Physics Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Sinergy -> Physics Thread (7/9/2007 9:07:52 PM)

 
This is the thread that CuriousLord worried he would feel obligated to respond to if he started it.

Therefore...

Whats up with gravity?

It seems to me, from what I have read, that the physical universe is expanding due to some sort of osmotic interaction between known physical matter and some alternate / higher dimension / whatever matter that is pushing it away.

Because the principle of gravity seems to cast a winning vote against the concept of an expanding universe.

Just me, etc.

Sinergy



TheHeretic -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 9:14:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Whats up with gravity?




         It always wins?

   



Lordandmaster -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 9:16:13 PM)

Basically...no one understands exactly how it works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Whats up with gravity?



TheHeretic -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 9:22:17 PM)

      Urban-myth check.  Don't we know the Newtonian model of physics to be wrong, but keep using it because it works until we get something better? 

    



CuriousLord -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 9:22:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy


This is the thread that CuriousLord worried he would feel obligated to respond to if he started it.


I'd do a happy dance, but I do believe that would violate the spirit of being lazy that I'm trying to adhere to here.



Sinergy -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 9:27:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Basically...no one understands exactly how it works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Whats up with gravity?



Yes and no.

It has been empirically proven to exist.

Yet, from what I understand, it cannot be mathematically conjoined with the Standard Model of physics.  I am not sure it has much relevance to quantum physics, but Im not a physicist so I dont know.

So modern physicists go "standard model good" and then go "uh, err" when it comes to gravity.

String theory is an attempt to reconcile the two, and can do so mathematically, but not experimentally.  According to (gah, cant remember his name, he has a web site /book called "Not Even Wrong.) whatsisname, the major problem with String Theory is we are thousands of powers of energy away from being able to prove or disprove the theory.

On the other hand, we have dark energy and dark matter, which should from the standard model, interact with each other.  These dark things interact weakly with normal matter and energy, to the point that we have not been able to measure them.

Is dark matter / dark energy pushing (osmosis) normal matter and energy away from the center to fill the available space?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Sinergy



Sinergy -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 9:29:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

     Urban-myth check.  Don't we know the Newtonian model of physics to be wrong, but keep using it because it works until we get something better? 

   


Not really.

Newtonian physics is correct.

The problem comes because the Standard Model of Physics never works out mathematically to include the empirical evidence suggesting gravity exists.

Sinergy



CuriousLord -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 9:33:48 PM)

Didn't the Newtonian model not even include gravitational effects on EM radation? If I recall correctly, even the lensing effect is a contradiction to it.

Newtonian was pretty close. Still, it works in a world without relativity 'n such, so really none of it, outside contrieved cases, is correct.

Edit: Also, I'm not aware of much math behind String 'Theory'.. is there any you're able to point to? About the "dark matter/energy" bit- it's basically shots in the dark, so no one really knows just yet.

When it gets right down to it, there's not enough observable data.



gooddogbenji -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 9:35:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Whats up with gravity?


Nothing, dude.  You down with that?

Yours,


benji



DomKen -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 9:35:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
Whats up with gravity?

It seems to me, from what I have read, that the physical universe is expanding due to some sort of osmotic interaction between known physical matter and some alternate / higher dimension / whatever matter that is pushing it away.

Because the principle of gravity seems to cast a winning vote against the concept of an expanding universe.

Some important ground work first.

Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. On the quantum scale gravity might as well not even exist.

How does gravity work? Nobody has a clear answer. Does it "warp the fabric of space/time" and is therefore a passive force or does it function as the other fundamental forces by the active exchange of some particle or something else entirely? We simply don't know.

Ever heard of the Unified Field Theory, sometimes called the Theory of Everything? The sole hold up is a theory of gravity completely compatible with the quantum mechanics of the other 3 fundamental forces. Quantum gravity theory is what Hawking and most of the big thinkers in physics spend at least part of their time on and no one seems anywhere near explaining what is really going on.

As to the expanding universe and gravity. This is a point of significant debate in the field. One theory is that sufficient mass/energy exists to eventually slow the expansion and bring the whole universe back down to a singularity and presumably start the whole cycle over again. This is one of the reasons scientists are looking for so called dark matter. There simply isn't enough mass/energy out there in the observable universe to stop the expansion.

