JEROME - Black holes do not exist

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Electromagnetism is the force that keeps solid objects from passing through one another. It keeps us from falling through the ground into the center of the Earth.

Is that not the nuclear force?

 

[Paulhoff]

Is that not the nuclear force?

NO

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm
Electromagnetism is the force that keeps solid objects from passing through one another. It keeps us from falling through the ground into the center of the Earth.

Paul

 

[wollery]

Is that not the nuclear force?

And you want people to take you seriously when you criticize science?

 

[Acleron]

Is that not the nuclear force?

Shame, it's not even amusing any longer.

 

[arthwollipot]

Is that not the nuclear force?

There are two nuclear forces, Jerome. The Strong Nuclear Force holds quarks together in subatomic particles such as protons and neutrons. Its strength dissipates very quickly with distance, so it only works within the confines of atomic nuclei. The Weak Nuclear Force governs radioactive decay and again is very attenuated at distances larger than that of atomic nuclei.

The electromagnetic force is what holds electrons in "orbit" around atomic nuclei. Electromagnetism can be either attractive or repulsive, depending on the charges. As any primary-school student can tell you, unlike charges attract and like charges repel. On large scales, this balance of like and unlike charges - the balance of attraction and repulsion - means that most electromagnetic charges cancel each other out.

Gravity, as we understand it, is different from all of those. None of those three forces can have an effect over large distance scales. The two nuclear forces because they are such short-range. The electromagnetic force because attraction and repulsion tend to cancel each other out. Gravity is unique in that it both has an effect over long distances (thus differentiating it from the nuclear forces) and is always attractive (thus differentiating it from electromagnetism).

It is electromagnetic repulsion between atoms that stops us falling through the floor. It is the strong nuclear force that holds the nuclei of atoms together. It is the weak nuclear force that causes atoms to decay. It is gravity that holds planets in their orbits. Electromagnetism cannot govern the orbits of planets (or stars), because its effects cancel out over long distances.

This is high-school-level science, Jerome. And I know because I never studied any higher-level science.

 

[Belz...]

Is that not the nuclear force?

And you have the nerve to criticise people with real knowledge ?

 

[aggle-rithm]

There are two nuclear forces, Jerome. The Strong Nuclear Force holds quarks together in subatomic particles such as protons and neutrons. Its strength dissipates very quickly with distance, so it only works within the confines of atomic nuclei. The Weak Nuclear Force governs radioactive decay and again is very attenuated at distances larger than that of atomic nuclei.

The electromagnetic force is what holds electrons in "orbit" around atomic nuclei. Electromagnetism can be either attractive or repulsive, depending on the charges. As any primary-school student can tell you, unlike charges attract and like charges repel. On large scales, this balance of like and unlike charges - the balance of attraction and repulsion - means that most electromagnetic charges cancel each other out.

Gravity, as we understand it, is different from all of those. None of those three forces can have an effect over large distance scales. The two nuclear forces because they are such short-range. The electromagnetic force because attraction and repulsion tend to cancel each other out. Gravity is unique in that it both has an effect over long distances (thus differentiating it from the nuclear forces) and is always attractive (thus differentiating it from electromagnetism).

It is electromagnetic repulsion between atoms that stops us falling through the floor. It is the strong nuclear force that holds the nuclei of atoms together. It is the weak nuclear force that causes atoms to decay. It is gravity that holds planets in their orbits. Electromagnetism cannot govern the orbits of planets (or stars), because its effects cancel out over long distances.

This is high-school-level science, Jerome. And I know because I never studied any higher-level science.

I've heard the electromagnetic force described as the "electroweak" force because it can be viewed as a different manifestation of the weak nuclear force...has this been confirmed, or was it just a hypothesis?

 

[robinson]

Hypothesis.

 

[Worm]

A quick bit of reading suggests that it is becoming somewhat accepted - although my physics skillz are somewhat limited so I bow to anyone with superior knowledge.

Certainly I found a fair bit of stuff that refers to electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force as two different aspects of a single 'electroweak interaction'.

The Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded in the 1979 to Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam and Steven Weinberg for their work on the theory.

Wikipedia link

 

[robinson]

This is going to mess with the war between gravity and electromagnetism.

 

[Ace]

This is going to mess with the war between gravity and electromagnetism.

A wise friend once told me, and I paraphrase:
An open mind means throwing out the truth from yesterday if a new truth comes along today.

The open mind must be very critical of any new truth though.
Ace

 

[aggle-rithm]

This is going to mess with the war between gravity and electromagnetism.

Even if they discover a link between electromagnetism and gravity (an "electro-gravity" interaction), it still doesn't mean there isn't any such thing as gravity.

 

[aggle-rithm]

A wise friend once told me, and I paraphrase:
An open mind means throwing out the truth from yesterday if a new truth comes along today.

But only if the new truth is incompatible with the old one.

Otherwise, how would you decide which old one to throw out?

 

[aggle-rithm]

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

This thread is a troll of me!

Look at the straw-man title!!!

You guys really did not realize that this thread was created to troll me specifically?

Designed to bait me into some kind of aggravation?

The thread failed horribly.

Keep in mind that this thread began as a troll of me. (Read the second post in this thread)

Look Here for further understanding, post #17

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/51464877617c2abef.jpg[/qimg]

:13:

 

[The Man]

Keep in mind that this thread began as a troll of me. (Read the second post in this thread)

Look Here for further understanding, post #17

That you are a troll of yourself is hardly of any consequence, your assertions in that post #17 (referenced above) is just another denial. Whatever you feel you might gain or have gained from this is simply a matter of happenstance. We can not address your intentions or your inclinations, but just what you do write. That what you write (if my surmise of post #17 is correct) may or may not represent either your intentions or your inclinations only makes you intentionally a troll (even of yourself); regardless of what you do write.

