How gravity works

[Ziggurat]

Vorpal: yes, the locally measured speed of light appears to be unchanged.

Appears to be unchanged? No, Farsight, it is unchanged.

It’s like you’ve plunged a mechanical clock into an oil-bath. The local environment is different, the viscosity makes the cogs and gears move slower.

No, Farsight. The critical difference is that in this example, the degree of slowing depends on the details of the clock. Pick a different clock, even a different mechanical clock, and you will find that your clocks no longer agree when immersed in oil. It is precisely this fact which allows us to say that the slowing of a mechanical clock in oil is an artifact of the oil's interaction with the clock, and not an actual time dilation. But gravitational time dilation applies uniformly, regardless of the details of the clock. ANY clock which operates locally will experience it, and to the same degree. Why? Because the local speed of light IS unchanged.

 

[Pixie of key]

Black holes

The Interaction / The Black Holes

How do the orbs interact with each other?

They open up energywaves, by which they interact with each other.

The less the orb has exterior surface, the less it interacts with other pieces. Also the density of energy matters as well.

In a energy concentration there can be a lot of energy, although it would have just a little exterior surface in relation to other orbs.

The denser the energy in an orb is, the less it has exterior surface in relation to the quantity of energy.

The less exterior surface, the slower the energy opens up away from the orb and the less it interacts with other orbs.

The denser the energy of a piece is, the more efficient it stops to itself for example the neutrinos coming from the stars and also the less there comes neutrinos away from the piece.

There woun´t come any neutrinos of the stars from the direction of a black hole, because they stop themselves to a black hole.

However, towards the black hole there move neutrinos all the time and they expand and open up energywaves, while transfering their kinetic energy with them to the orbs.

From the pieces that move near the black hole loose more neutrinos from the side that it away from the black hole. This is how a certain exterior pressure is formed around the black hole.

The closer to the black hole the piece is, the less energybundles come from backside of the black holes and the stronger the exterior pressure is.

When one understands that all the energy concentrations expand and open up energywaves that have the nature of expanding energyconcentration, one can undestand that the black hole does not draw other pieces towards itself. It devours all the other pieces, because it expands and pushes pieces that locate nearby away from itself slower than the pieces and the black hole itsel do expand.

However, some of the black holes are in a way in a diet. They push the gas that locates nearby away from themselves faster than they expand.

Someone may wonder, why the black hole finally begins to reject the pieces that approach the black hole faster than the black hole and the piece themselves expand. It is based on a fact, that allthough the black hole opens up slowly its energy, do these dense energywaves have large energic particles, which also transfer their kinetic energy with energywaves opening up from themselves towards the expanding atomcores of other orbs.

The modern physics does not understand these large energic particles. According to my theory, the speed of these large energic particles has accelerated just because of the fact, that they also do expand and open up energywaves by which they can make the large energic particles in front of them to speed up all the time.Their speed accelerates slower than the speed of the photons. Correspondingly their speed slows down slower than the photons speed when they move for example towards the sun. The speed of a ship accelerates slower than the speed of a boat. The speed of the ship also slows down slower than the speed of a boat.

This way it is easy to understand how the expanding star that pushes itself away from the expanding black hole explodes a lot of its energy towards the black hole. Those opening and expanding energybudles that come from the expanding black hole make the expanding atoms of a star explode faster than normally. It achieves an illusion that the black hole absorbs with some kind of gravitation from a star the mass of a star towards itself.

In fact, the energy coming from the black hole makes the expanding star to explode its energy much stronger than normally. With this energy that explodes towards the black hole it pushes itself away from the expanding black hole in a curved orbit.

.

 

[Vorpal]

Vorpal: yes, the locally measured speed of light appears to be unchanged. It’s like you’ve plunged a mechanical clock into an oil-bath. The local environment is different, the viscosity makes the cogs and gears move slower. Only you’re like a clockwork man, and you’ve jumped in after it. So you don’t notice it locally.

Um... if you understand that the measured local speed of light is constant, what's the problem? That's what relativity says. Einstein's statement about the speed of light is not only completely compatible with that, it's outright implied by it.

P.S. I just notices M Brown's paper, which was apparently cut by the mods. I haven't read it, but yes, it's true that Einstein apparently thought of the "gravitational field" as the connection coefficients. I would agree with that interpretation if one had to interpret "gravitational field" in terms of relativity (and I think I had a short discussion with sol invictus on that some time ago). But at the same time, you don't really need to do that--relativity can discuss gravity geometrically without any identification of what deserves or doesn't deserve to be called a "gravitational field."

 

[Hellbound]

sol invictus got the point I was heading for before I got back to it, but that's essentially where I was going. We can find "curved" beams of light that don't show a variation in speed.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I'm guessing that, partially because of the deletion of the repetitious posts, Farsight will be gone now. If he discusses this board again, it will be to denounce it as yet another place where people were too closed minded to entertain his ideas.

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Because we define time using the motion of light. Like I said:

“Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom...”

You sit there counting microwave peaks going by, and when you get to 9,192,631,770 you tick off a second. So if the light moves slower, the second is bigger. Then you use it to measure the speed of light!

That doesn't make sense. You claim above, we define time using the motion of light, yet the quote about defining the second doesn't even mention light. The second is mesured but the caesium-133 atom's vibration or something like that (high school chem is as far as I got). Count the atom doing it's thing 9,192,631,770 times. Look how far a beam of light traveled. Now you can measure the speed of light. Light moving is independent of the caesium-133 atom's vibe. If light moves 1cm in 9,192,631,770 wiggles, light has moved 1cm/sec! If light moves 1 mile in 9,192,631,770 wiggles, light moves 1mi/sec. Not that hard.

 

[dasmiller]

Once again, exploring the breadth of my ignorance . . .

But since we're on the topic of whether the speed of light is really constant . . . I'd thought that distance, time, and c were all sort of defined in terms of each other. The classic example of a simple clock involves a photon bouncing back and forth between two mirrors, and of course the photon must move at c. But doesn't any clock ultimately rely on c? Isn't a mechanical clock, down at the subatomic level, simply a big collection of particles that are interacting via forces that propagate at c?

(I admit that I haven't fully thought through how inertia & force magnitudes might make the mechanical clock partly independent of c, and that may completely negate the next paragraph)

So if there's no way to locally measure c that doesn't inherently rely on c, isn't it sort of tautological to say that local c is a constant, because it simply means that c is constant with respect to itself?

This thought has periodically occurred to me when I see speculation about whether c has changed over time. I was never clear on what it was changing with respect to.

 

[Hellbound]

Once again, exploring the breadth of my ignorance . . .

But since we're on the topic of whether the speed of light is really constant . . . I'd thought that distance, time, and c were all sort of defined in terms of each other. The classic example of a simple clock involves a photon bouncing back and forth between two mirrors, and of course the photon must move at c. But doesn't any clock ultimately rely on c? Isn't a mechanical clock, down at the subatomic level, simply a big collection of particles that are interacting via forces that propagate at c?

(I admit that I haven't fully thought through how inertia & force magnitudes might make the mechanical clock partly independent of c, and that may completely negate the next paragraph)

So if there's no way to locally measure c that doesn't inherently rely on c, isn't it sort of tautological to say that local c is a constant, because it simply means that c is constant with respect to itself?

This thought has periodically occurred to me when I see speculation about whether c has changed over time. I was never clear on what it was changing with respect to.

The key is, even if this were true, it's irrelevant. Let me explain.

If everything depends on the speed of light at a subatomic level, then the speed of everything, including your thought and perception of time, clocks, chemical and physical processes, etc, is raised or lowered in exact proportion to that change in the speed of light. In other words, the very concept of duration loses meaning at that point. IF light slowed by 50%, everything else would slow by 50% as well, meaning the speed of light would still be measured as c.

Not to mention that the concept of a constant speed of light falls out of Maxwell's equations co vering the electromagnetic field. If c is variable in a detectable sense, then what we know about electromagnetism is wrong.

At least, that's my take on it. I'm sure I've probably mangled some physics there, but I'm equally sure that our resident experts can recover any errors I've made

 

[sol invictus]

This thought has periodically occurred to me when I see speculation about whether c has changed over time. I was never clear on what it was changing with respect to.

You should always ask that question, because - as it sounds like you understand - it is meaningless to speak of variation in c without specifying with respect to what. Physically meaningful statements about changes in c must refer to the ratio between c and some other quantity with dimensions of velocity.

Now, is it the case that all such quantities depend linearly on c in such a way that it's impossible for these ratios to vary? No, certainly not. For example, the speed of sound in air depends on various things (like the temperature) that can change and have nothing to do with c. So the ratio of the speed of sound in air to the speed of light in vacuum is not constant; it varies with time and location, or (if you prefer) with the temperature, pressure etc. of the air.

It is therefore a true (if a bit uninteresting) statement that the speed of light in units of the speed of sound measured at the top of the Eiffel tower varies with time.

