime? and by what  mechanism? 

I don't know, I'm not a physicist (as the following may prove).

I understand that the shape of spacetime is determined by mass (and energy) - how this works is beyond my knowledge (and possibly anyone's?)  🥴

42 minutes ago, Nucejoe said:

Einstein simply showed an observerd effect.  Didn't understand whats at work creating the effect.

Newton declaired  laws of gravitation universal. We now know he was wrong. 

Science is our current best model (approximation) of the world. Many models are technically wrong, but we use them as they are simple and work - eg lens equations, refraction etc we use simple equations rather than complex quantum methods.

Newton was not wrong. His observations and model is correct (for general use). The equations set man on the moon and are still universally used. They may be technically wrong, but work well.

47 minutes ago, Nucejoe said:

1- Quantum mechanics shows  laws of gravitation not to be universal. 

Does it? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though we call photons force carriers, they actually carry thier energy  in the form of momentum, and exchange momentum with systems that are tuned to recieve  momentum from them. , we see the effect of such exchange and say the effect was caused by a force. 

General relativity doesn't recognise gravitational force, and considers it a curvature of spacetime.

In quantum mechanic however force regarded as a fundamental one ( in subnucleonic systems ) , so did the apple fall by gravitation force or the curvature of spacetime?  And does all suxh curvature run through the center of earth? 

12 minutes ago, Klassiker said:

Ask a moderator, but I would suggest the Relax Zone "talk about anything here".

I see, mistook safe zone for Relax zone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have Carlo Rovelli's "Reality Is Not What It Seems: The Journey to Quantum Gravity" in which he explains everything at the lowest level consists only of fields. I need to re-read it.

It seems that it's time causing gravity - and falling squirrels !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5PfjsPdBzg

 

(does anyone know how I paste a youtube link to show the video pic?)

Edited by mikepilk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal theory in progress (for what it's worth):

Energy and mass are a spectrum (remember the ol' E=MC^2 song and dance); different intensities of the same thing. I seem to recall Einstein, or possibly another German physicist had one of those classic German-isms for it like energymass or massenergy; I'm going to anglo-internetify it and call it massergy. If you concentrate energy (lite massergy) to a point, spacetime will warp as if it were mass (heavy massergy) for instance. Carried to the extreme, your typical black hole is made of a whole lotta mass crammed into a tiny space. You could do the same with energy. Since they're the same things, just different points along the spectrum, it IS the same thing. If you go all the way to the low-energy end of some infinitesimally small amount of energy in a perfect vacuum, and slowly ramp up to black hole, you find the spacetime starts flat (or whatever topology), and slow ramps up to that classic 2D-cum-3D funnel visualization of a black hole. That makes me think that massergy is a feature of spacetime itself rather than a discrete phenomena taking place in/on it. Massergy is space time all wadded up/compressed/negatively-stretched.

From there, gravity, unlike the strong forces, is ALSO a feature of spacetime (as alluded to above re: curvature) rather than a phenomenon that occurs in/on it. Going back to relativity, we recall that as spacetime is warped, the rate of Causality (the C in E=MC^2, which does NOT actually stand for "the speed of light", which is merely a more easily graspable concept that happens to be the same in the same way a donut is a pastry, but all pastries aren't donuts) changes. That Causality gradient across the spacetime stretch/wadding/etc. of massergy is, I believe, the root cause for gravitation.

A good analogy for this is the wheels of a car; if you slow down the wheels on one side (the mass/stretchward side of the gradient) the car turns in that direction; it's [i]pulled[/i] in that direction. Imagine the wheels then are omnidirectional, frictionless, still moving through spacetime, and painted plaid for a little whimsy, the car is going to move in whichever direction it's wheels are being slowed.