A few years back observations were made that seemed to indicate that not only was expansion still underway but that the rate is increasing. Our present understanding of both gravity and entropy indicate that that isn't supposed to be happening which is one of the issues that caused scientists to postulate dark energy and start looking for it.



SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 9:37:42 PM)

can you physics help us find my aunt edna? she went for a walk last month and hasnt returned and ive seen yall on court tv.......oh wait.....wrong thread[:D]



DesertRat -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 9:43:45 PM)

~fr~

I thought it was just a local distortion of space-time in response to the mass of a particle. And then adjacent distortions interact, so you get all these mind-numblingly complex space-time "shapes" from all the chaotic interactions.

DesertRat



Termyn8or -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 9:51:30 PM)

Ut oh.

Gravity exists because we are in the same velocity space as other energy that we percieve as matter, this thus creates our universe, or dimension as it were.

Energy can be affected by energy fields and energy emits energy fields, that is why we have gravity, because matter is energy. When one relaizes that a few things can fall into place. Borrowing the term 'velocity space' from plasma physics, our universe is actually an immense velocity space. Energy in close velocity spaces to ours tend to coagulate, that is what creates a universe.

That energy which is in our velocity space is percieved as stationary to us. However we really have no idea how fast or in what direction we are travelling. Now realize for this theory to work it means there are an infinite number of universes. This would be required for all the universes to share the same laws of physics, and I believe they do.

In short, the universe is a big bunch of energy, travelling in all directions at varying velocities. What we percieve as light just happens to be energy that is displaced from our velocity space by 1 C. It is all the same. Cosmic rays of shorter wavelength are simply displaced from our velocity space at somewhat more than 1 C.

This whiole theory rest on the Doppler effect. And do not confuse this with sound, it applies to the light we percieve as well. If one property applies to every last thing you percieve, that property tends to become invisible to the human mind. We tend to think within our own perception, and the we are at the center of the universe. Once we break the bonds of that kind of thought we can explore much further.

Let's touch on sound for a moment. This is how nature let Doppler discover and define the effect. Like how the pitch of a train whistle lowers as it passes you, or let's be more specific, the percieved pitch changes.

Now what if that train was moving away from you at exactly the speed of sound ?

If I think of more I'll be back, but I gotta go for now. Next thread I start will splain it.

T



uwinceismile -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 9:58:42 PM)

you guys are seem rather smart to me ..
so riddle me this:
weve all seen what happens to some females (gravity)
why doesnt gravity make us hang to our ankles when we are 80?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?



Caius -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 10:17:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Newtonian was pretty close. Still, it works in a world without relativity 'n such, so really none of it, outside contrieved cases, is correct.



Well, plenty of Newton's contributions were dead on.  It's just some of the more famous principles that ultimately came into question.   Significant principles, I'll grant you, but then there is little in Cartesian model that hasn't had to be modified.   And indeed, despite limited evidence,  Newton himself apparently saw this breakdwon in the Cartesian model coming.  Remember that he was accused of mysticism for supporting ideas of non-fixed casuality which are now a very signifcant part of theory in the "new" (non-macro) physics today.   Well, that and the fact that he seems to have been more interested in alchemy then empirical physics. 


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Because the principle of gravity seems to cast a winning vote against the concept of an expanding universe.



Actually, gravity is the weakest of the fundemental forces, by a considerable amount.     Which is not to say it is an irrelevant factor to the model of an expanding universe, of course,  but not the tripping point you might expect.    Of course, as others have already noted here, this remains a fields of considerable debate. 


quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

When it gets right down to it, there's not enough observable data.




Heh...yeah...well, that hasn't stopped researchers from producing some leaborate theory in this field for some time.  :)

~tip-toes around the familiar discussion that always goes south when it evolves to the level of dicussing the phenomenum in question in the only viable means capable of accurately describing them -- mathematics.~


Edited to add:  Just a note on the progression of the history of theory in thisfield, as there is some ambiguity in what has been said so far that could lead those with limited exposure to these matters to misinterpret just which models clashed with which.   The sequence of "modern" (using the term a bit loosely here) theory on gravitation goes somethign like this.

1-Newtonian theory of gravitation, formed and gains populairty as it's ability to predict movement of large bodies through use of conic sections and common centers of gravity.

2-Newtonian theory abandoned in favour of general theory of relativity.  Spacetime curvature...blah blah (this is going to be described at least twenty times in this thread, I'm betting, s  forgive me if I don't enagage it just yet).

