The Missing Chapter Of General Relativity?

WhatRoughBeast said:
Umm. DD. So what part of post #169, where Ziggurat says

did you miss?

You've been arguing for days now that gravitational fields don't cancel, and for days now you've been told that potential doesn't cancel, but fields do.

Are you truly not paying attention? Do you think the rest of us will take your assertions over the evidence of our own eyes?
Click to expand...

Potential is a mathematical construct, if I am wrong feel free to correct me.

A gravitational field does not have a vector, like a charged particle.

An Atomic clock is not affected by a mathematical construct, it is by gravity.

If a gravitational field has no vectors, it cannot cancel. It may have slope or be flat. An that is how it can generate force.
 
DeathDart said:
A gravitational field does not have a vector, like a charged particle.
Click to expand...

Really? That's quite astonishing. I hadn't realised. Thanks for the education.

Ummm. But if I might ask one more question: so how does a gravitationally accelerated particle know which direction to accelerate? Without a direction component of the gravitational field to direct it, does it just pick a random direction?

Or does a gravitational field have a direction but no magnitude? As in an affected particle only seems to accelerate?

And if a gravitational field has both a magnitude and a direction, why isn't it a vector?

Just curious, y'know.
 
DeathDart said:
Potential is a mathematical construct, if I am wrong feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...

It's no more of a mathematical construct than the field itself is. So... you're wrong.

A gravitational field does not have a vector, like a charged particle.
Click to expand...

Um... what?

A gravitational field is a field of vectors. One can associate a vector which a charged particle (it it's got momentum, or if you look at the field produced by the charged particle), but it's meaningless to say that a charged particle HAS a vector.

An Atomic clock is not affected by a mathematical construct, it is by gravity.
Click to expand...

It's affected by the gravitational potential.

If a gravitational field has no vectors, it cannot cancel.
Click to expand...

And if it does, it can.

It does, therefore it can.
 
DeathDart said:
A gravitational field does not have a vector, like a charged particle.
Click to expand...

Several times I've made the mistake of assuming that you must be thinking of something a little more intelligent than what you actually said or asked. But in all cases, it turned out not - and I learn from my mistakes, unlike some.

For instance, in this case you might have been asking what the analog of the gravitational field is in general relativity. There's an answer - but your assertion quoted above is just as nonsensical in GR as it is in Newtonian gravity (actually, slightly more).

If a gravitational field has no vectors, it cannot cancel. It may have slope or be flat. An that is how it can generate force.
Click to expand...

So.... why does it cancel? Doesn't that bother you a little? Or do you still persist in the silly delusion that every textbook, web resource, and knowledgeable person in this thread is wrong?
 
Last edited:
DeathDart - I'm disturbed by your peculiar distinction of things into mathematical abstractions (e.g. fields) and other, appearently more-real-to-you things (e.g. gravity).

Reality is.

All of our attempts to model reality involve abstraction, much of which (and the best of which) is mathematical abstraction.

Mathematics provides us with the clarity, conciseness, and lack of ambiguity we need to best model reality. We use formulae to model gravity and other aspects of reality. Our knowledge is incomplete but grows incrementally, often driven by the work of some great minds.

DeathDart - you are not the next great mind who will usher in a new paradigm in physics.

You can't be bothered to learn the basics of the field and are unwilling to take any advice from people who are proficient in the field.

Continue posting as you have been, and you will lose the last remnants of respect that the non-woo on this board have for you.

Change your ways, and show that you are earnest in learning what you are able to learn of physics or other subjects, and you can earn back some respect over time (and learn something).
 
Last edited:
Vorpal said:
Sure. For example, Gauss's law shows that charges are sources or sinks of the electric field (depending on sign). This remains true in situations where all charges are of the same sign.
The electric potential itself is not conserved

Unless by 'is not conserved', you meant 'is not conservative', in which case being conservative is by its very definition the same as having a potential. (The electric field does in the case of static magnetic fields.)
Click to expand...

I'm glad that Vorpal mentioned Guass's Law, because I was just going to point out that Guass's Law can be applied to gravitational fields and thus show quite clearly where DD is going wrong in many places.