Within this framework, it's possible there's a motionless reference frame relative to spacetime itself where gravity wouldn't work. This is the exception that would prove the rule. We, our solar system, galaxy, thread of the galactic web, etc. are all moving through spacetime, but [i]somewhere[/i] it is conceivable that there's a something that is stationary relative to the fabric of spacetime. At that point, gravity would not "exist" because the plaid, spherically wheeled car isn't moving, and is totally stationary; parked. 

Where this all potentially falls apart is in the math (which is beyond my ken). Is it possible for the causality gradient across the curvature of spacetime to "slow the wheels of the car" to the degree required to equal the observed "weak force" of gravity? I don't know. It's a good enough theory for a sci-fi flick, but that may be the end of it. I've never put this in writing, or said it out loud to anyone. Not many people out there to have these sorts of conversations with... Maybe someone here has the math chops to put me straight (looking at you @Nucejoe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, spectre6000 said:

My personal theory in progress (for what it's worth):

Energy and mass are a spectrum (remember the ol' E=MC^2 song and dance); different intensities of the same thing. I seem to recall Einstein, or possibly another German physicist had one of those classic German-isms for it like energymass or massenergy; I'm going to anglo-internetify it and call it massergy. If you concentrate energy (lite massergy) to a point, spacetime will warp as if it were mass (heavy massergy) for instance. Carried to the extreme, your typical black hole is made of a whole lotta mass crammed into a tiny space. You could do the same with energy. Since they're the same things, just different points along the spectrum, it IS the same thing. If you go all the way to the low-energy end of some infinitesimally small amount of energy in a perfect vacuum, and slowly ramp up to black hole, you find the spacetime starts flat (or whatever topology), and slow ramps up to that classic 2D-cum-3D funnel visualization of a black hole. That makes me think that massergy is a feature of spacetime itself rather than a discrete phenomena taking place in/on it. Massergy is space time all wadded up/compressed/negatively-stretched.

From there, gravity, unlike the strong forces, is ALSO a feature of spacetime (as alluded to above re: curvature) rather than a phenomenon that occurs in/on it. Going back to relativity, we recall that as spacetime is warped, the rate of Causality (the C in E=MC^2, which does NOT actually stand for "the speed of light", which is merely a more easily graspable concept that happens to be the same in the same way a donut is a pastry, but all pastries aren't donuts) changes. That Causality gradient across the spacetime stretch/wadding/etc. of massergy is, I believe, the root cause for gravitation.

A good analogy for this is the wheels of a car; if you slow down the wheels on one side (the mass/stretchward side of the gradient) the car turns in that direction; it's [i]pulled[/i] in that direction. Imagine the wheels then are omnidirectional, frictionless, still moving through spacetime, and painted plaid for a little whimsy, the car is going to move in whichever direction it's wheels are being slowed.

Within this framework, it's possible there's a motionless reference frame relative to spacetime itself where gravity wouldn't work. This is the exception that would prove the rule. We, our solar system, galaxy, thread of the galactic web, etc. are all moving through spacetime, but [i]somewhere[/i] it is conceivable that there's a something that is stationary relative to the fabric of spacetime. At that point, gravity would not "exist" because the plaid, spherically wheeled car isn't moving, and is totally stationary; parked. 

Where this all potentially falls apart is in the math (which is beyond my ken). Is it possible for the causality gradient across the curvature of spacetime to "slow the wheels of the car" to the degree required to equal the observed "weak force" of gravity? I don't know. It's a good enough theory for a sci-fi flick, but that may be the end of it. I've never put this in writing, or said it out loud to anyone. Not many people out there to have these sorts of conversations with... Maybe someone here has the math chops to put me straight (looking at you @Nucejoe).

I can't find anywhere that stats that C isn't the speed of light. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the nuggets from my Special Relativity course was that C stands for Causality. I think Einstein may not have even known initially that light moved at the speed of causality, and thus it wasn't part of the equation (literally or idiomatically). That's a bit deep in the ol' memory hole though. Google around, and I'm sure it's out there. Or maybe the prof was spinning a mnemonic that I took literally? Not sure.

