Gravity Bends spacetime

[IDMclean]

Almost but not quite. All mass is charged. Proton, Neutron, Electron. All of them. In Gravitational distortion net charge is not what we need to look at to discover the degree of distortion. Absolute charge is. The reason for this is that Gravity is attractive, therefore Absolute charge would be the deciding factor.

 

That we use mass or energy as the metric of measurement is merely a convience, as I've tried to show with my weak mathematical skills, mass and energy by their very nature contain charge.

 

The only widely accepted thing that I challenge is weather it is charge contains mass-energy or weather mass-energy contains charge. I assert that it is the former, that mass arises from a non-uniform distribution of Quantum Charge. I refer to Dirac for the details of that for now, until I get a chance to read his work regarding the matter.

 

Perhaps one should look at it in another way. The beinding of spacetime is just another way of saying 'gravity'. Therefore, what you are suggesting is that particles with a charge should cause gravitational attraction. However, one can measure the electric forces and even the gravitational attraction caused by mass between particles. If charge also contributes towards a gravitational force, then it must be so small that it has not yet been measured by any scientific instrumants and the general theory of relativity must be radically altered.

 

Why is it that the phenomena must be seperated in this way? I have been trying to assertain where it is that a mass value arise, though I have not yet been successful in demonstrating the relationship I know to be there.

 

I think that what gravity is, is net attraction of the absolute value of (non-classical, Quantum) charge.

 

This is to say that we don't use the electrical (classical) charge values listed in just about every physics book, as they are inexact, and approximate. They also only show low values, because they are summed up, what I need to show my assertion is the absolute charge of each body, the sum of internal charge without regard to sign.

 

From it I know I could show both Mass and rest Velocity there of a given body as a function related to the distribution of absolute charge. It's indicated in a number of works, including in General and Special Relativity itself.

[sebbysteiny]

Almost but not quite. All mass is charged. Proton, Neutron, Electron. All of them. In Gravitational distortion net charge is not what we need to look at to discover the degree of distortion. Absolute charge is. The reason for this is that Gravity is attractive, therefore Absolute charge would be the deciding factor.

 

That we use mass or energy as the metric of measurement is merely a convience, as I've tried to show with my weak mathematical skills, mass and energy by their very nature contain charge.

 

The only widely accepted thing that I challenge is weather it is charge contains mass-energy or weather mass-energy contains charge. I assert that it is the former, that mass arises from a non-uniform distribution of Quantum Charge. I refer to Dirac for the details of that for now, until I get a chance to read his work regarding the matter.

 

 

 

Why is it that the phenomena must be seperated in this way? I have been trying to assertain where it is that a mass value arise, though I have not yet been successful in demonstrating the relationship I know to be there.

 

I think that what gravity is, is net attraction of the absolute value of (non-classical, Quantum) charge.

 

This is to say that we don't use the electrical (classical) charge values listed in just about every physics book, as they are inexact, and approximate. They also only show low values, because they are summed up, what I need to show my assertion is the absolute charge of each body, the sum of internal charge without regard to sign.

 

From it I know I could show both Mass and rest Velocity there of a given body as a function related to the distribution of absolute charge. It's indicated in a number of works, including in General and Special Relativity itself.

 

If I get what you are saying, all you are saying is that mass is made from a combination of charged particles which may or may not cancil each other out. Thus a proton is a combination of charged particles which average out to have one +ve charge overall.

 

This is a definate alternative to modern particle theory so, for it to be a competing theory it must explain the same evidence.

 

The modern theory is that energy can form particles of only certain types and these types have a mass. There are only a cirtain number of fundamental particles and these are quarks, neutinos, and hadrons (if I remember right). However, some combinations of quarks require more energy than others and each different energy level produces a different particle.

 

However, only certain allowed energies of particles can be formed.

 

For your theory to work it must explain: 1) why all particles in normal situations can only exist with a charge of +/- 1 * electron charge; 2) why only certain energies are permitted in particle physics; 3) what is the most fundamental particle according to your theory; 4) How do those particles combine to form hadrons, neutrinos and quarks / nucleons and no other observed combinations; and 5) why properties such as strangeness and charm are usually conserved.