DD, in case you're interested, see this link. More specifically, here is more information on gravity as related to empty shells.
 
sol invictus said:
Several times I've made the mistake of assuming that you must be thinking of something a little more intelligent than what you actually said or asked. But in all cases, it turned out not - and I learn from my mistakes, unlike some.

For instance, in this case you might have been asking what the analog of the gravitational field is in general relativity. There's an answer - but your assertion quoted above is just as nonsensical in GR as it is in Newtonian gravity (actually, slightly more).



So.... why does it cancel? Doesn't that bother you a little? Or do you still persist in the silly delusion that every textbook, web resource, and knowledgeable person in this thread is wrong?
Click to expand...

Maybe I am just thick, or their is something about our viewpoints that just don't have common points of reference.

Does a clock run slower in the middle of a hollow shell than it would if it was hundreds of diameters away from outside of the shell ?

I say it runs slower. Do you agree that it is running slower Yes or No?

If we agree it is running slower then we disagree on how to describe the mechanism or the mathematics. If you say the clock is unaffected, then there is a deeper issue.

When I say conservative I am referring to the fact that Gravity always appears to attract matter. Is there some distance where gravity repels matter. Locally it attracts matter, if at some distance it would begin to repel matter, gravity would then be conservative as far as the universe is concerned. It sums to zero. It's not practical, more of a Gedanken experiment.

Unless you are philosophically opposed to Gedanken experiments?
 
Time and mass are intertwined.

When time slows down, mass increases.

When time speeds up, mass decreases.

Currently time only has a span of 1 to zero.

Currently mass has a span of 1 to infinity.

Does it seem like some something is missing here?

Mass and time are intertwined, while mass can approach infinity, time can only go as fast as 1.

What stops time from going to infinity?
 
DeathDart said:
Maybe I am just thick, or their is something about our viewpoints that just don't have common points of reference.

Does a clock run slower in the middle of a hollow shell than it would if it was hundreds of diameters away from outside of the shell ?

I say it runs slower. Do you agree that it is running slower Yes or No?
Click to expand...

Yes. The fact that clocks run slow inside the shell relative to outside is required by the fact that the field outside is non-zero (and radial).

But clocks all run at a rate that is independent of where they are inside the shell. The gravitational field inside the shell is exactly zero - which means that an object placed inside the shell will not move and will not experience any tidal stresses. That's because inside the shell, the field due to each part of the shell - which is non-zero - cancels exactly against the field due to the other parts. (Outside the shell it doesn't cancel.)
 
DeathDart said:
Time and mass are intertwined.

When time slows down, mass increases.

When time speeds up, mass decreases.

Currently time only has a span of 1 to zero.

Currently mass has a span of 1 to infinity.

Does it seem like some something is missing here?

Mass and time are intertwined, while mass can approach infinity, time can only go as fast as 1.

What stops time from going to infinity?
Click to expand...

Think about the shell of mass example, DD. Clocks outside run fast compared to clocks inside, true. The biggest difference is between a clock at infinity and a clock anywhere inside - but that difference is still finite, because the escape velocity from the surface of the shell is finite (it takes finite energy to escape from the shell to infinity, therefore by conservation of energy the redshift must be finite). Let's call the rate of the clock at infinity "1" (or 10, or .01, it doesn't matter - that's just units, whether you use seconds or hours or whatever - so call it 1).

Now imagine taking the mass density of the shell to be smaller and smaller. The difference between the outside clock rate and the inside clock rate must get smaller - right? So... when the mass density gets to zero, all clocks are running at the same rate - which is 1.
 
Running the curves for M33 with Miyamoto's program. I correct time for areas of weak gravitational field strength,

by applying the time correction to the mass (or g) ,
(1+((G/2)/g))*g=g_corrected

The factor G/2 works in this example. G=Gravitational constant.
This makes gravity appear higher, and the velocities are very close.

Miyamoto's program is by their description robust. I can't get a complete match because the M33 curve has at least 2 points of instability. One is at about 5 kpc and the other is at about 9 kpc. I think that these are where the "Density Waves" are in the spiral velocity curve.