Regardless, it's used here and here contextually comporting with the understanding referenced in my previous post, though not explicitly stated as the literal "C", which 5 minutes of my own googling also didn't turn up any references to.

At any rate, the takeaway was that causality is the rate at which information travels. "Information" in this context is its own thoroughly packed term. Lots of things qualify as information, and are able to move at the speed of Causality (provided they're massless), such as change (yet another packed term). Light, being massless, moves at this same rate and everyone knows what speed and light are, so it's much easier to work with, and has thoroughly become a stand-in for causality. 

Edited by spectre6000
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mikepilk said:

everything at the lowest level consists only of fields. 

 In an old school of thought, its still beleived that if you chased a beam of light (  your speed being the same as that of  light) , you would see the light you are chasing  as a frozen field . 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Nucejoe said:

 In an old school of thought, its still beleived that if you chased a beam of light (  your speed being the same as that of  light) , you would see the light you are chasing  as a frozen field . 

 

 

 

 

I read that's incorrect but not sure why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, spectre6000 said:

Because you wouldn't see it at all, since you'd be traveling at the same speed, and the light therefore would not be able to enter your eyes?

I agree with your logic and I would think the same but I read somewhere it wouldn't be the case. 

This is why I like Newtonian physics, it makes sense to me.  Some quantum mechanics has been proven but still weird to me, entangled particles etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RichardHarris123 said:

This is why I like Newtonian physics, it makes sense to me.  Some quantum mechanics has been proven but still weird to me, entangled particles etc.

But Newtonian physics doesn't explain "everything" whereas Quantum physics might explain so much more. Imagine if there actually is a multiverse and there are entanglements between our universe and others. THAT could explain somethings. Other universes with other physics within the same boundaries as ours. How can there be these huge galaxies so far back in time (as have just been discovered by JWST) that shouldn't exist at that point in time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • This is a very sad day for the industry.. For most of us being amateurs the cost of replacing parts for ETA,s etc will be beyond affordability for the customers.   see full statement below   We have now received the decision from Judge Michael Green on whether or not the High Court has jurisdiction to hear our claim against Swatch, and sadly it is not the decision we had hoped for.   As we have pointed out in previous news items (see below),the rules that Judge Green had to apply strictly prevented him from examining in any way how the Swiss Court arrived at its verdict, even if it is blatantly obvious that the verdict is wrong.   As Swatch’s lawyer was summing up in the last few minutes oft he hearing, the Judge twice pinned him asking if it was alright if, as a result of the Swiss verdict, consumers had to pay 50% more for their watch repairs. After some stumbling, their lawyer’s reply was “Yes”, so  I am quite sure that Judge Green left his court fully aware that the Swiss verdict does not reflect the norms of British Competition Law. However, the rules simply do not allow him to take that simple fact into account.   Judge Green noted that our two arguments relating firstly to British Competition Law now being different from that of the EU, and secondly to the contention that the legality of the Authorised Service Networks has not been tested, had both been mentioned in the Swiss verdict. Because they had been mentioned, he felt that to allow us to argue them again would constitute re examining the Swiss case, and could not be allowed.   As to our claim that we were denied our right to be heard because our evidence was not considered, our lawyers had argued that the evidence we provided could not have been looked at because had the Swiss Court done so, it could not have reached the conclusion that it did. In his verdict, Judge Green highlighted general statements in the Swiss verdict that evidence had been looked at, and acknowledged the arguments we made to him, but again he considered that this was re-examining the Swiss verdict, and could not be permitted.   Our case has attracted considerable interest within the Legal community, and within minutes of the decision being made public we were approached for comment by one of the largest subscription news services, Global Competition Review. They asked us two very pertinent questions, and I reproduce them for you below along with our responses, as they neatly summarise the consequences arising from our case.   What are the key takeaways?   Enormous damage has been done to the fundamentals of UK and European Competition Law by the Swiss courts. It has always been the case that the effect on consumers and competition has to be considered in any decision making, but we now have a ruling that states even monopolists can remove wholesale markets from the supply chain without any consumer benefit based justification. Those entities looking to subvert Competition Law and exploit consumers for their own benefit will be looking at this very carefully.   Has the court made the wrong decision? If so, will you appeal?   The issue lies not with the High Court, but rather with cross border jurisdiction treaties that have no requirement in them for foreign jurisdictions applying UK law to take account of the Ratio Legis [a legal term for the fundamental reasoning why the law was written] of that law, and have no remedy within them for UK Courts to overcome decisions that clearly do not.    After eight years of work, and a very considerable sum in legal costs, I can not begin to tell you how disappointed I am at this outcome. For the time being, there is no further route through the British Courts that Cousins can follow. However, I promised that we would fight to the end, and that promise stands.   The UK is no longer part of the Lugano Convention, whose rules Judge Green has applied, and as yet nothing permanent has replaced it. The political tide turned against repair prevention by restricting supply of spare parts some time ago, and our efforts on behalf of the Watch Repair industry have resulted in high level contacts within several Government Departments. You can be sure that we will keep working to overcome this unjust situation that we now all find ourselves in.    I will keep you advised.   Kind regards   Anthony
    • Dell fancy a challenge🤣   https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/285785684626?itmmeta=01HT29WVJY21Q94C73GYHGBTFX&hash=item428a277a92:g:15YAAOSwNRVmBAUz&itmprp=enc%3AAQAJAAAA0DIe4QLQBW66rSyIMiyBuk8GY%2B86pQ%2BQnxGbcNq7egAGe5DIs9YMmiWJIbZtMSxwNJIiJxuojbq523IeUSBQ6pJEIQ0tfz2ChrBR03BksmKINyklg1IK4GAfAcYY9Hta9wVeSZSZN7ZCNAfZTgKs9c4%2BUIUZ3Qjc3QjUXDn2uPRo1FiYOEewMG5A26EXb%2BclBgrqtbOmM6P3bea%2F8ZImOAXNI1HtbmtMk84pIGoM6ISwaM1PKFuADtTFMccS5e3ZjndCbXYXHrW3CecsV0edw3M%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR8q588nQYw Darwin’s theory of evolution has not been proven to be absolutely.  😀 
    • A already know the size movement I have the problem is the dial a had purchased has a dimension 20.6mm wide a want to find a watch case that going to fit the dial perfectly 
    • Hi.  I would like to take issue here regarding battery driven , watches, clocks,etc. I will and do repair these clocks in fact I have sever al in my collection as well as the regular mechanical ones. I have one on my mantle piece over 60 years old tha belonged to my wife’s Aunt,  long gone Iam afraid and it has been cleaned etc and never missed a beat and is accurate. Every one has their preduices as regards Electrical /electronic Horology but I regard it as part of the progress time line of the art of Horology and to be treated as such. Like Darwin’s theory of evolution it evolved.  Two cavemen knocking rocks together and a shard broke off , looking at it he worked out if it was stuck on the end of a stick he would have a spear. Likewise his pal seeing what he was up to picked up a piece  and did the same, now that’s evolution. Some clockmaker decided to build a clock that ran with a battery and no spring to wind up and break, progress and both the mechanical and battery driven clocks evolved, the battery ones got better to the point that if it broke you changed the complete unit. Likewise watches did the same but both can be repaired by people who approach Horology with an open mind without preduice.  We all have our likes and dislikes bu I for one would never dismiss any technology because I don’t like it.   The mobile phone is a good example of modern technology at work as is the automotive industry. There buttons and switches in my car I don’t use because to me they are not nesessary but I still drive the car.
    • I haven't gone through all the reading of what it might be or not. The first thing I would do if nothing obvious stands out is replace the mainspring, you have to start at the source of the power. Nine times out of ten that is the problem.  
×
×
  • Create New...