 

Failure to explain these scientifically observed phenominon should probably cause threads of this type to be moved to 'strange claims'.

[Turtle]

If I get what you are saying, all you are saying is that mass is made from a combination of charged particles which may or may not cancil each other out. Thus a proton is a combination of charged particles which average out to have one +ve charge overall.

 

This is a definate alternative to modern particle theory so, for it to be a competing theory it must explain the same evidence.

 

The modern theory is that energy can form particles of only certain types and these types have a mass. There are only a cirtain number of fundamental particles and these are quarks, neutinos, and hadrons (if I remember right). However, some combinations of quarks require more energy than others and each different energy level produces a different particle.

Making a 'strange claim' is itself not strange, but these strange claims for gravity still lack any experimental evidence. The 'modern theory' is desperately in search of the 'right strange claim' so to speak. I was attracted to this interesting & informative essay from the NY Times that puts things a bit in perspective:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/science/04phys.html

 

...Forget the lifetime tenure, the travel, the six-figure book contracts — what professional physicists live for is the tsunami moment when they know something that nobody else has ever known, the revelatory flash of a new glimpse into the workings of what Stephen Hawking, the Cambridge University cosmologist, called "the Mind of God."

 

Alas, God, as reflected in the known laws of physics, hasn't gotten any smarter since the 1970's. It was then that particle physicists put the finishing touches on the Standard Model, a collection of theories describing all the physical forces except gravity.

:hyper:

[HydrogenBond]

The problem I have with gravity bending space-time and that the orbits of the moon around the earth and the earth around the sun are due to this bending of space-time, is that time references should be different in different locations in the solar system because of the way gravity adds. These are big things in motion and the changes should be more than 1 in a billion.

 

When the moon causes the tides, is the ocean water experiencing a change in space-time? Classical gravity as a force of nature seems better able to explain the tides. If the tide water formed curved waves the space-time warping would be a better explanation.

[Qfwfq]

When the moon causes the tides, is the ocean water experiencing a change in space-time?

The cause of tides (alteration of the geoid) can be explained and calculated according to GR. The manner of doing so is a common exercise in courses.

[InfiniteNow]

When the moon causes the tides, is the ocean water experiencing a change in space-time?

Experience itself is a change in spacetime.

[sebbysteiny]

When the moon causes the tides, is the ocean water experiencing a change in space-time? Classical gravity as a force of nature seems better able to explain the tides. If the tide water formed curved waves the space-time warping would be a better explanation.

 

Perhaps another way of explaining it is that the bending of space time looks very similar to a force. A tide can be looked at as if spacetime is bent so that an object following a geodesic in spacetime appears to be falling towards the centre of the Earth from the point of view of an (accelerating) observer on the Earths surface, but the moon bends spacetime back slightly. The result is that spacetime is slightly less bent during tides and so the accelaration of the water away from the centre of Earth (caused by the force on the Earths surface pushing up) decreases thus decompressing the sea and raising the observed waterlevel.

 

However it might be simpler to just say (as Newton would) that the gravitational force decreases in a tide decompressing the sea and raising the water level. Thus, with general relativity, you get to say simple things in a very complicated way. Isn't it fun?

[InfiniteNow]

Simplicity does not imply accuracy. As has been repeatedly demonstrated through scientific experiment, thousands of texts, and even on this site, classical laws work well in many average everyday conditions, however, it simply is not as accurate at GR in describing how things work. Further, reinforcing Einstein's point about relativity, complicated for one is simple for another...

 

Now, I do not argue that GR is the end all/be all of theories, but I would go toe to toe with you any day in that it more accurately describes our universe than classical/Newtonian concepts.

[HydrogenBond]

They both say the same thing, with GR taking making things a little more flexible but not necessarily more practical.

 

Another thing that puzzles me about gravity and curving space-time is if we use special relativity, with velocity also changing space and time, does gravity increase with velocity?

[InfiniteNow]

Another thing that puzzles me about gravity and curving space-time is if we use special relativity, with velocity also changing space and time, does gravity increase with velocity?

I'm confused a little by your terms, however, gravity is indistinguishable from uniform accleration... what some might call "velocity."

 

 

Cheers. :)

[sebbysteiny]

They both say the same thing, with GR taking making things a little more flexible but not necessarily more practical.

 

Sort of. In a practical sense, with today's technology you are probably right. Newtons laws are sufficient to, for example, reach the moon. However, it cannot explain light bending nor does it correctly calculate the perihillion of mercury and in the future, technology may develop giving GR a practical use also.

 

But Newton was wrong. The force of gravity is an illusion caused by the geometry of the Universe. It is a phantom force, if you like.

 

Another thing that puzzles me about gravity and curving space-time is if we use special relativity, with velocity also changing space and time, does gravity increase with velocity?

 

When an object travels at a [fast] velocity, space shrinks and time slows. However space and time do not get distorted. On the contrary, it is because there is no distortion for a constant velocity at constant speed that Einstein concluded that gravity cannot exists in a flat Universe, which led him to conclude mass must curve the universe. Otherwise special relativity breaks down in a gravitational field.

[HydrogenBond]

If that is true than relativistic mass is not mass connected to gravity.

 

Let me change the scenario a little bit. If 1kg of mass was moving at relativistic speed in a large ellipse , at constant velocity, would this cause gravity to appear? In this case, space-time would be distorted in the ellipical zone relative to the space around it. The electron does this around the nucleus of an atom traveling about 1/135th C.

[sebbysteiny]

The electron does this around the nucleus of an atom traveling about 1/135th C.

 

Not quite true. An electron does not 'travel' around the atom: it is infact a stationary wave whose energy state would give it a velocity of approximately 1/135th C if E = 1/2 m v^2. It is nevertheless quit still (see other threads).

 

If that is true than relativistic mass is not mass connected to gravity.

 

I'm not sure if the relativistic mass increase makes a contribution to spacetime distortion (ie increases the 'gravitational attraction' of the object).

 

If I had to guess, I would say it does. Mass increases as rest mass * gamma increases. I don't remember anything in special relativity that suggested this mass excluded gravitational effects. After all, mass is just stored energy. Therefore, I would say increasing the velocity of a particle does increase the spacetime distortion caused by that object. However, the object is now moving very quickly so it is not immediately obvious how this extra gravity (which travels at c) will effect surrounding objects.

[Qfwfq]

Not quite true. An electron does not 'travel' around the atom: it is infact a stationary wave whose energy state would give it a velocity of approximately 1/135th C if E = 1/2 m v^2. It is nevertheless quit still (see other threads).

Actually it's more complicated than that.

 

The energy eigenstate is a steady state, but this isn't equivalent to saying that the particle is still. In a Coulomb potential, the expectation value of its velocity in modulus is less than what you say, because the energy isn't all kinetic, but it certainly isn't zero. To say that the particle is still wouldn't make sense.

 

I'm not sure if the relativistic mass increase makes a contribution to spacetime distortion (ie increases the 'gravitational attraction' of the object).

I'm quite sure that the mass doesn't increase, what does is the total energy.

[Meanderer]

Would it be possible to say, an electron is in a constant state of flux proportional to influences impinging upon its energy state positioned as a stationary wave about an atom?

[UncleAl]

We have tried to understand gravity, by seeing what Newton saw he would have said it was two masses repelling oneanother for what I understand.

That is an obscenely ignorant misstatement. it is perfectly wrong. Newton, Isaac The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy Trans. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, with the assistance of Julia Budenz (University of California Press: Berkeley, 1999). Read it, don't

 

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/analysis.jpg

 

Einstein said that space and time were curved

NO. Read it, git,

 

Annalen der Physik 4 XLIX 769-822 (1916)

 

Spacetime curvature is an artifact of the math of metric gravitation. One can indistinguishably have spacetime torsion (like electromagnetic Lorentz force) in teleparallel gravitation.

 

Your spew is empirically hopeless. It is a bored kid sketching fighter jets in his looseleaf. Neither one will fly.

[pgrmdave]

Unc, watch it. There's a difference between informing and insulting.