As the bar in the center of the galaxy turns, the ends have slightly higher gravity than the middle. The velocity correction is extremely sensitive and as the bar turns it pulls in the arms. So a little change in gravitational pull will cause the spiral arms to move in.

As the end of the bar passes, the spiral arms are free to swing back out.

I am not sure if this uses up energy. This could be equivalent to a cam with a spring loaded follower. When the cam highpoint is moving toward the follower, it is transferring energy to the spring. As the cam highpoint passes the follower, the spring transfers the energy back to the cam.
 
The numbers for M33 they are close, but I can't get dead on. Problems with this little information and the instabilities.
(1+((G/2)/g))*g=g_corrected

The factor G/2 works in this example. G=Gravitational constant.


Radius kpc| Measured Velocity |Calculated Velocity
.40|37000|32197
.80|55000 |54271
1.2|66000|70683
1.6|80000|81833
2.00|85000|88984
2.4|90000|93452
2.8|94000|96248
3.6|100000|99573
4.4|10400|101115
5.6|106000|103566
6.8|110000|106432
8.0|116000 |109759
9.2|119000 |113424
10.4|118000 |117303
11.6|120000 |121302
13.0|1240000 |126034
14.2|131000 |130098
15.4|136000 |134142
 
Vorpal said:
A reciprocal and familiarity with basic physics?
Click to expand...

Uh, Yeah I think I am familiar with the reciprocal.


Miyamoto's paper on modeling galaxies. I used equation A1 on page 541.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1975PASJ...27..533M

I expanded it to 4 segments, that didn't help it a lot.
kpc= 3.08609e19
Sol=1.989e30

M1=7.7e9*Sol | a1=0.0*kpc | b1=2.0*kpc
M2=2.1e8*Sol | a2=3.2*kpc | b2=7.0*kpc
M3=1e7*Sol | a3=8.8*kpc | b3=9.2*kpc
M4=3e7*Sol | a4=9.2*kpc | b4=10.8*kpc
 
rwguinn said:
Velocity is a vector. Thus, it has a sign.
Speed is a scalar.
whattinhell are you trying to "prove" here?
Click to expand...

It is not a proof, it is just a suggestion.

I suggest that in pure empty space, the flow of time is infinite.

I also suggest that the origin of time is in space, Time Space, not matter.

We live is space that is right around a One, as far as time flow.

Gravity and Matter slow down time.

In region of space with a gravitational field strength of approximately G/2 3.337E-11, I suggest that the flow of time would be 2. An inertial mass of 1kg becomes an inertial mass of .5Kg.

Any velocity that the mass had, when it entered 2X space, has now increased by SQRT(2).

I also suggest that the reason that Supernova Remnants have a delayed afterglow, is that the Supernova Isotopes have spent many years getting to faster time space, and have finally arrived.

The faster flow of time is causing an energy rise, because the half-life of the isotopes is decreasing rapidly, as they move into space with a faster flow of time.

This would give G.R. symmetry, and may also correlate with the higher velocities observed in galactic velocity curves.

The previous calculation compensated for and (in this instance) correctly predicts the velocity. Because of the need for Dark Matter, the Wikipedia lists M33 mass as approximately 5 * 10^10 Sol. I matched the velocities with 7.95 10^9 Sol of mass.

I suggest that General Relativity made an assumption that the flow of time could never exceed ONE.

I suggest vacating this assumption, and giving empty space an infinite time flow. I believe that this will correct many of the problems between observation and theory.
 
sol invictus said:
Think about the shell of mass example, DD. Clocks outside run fast compared to clocks inside, true. The biggest difference is between a clock at infinity and a clock anywhere inside - but that difference is still finite, because the escape velocity from the surface of the shell is finite (it takes finite energy to escape from the shell to infinity, therefore by conservation of energy the redshift must be finite). Let's call the rate of the clock at infinity "1" (or 10, or .01, it doesn't matter - that's just units, whether you use seconds or hours or whatever - so call it 1).

Now imagine taking the mass density of the shell to be smaller and smaller. The difference between the outside clock rate and the inside clock rate must get smaller - right? So... when the mass density gets to zero, all clocks are running at the same rate - which is 1.
Click to expand...

We agree on the result, we just took different paths getting there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom