 |
Earth Sciences Forum
This site is dedicated to the Earth Sciences. We are here for you to discuss issues regarding any aspect of the Earth sciences, at all levels of knowledge. Questions are welcomed, as are open scientific debates. Enjoy!!!
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
scpg02
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 221
Location: Sacramento
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject: RETHINKING RELATIVITY |
 |
|
RETHINKING RELATIVITY
BY TOM BETHEL
| Quote: | No one has paid attention yet, but a well-respected physics journal just published an article whose conclusion, if generally accepted, will undermine the foundations of modern physics -- Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in particular. Published in Physics Letters A (December 21, 1998), the article claims that the speed with which the force of gravity propagates must be at least twenty billion times faster than the speed of light. This would contradict the Special Theory of Relativity of 1905, which asserts that nothing can go faster than light. This claim about the special status of the speed of light has become part of the world view of educated laymen in the twentieth century.
NOTE:
Tom Van Flandern’s article, titled “The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say,” is provided as a Web Page on this Website.
Special Relativity, as opposed to the General Theory (1916), is considered by experts to be above criticism, because it has been confirmed “over and over again.” But several dissident physicists believe that there is a simpler way of looking at the facts, a way that avoids the mind-bending complications of Relativity. Their arguments can be understood by laymen. I wrote about one of these dissidents, Peter Beckmann, over five years ago (TAS, August 1993, and Correspondence, TAS, October 1993). The present article introduces new people and arguments. The subject is important because if Special Relativity is supplanted, much of twentieth-century physics, including quantum theory, will have to be reconsidered in that light. |
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm
_________________
 Corner Cafe
for relaxing adult conversation |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
billiards
Site Admin
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 81
Location: London, UK
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Very provocative. Am I being lazy? But I don't have the time to read the entire article, perhaps this would be a more intriguing thread if you could pull out the salient information? Perhaps I am being lazy, this really does interest me, but I need a good argument presented forth, which tears at the heart of Einstein's theory (which I believe has been confirmed to be a SUPERB theory beyond even Euclidean geometry in its accuracy of the description of physical space), beofre I can even take this thread seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baywax
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 113
Location: Pacific West Coast
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not convinced. But that's because I've never heard of the "speed with which the force of gravity propagates".
That would be like saying "the speed of a hole in the ground" coaxes things to fall into it. Gravity, as far as I know, isn't a force, its potential energy. The same way a hill is potential energy for a bicycle.
_________________
Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory. Leonardo Da Vinci
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
W.C. Fields |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scpg02
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 221
Location: Sacramento
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Baywax wrote: | I'm not convinced. But that's because I've never heard of the "speed with which the force of gravity propagates".
That would be like saying "the speed of a hole in the ground" coaxes things to fall into it. Gravity, as far as I know, isn't a force, its potential energy. The same way a hill is potential energy for a bicycle. |
No, it's a force and considered a weak one at that. There are even some theories that it is actually leaking in from another universe. That's part of M theory.
Gravitation
| Quote: | In scientific usage gravitation and gravity are distinct. "Gravitation" is the attractive influence that all objects exert on each other, while "gravity" specifically refers to a force which all massive objects (objects with mass) are theorized to exert on each other to cause gravitation. Although these terms are interchangeable in everyday use, in theories other than Newton's, gravitation is caused by factors other than gravity. For example in general relativity, gravitation is due to spacetime curvatures which causes inertially moving objects to tend to accelerate towards each other. Another (discredited) example is Le Sage's theory of gravitation, in which massive objects are effectively pushed towards each other.
~snip~
Gravity and quantum mechanics
Main articles: Graviton and Quantum gravity
Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it (general relativity) cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics.[11] Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons.[12][13] This reproduces general relativity in the classical limit. However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length,[14] where a more complete theory of quantum gravity is required. Many believe the complete theory to be string theory.[15] |
_________________
Corner Cafe
for relaxing adult conversation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baywax
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 113
Location: Pacific West Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's the hypothesis. It appears to have come from someone named Dvali...
| Quote: | Dvali would modify the theory of gravity so that the universe becomes self-accelerating, eliminating the need for dark energy. He presented his work here earlier this month at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Dvali borrows from string theory, which states that there are extra, hidden dimensions beyond the four we are familiar with: three directions and time. String theory suggests that gravitons -- hypothetical elementary particles transmitting gravitational forces -- can escape to other dimensions. Dvali says this would cause "leaks" in gravity over cosmic proportions, reducing gravitational pull at larger distances more than expected.
"The gravitons behave like sound in a metal sheet," says Dvali. "Hitting the sheet with a hammer creates a sound wave that travels along its surface. But the sound propagation is not exactly two-dimensional as part of the energy is lost into the surrounding air. Near the hammer, the loss of energy is small, but further away, it's more significant."
The effect is to alter the space-time continuum, speeding up universal expansion.
"Virtual gravitons exploit every possible route between the objects," Dvali said, "and the leakage opens up a huge number of multi-dimensional detours, which brings about a change in the law of gravity."
The speeding up of the universe suggest that Einstein’s laws of General Relativity, describing the interaction of space and matter, must be modified at large cosmic distances.
"It is this modification, and not dark energy, that is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe," Dvali concludes.
The idea might be testable.
Gravity leakage should create minor deviations in the motion of planets and moons. Astronauts on the Apollo 11 mission installed mirrors on the lunar surface. By shooting lasers at the mirrors, a reflected beam can be monitored from Earth to measure tiny orbital fluctuations. Dvali said deviations in the Moon's path around Earth might reveal whether gravity is really leaking away. |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1353071/posts
Everyone seems to have an hypothesis concerning gravity.
The "graviton" is a hypothetical designation used in the same way the "photon" is used to hypothetically measure light. Its a hypothetical increment. You don't see increments in nature. They only come from the minds of physicists and the like!!! For instance, when's the last time you came across a longitude or latitude demarkation while hiking the great divide?!
I have my own hypothesis about gravity that involves the initial stages of the universe, just after the big bang. The radiation that we now call "background radiation" began to condense. The collisions between photons or "protophotons" began to form matter. Matter represents condensed radiation which means there are areas around the matter that are missing background radiation. Where there are these "holes" in the radiation, there is a tendancy for other matter and "modern" photons to "fall" toward the condensed radiation (which has a mass because its become matter).
How this explains black holes is something you'll have to get back to me on!!!
Scarey halloween!
_________________
Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory. Leonardo Da Vinci
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
W.C. Fields |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scpg02
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 221
Location: Sacramento
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Great post. Your link was to FreeRepublic. I used to post there under the handle farmfriend. I was banned a couple of years ago.
_________________
Corner Cafe
for relaxing adult conversation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Baywax
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Posts: 113
Location: Pacific West Coast
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scpg02 wrote: | Great post. Your link was to FreeRepublic. I used to post there under the handle farmfriend. I was banned a couple of years ago.
|
Sorry to hear that scpg02.
I'm also sorry I posted my totally spontanieous version of my gravity hypothesis. It doesn't take into account the fact that large bodies attract large bodies yet they don't actually come into contact with one another..
I tried to tell myself that it was because of the electromagnetic field going on around the large bodies... basically pushing away while "gravity' provides the "falling".
But, you can see that Mars is proported to be without an em field yet still sports 2 moons that have not shown any signs of falling into the what I call the "lack of radiation" created by its condensation that is now Mars.
I think a few beers will help anyone understand my non-reasoning about this!
Cheers.
_________________
Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory. Leonardo Da Vinci
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
W.C. Fields |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