What would be much more interesting would be if the speed of light varies in units of (say) the radius of a hydrogen atom times the Rydberg frequency (which is proportional the frequency of the photon emitted by a hydrogen atom in its lowest excited state).*

Could that happen? Sure - it's logically possible, and not particularly hard to find theories in which it happens. It's never been observed, however.


*Most people would agree that the simplest description of that observation is that the fine-structure constant alpha is varying with time.

 

[Evilgiraffe]

That doesn't make sense. You claim above, we define time using the motion of light, yet the quote about defining the second doesn't even mention light.

Actually, it does.

“Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom...”

The important part is in bold. The second is defined according to the number of oscillations of a photon that is emitted when an electron in an atom of caesium-133 drops from one energy level to another.

More info on how atomic clocks work here.

Which also appears to be where Farsight found his quote.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

There's no such thing as gravity. The Earth just sucks.

 

[dasmiller]

<entire content snipped but appreciated>

Got it, thanks. I'll spare you my thought experiment about measuring the ratio of the speed of light to the speed of sound on top of the Eiffel Tower on an alternate Earth deep within some enormous gravity well. It sounded interesting at first but got less interesting as I thought it through.

It'd probably make for some cool night-sky pictures, though.

 

[Pixie of key]

Joke

There was two religion people and other one say, look, everything coming down because of god. There is coming some science people who ask, can you proof this god with science experiement?

Well, no they could not proof god with science test.

There was two science people and other one say, look, everything coming down because of gravity.

There coming dude from Savo and ask, can you proof this gravity with science experiement?

well, no they could not proof gravity with science test!

Maybe there is god, maybe gravity, maybe curving space.

You can believe, there is god, gravity or curving space, but you cant proof this "gods" with science experiement, you know!

Pushing force is science, because we know how pushing force born, working and moving.

Maybe there is graviton, but how this gravitons can get stuff moving form there, wheres gravitons coming?

No way, if gravitons smash stuff, they giving kineticenergy for stuff and then stuff moving same way what gravitons, you know?

 

[Pixie of key]

How?

How quarks keep quark energy in same packet? How quarks interactive with eachother, if quarks keep all energy in same packet?

Why air go outside spaceships, when you open spaceships door?

because energy is more denstity inside spaceships, what spaceships outside.

Inside quarks is more energy what outside quarks and thats why all energy what is quarks, moving far away from centre of quarks. I mean quarks energy pushing outside quarks, because quarks energy expanding / exploding.

Quarks get new energy who moving inside quarks and thats why quarks change quarks energy just like lake change lake water with time, you know!

It is just about entropy, nothing else.

Pressure changing in space who dont change at all!

 

[Zep]

....yes, thanks for that, PoK.


I'm still waiting for the OP to tell me how gravity works. Last I heard, it was put most simply as "things fall down", which seemed to cover most practical situations day-to-day.

But maybe something else happens now. Do we need to wait agog for the news?

 

[Pixie of key]

?!?

.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24975/

.

Friday, March 26, 2010
Gravity Emerges from Quantum Information, Say Physicists
The new role that quantum information plays in gravity sets the scene for a dramatic unification of ideas in physics

One of the hottest new ideas in physics is that gravity is an emergent phenomena; that it somehow arises from the complex interaction of simpler things.

A few month's ago, Erik Verlinde at the the University of Amsterdam put forward one such idea which has taken the world of physics by storm. Verlinde suggested that gravity is merely a manifestation of entropy in the Universe. His idea is based on the second law of thermodynamics, that entropy always increases over time. It suggests that differences in entropy between parts of the Universe generates a force that redistributes matter in a way that maximises entropy. This is the force we call gravity.

What's exciting about the approach is that it dramatically simplifies the theoretical scaffolding that supports modern physics. And while it has its limitations--for example, it generates Newton's laws of gravity rather than Einstein's--it has some advantages too, such as the ability to account for the magnitude of dark energy which conventional theories of gravity struggle with.

But perhaps the most powerful idea to emerge from Verlinde's approach is that gravity is essentially a phenomenon of information.


...




Entropy = change of Pressure

There is no drawing force, no expanding space, no curving space, no extra dimensions, no dark matter or dark energy!

There is only energy whos density changing in space who dont change at all!

Quarks expanding / exploding all a time, emit energywaces and absorbs energy and thats why quarks change all quark energy with time.

There is only entropy and thats why energyconcentration change of pressure in space who allready been there.

http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2

http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l2

 

[Zep]

PoK, your second part does not even talk about the subject of your first part.

Oh yes, you wrote that, didn't you.

Good-oh, then!