3-General theory of relativity (and thus the most central principles in describing the properties and actions of large bodies) found to be unreconcilable with with principles governing smaller bodies and stronger forces, prompting the need for a Unifying Theory.



Termyn8or -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 10:44:47 PM)

Observable data. OK. Magnetism.

Now what the fuck do the electrons in one atom care about the electrons in an atom in a seperate piece of matter ? Whether repulsive or attractive why does that force exist ? These pieces have no physical connection, except that..........

They are similar forms of energy in our velocity space. Different forms of matter are simpoly slightly different forms, or maybe something like a wavelength, of energy in our velocity space. It is clear that a piece of aluminum as well as a piece of lead sitting on a table in front of us is in our velocity space, so how to explain the difference ? Next time.

Now there is alot to be considered in the velocity space=universe/dimension theory. I do not expect anyone to embrace it right away. I didn't. It took years, and I am the one who came up with it. I mean this theory's infancy lies before Usenet, back in the BBS days. I believe I am right, but like the other theorists of our race, I cannot prove it. But I can say that I seem to be able to make sense of it, and can entertain questions about it and usually explain it, well, to varying degrees of success.

Some people find it hard to accept that not only are they such an infitesimal part of this universe, and now there are an infinite number of them ? Makes me feel small. But I do not take it to heart, I would rather know the reality. Science outside of science. And relize that I started studying astronomy at age six.

I don't purport to know any more than anyone else, but I have applied it differently. Maybe I do have some knowledge that is a bit different, but what I am saying is that the evidence is right there. You seek to explain gravity, but not magnetism.

BBIAM

T



DomKen -> RE: Physics Thread (7/9/2007 11:12:53 PM)

Your theory seems to fail several basic tests.

This higher dimension 'velcoity space' is an unnecessary entity and therefore violates Occam's Razor. You need your theory to explain some observation that other simpler, less entities, theories don't to make adding the extra dimension valid.

This brings us to the much more important problem of testing. Your theory needs to make a prediction at odds with present theory which others can then test and verify whether your theory correctly or incorrectly predicted the outcome. Unfortunately I don't see anything predicted by your theory and certainly not anything contrary to the predictions of more widely accepted theories. This failure is quite similiar to what is keeping string theory from wide acceptance. We simply have no way to determine whether it is correct or not.



Termyn8or -> RE: Physics Thread (7/10/2007 12:14:42 AM)

DomK, I reject part of that, but I accept part of it. What you term as a failure I recognize. I did not prove the theory, not even close. Of course it cannot be proven anyway, so some of this is a moot point in certain areas.

I wanted to put that theory out there to see if anyone could understand it, and I guess I am still waiting. It is hard to grasp, let alone accept. And I fully admit that I have proven nothing. But then, can you disprove any of it ? Can anyone ?

I do have one, very minor piece of proof, that is the Doppler effect. What easily observable fact of life do you have to disprove it ?

T



seeksfemslave -> RE: Physics Thread (7/10/2007 1:28:23 AM)

Well I think we live in an infinite set of energy distributed force fields that  ultimately add up to the main forces known thus far.
The fact that such forces , weak, strong, electromagnetic and gravitational appear to be able to act at a distance is in no way related to semantic confusion but can easily be explained by use of the wancing (hard c) operator devised by me in one of my many contemplative moments.

My worry is the arrow of time which my observations show to be distinctly unstable. Application to my data of  wancing (hard c) integration followed by wancing (hard c) differentiation reveals that one does not return to the exact starting point plus the deviation to be expected  if the arrow were stable.As of now I am engaged in some hard c wancing to try to hopefully find any error.
If I am right then expect some short time  real world dislocation compared to which a Tsunami will be seen to be but a minor ripple. By short time I speak in cosmological terms of course ie any time between next Tuesday and the next 10 billion years.

I will report my results as and when more data is forthcoming.
Hard c wancing is very exhausting  so there may be a delay before my next post on the subject.
Cheers m'dears.



DomKen -> RE: Physics Thread (7/10/2007 5:29:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
I do have one, very minor piece of proof, that is the Doppler effect. What easily observable fact of life do you have to disprove it ?

T

Why would I need todisprove the Doppler effect? It is a very well understood part of modern physics. The important question is what part or observation of the doppler effect do you believe your theory explains better than modern physics?



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125