 

[Reality Check]

Still waiting.............
What is the evidence for your claim that gravity is not strong enough?

 

[robinson]

I requested this gravity sub thread to be moved to a gravity topic. Considering the gravity of the situation, it should be persued, but with out being buried and off topic here. The following hidden posts are the relevant conversation.

I also requested a link to the moved posts for anyone just reading who is interested. So this post will be edited after a Mod does the move, to include a link. We apologize for any interruption of the discussion this may cause. And thanks to jmercer for taking the time and effort to do this.

That brings up an interesting query. For some smart physics dudes.

If the mass of an object increases with velocity, does gravity increase?

I thought because it was relativistic mass, the object itself does not notice an increase in mass, that gravity would be the same.

Is that correct? If a massive object is moving close to the speed of light, does the gravity change?

For either somebody on the object, or for an observer watching it hurtle by? Is the change in mass due to velocity real? Or just a relativity effect?

To make the answer simple, if an object the size of the moon went hurtling past the earth very fast, at the same distance as the moon, would the tidal effect, however brief, be larger?

In some frames of reference, yes.


For someone on the object, or someone travelling with the same velocity, it wouldn't change. For something at rest, compared to the object, it would.



Yes.

You've been watching reruns of Space: 1999, haven't you?

I always wondered how the moon could move many times faster than the speed of light, yet remain in range of a planet they were visiting for days.

Thanks. Unless some other smart physics dude comes along and disagrees with you, I am taking that as fact.

I should take this conversation elsewhere.

Relativistic mass increases with velocity, but there's no reason to ever use relativistic mass. It is redundant with energy, and completely unnecessary. Invariant mass (aka rest mass) is all you ever need for any physics calculation.

Just as with electromagnetic fields, gravitational fields will transform if you change reference frames. The gravitational field of a moving object is therefore not the same as that of a stationary object, but I would avoid simply claiming that it's greater, and it is most definitely NOT a simple function of the relativistic mass. A naive reading of Hellbound's response suggests that if you transform to a reference frame where the earth's relativistic mass is large enough, it should turn into a black hole. But that is not possible: the earth is not a black hole in any reference frame.

Ziggurat:

Thanks for the clarification. I thought the relativistic mass was used (or could be used, rather) for a gravitational calculation; but your point about making the Earth a black hole makes sense

So how would you figure the gravitational effect? Would it simply be using the mass-equivalent o fthe kinetic energy involve din the motion?

So, to make it simple, if an object the size of the moon went hurtling past the earth very fast, at the same distance as the moon, would the tidal effect, however brief, be larger?

Hellbound said yes. What do you say?

Or anybody else for that matter.

Larger mass, what do you think?

But the Tidal effect would not be the problem, the change in the earth's orbit would be.

Paul

I think I will wait to see what Sol says on this one, before further thought.

You need to be more specific with the "object the size of the moon" part. Do you mean an exact duplicate of the moon except that it is (obviously) traveling at a much faster rate?

The gravitational field of a moving object is not spherically symmetric, but is "squished" along the direction of motion. This would have the effect of increasing the peak tidal force acting on an object it passes, but also decreasing the duration of that peak (compared to Newtonian gravity). Actual calculations are best done without reference to relativistic mass, using only invariant mass.

Please also see “Frame Dragging” in this regard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

robinson:
Yes, the field does transform between reference frames, and general situations are much more complicated than a single "stronger/weaker" answer. Gravity couples to all kinds of things, including rest mass, momentum, and stresses (e.g., in fluids, pressure and viscosity). Ziggurat is completely right in all of this--regarding the field, the non-formation of black holes, and his caution against giving a pat simple and short answer, because there really isn't one.

We can, however, have a situation in which the "different strength" of gravity not only has a definite sense that depends on velocity, but actually turns out to be connected to relativistic mass. For a confined collection of particles of charges q, we can measure the effective charge per particle via the average force on stationary external test particle (fit to an inverse-square law). It turns out that for gravity, the effective charge measured in this way varies as Q = qγ, where γ is the Lorentz gamma of the particle(s)--this is exactly the relativistic mass. In general, the exponent of γ is s-1, where s is the spin of the force field, so this is not not true for electromagnetism, nor any other spin-1 force.

But this is obviously a somewhat specialized situation. Relying on relativistic mass is, in general, improper (and actually is improper even here, the result being more or less an accident of the spin-2 nature of gravity).

Vorpal:

Thanks!

I was curious too, because I thought the relativistic mass was counted just like regular mass.

Let me ask a slightly different question to see if I was completely out in left field somewhere:

Would there ever be a situation where
(given that all factors are equal except the relative velocities between observer and object) the gravity would be less from a faster-moving object?

Yes: along the direction of motion, the field of a moving object will be decreased from what it would be for Newtonian gravity. The "squish" I refered to earlier increases the field strength to the sides but also decreases the field strength in front and in back.

Interesting, thanks Vorpal and Ziggurat for the correction and info

I suggested a new topic called "Relativity and Gravity". If anyone has a better title, jmercer(or any Mod) can edit it later.

 

[jmercer]

Split by request... new thread link below.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118454

 

[arthwollipot]

The electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces are indeed unified - under conditions of extremely high temperature and pressure. These conditions do not exist now, but they did in the very early universe. There is some indication that at even higher temperature and pressure (and even earlier in the universe's existence) the strong force and gravity may also unify to become one single "superforce" that lasted for the merest tiny fraction of a second before crystallising into the four fundamental forces we know of today.