It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

page: 107
61
share:

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 03:52 PM

@ dragonridr

Nice explanation - better than mine.

edit on 7-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 04:00 PM

But when the ball is being thrown harder and harder (the idea of approaching escape velocity) it is like punching harder and harder through a wall made of marbles;

Imagine if some how there could be a wall of marbles that was 10 feet deep, and there was a 2 foot diameter hole level with your face, the hole would be in plexi glass which would keep the marbles at bay, in reality the marbles would pour through this hole but lets imagine they dont;

You punch the hole very softly and your hand hardly gets through;

You punch the hole harder and it goes deeper;

More force to get further from the hole.

So it is similar, keep in mind the example of the sphere I was using, the sphere has no motion, absolute stillness!

So imagine the gravity medium with no sphere, just a robot in space amongst the gravity medium, it can throw a ball, and it 'passes right through the wall no problem';

But now the robot is on a sphere;

The gravity medium material that existed where the sphere now exists (concept of displacement, put sphere in a water, there is no longer water where the sphere takes up, it displaces the medium) is pushed up onto the surface of the sphere;

The robot tries to throw the ball away from the sphere it is on;

The ball hits all this pushed up, densified gravity medium material, and cannot penetrate it;

Considering the sphere now moving through this medium;

Considering if the sphere rotating causes the material of the medium to rotate with it;

Therefore it is easily seen that the graviton cannot possibly be massless;

Because if it was massless, how would the ball not pass right through it every time?

How can something without mass have force? (well dont answer that, because I get it, but I dont get this);

How can the stationary sphere, displace the gravity medium material, and it therefore stays in place as the wall that cannot be penetrated surrounding the sphere;

How can the wall exist as a stable object, and be massless, if the sphere is making this compressed gravity material wall, how can that wall exist there and be massless?

Considering that gravitons have mass, and have a binding energy, and potentially differing areas can cause interferences may unlock one to comprehending what dark matter might be; dark energy might be these principals, considered from the vantage point of outside of the boundaries of galaxies, galaxies which are a massive gravity well, masses creating gravity wells in masses gravity wells that are created by massive masses, which all exist in the galaxies most massive gravity well created in the center, the equal and opposite reaction of this twisting, growing mass gravity well, might be dark energy which apparently pushes the galaxies apart as the galaxy itself is continually pulled into itself

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 04:12 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

What we don't know, as dragonridr correctly said, is why these geodesics form in the vicinity of mass. You can ask 100 more times and we can say "we don't know" 100 more times but I don't see how that will result in any advancement of knowledge for anybody. It's an unanswered question. There could be an answer in something like string theory, but we still seem to be quite a ways from proving that.

Yes we do know, its obvious, its just that the most fundamental mechanics of how the gravity medium is attached to itself is mysterious to me, how dense it is on average, if its particles can trade places with one another, if its particles can be transformed into others, how intimately light interacts with the particles themselves, maybe etcs.

We do know because;

Imagine a cube fish tank the size of a small bathroom;

Imagine it full of water;

Imagine magically a basketball appeared directly in the center;

And imagine that if the fish tank was sealed tight, that the walls of the fish tank could not burst;

Would there be a difference in the water density at the surface of the basketball as compared incrementally to the square of the distance from the basketball?

Regardless, the question is born, and this is a major question I was getting at;

Imagine the fish tank was not full of water, but that if objects were place in it, there would be no worry of the walls bursting;

imagine a basketball (that magically neither sunk nor floated to the top, but remained in the middle of the tank) appeared in the middle of the tank;

Wouldnt the water that priorly existed where the basketball now exists be displaced, and instead of the density being very strong at the surface of the basketball, and then diminishing its density at the square of the distance;

Wouldnt, the density even out? Or no!!! Because pressure!!!

The mass of the totality of the medium, is more forceful than the mass of the basketball!

but meh... this is still meh...

Because the basketball displaces the medium, and the medium that is displaced pools up (denses up, tenses up) at the surface of the basketball, and its not that the 'weight' of the medium surrounding the basketball and this pooling at the surface, keeps the pooling at the surface there is it?

This is where we begin to see how the fact that all the mass we know of is moving in different ways may effect our comprehension of the phenomenon of gravity maybe even mass itself maybe even other aspects of physics but lets stick to this for now;

I am on the right track, Yes!

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 04:28 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Wouldnt, the density even out? Or no!!! Because pressure!!!
The density of the water would tend to even out. It's not very compressible. You would have a pressure gradient from the top of the fish tank to the bottom of the fish tank. With Earth's gravity that's about 1 atmosphere for every 10 meters of depth, so for a shallow fish tank you'd have a fraction of that. I don't see how you'd get a pressure gradient near the basketball so....

I am on the right track, Yes!
No, I don't think so.

edit on 7-5-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 04:42 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Wouldnt, the density even out? Or no!!! Because pressure!!!
The density of the water would tend to even out. It's not very compressible. You would have a pressure gradient from the top of the fish tank to the bottom of the fish tank. With Earth's gravity that's about 1 atmosphere for every 10 meters of depth, so for a shallow fish tank you'd have a fraction of that. I don't see how you'd get a pressure gradient near the basketball so....

I am on the right track, Yes!
No, I don't think so.

I was not imagining the fish tank being on earth;

The analogy is attempt to point to the principle of Mass, in mass warp-able medium, and how the mass warp-able medium is warped;

The water equals a representation of the material gravity medium;

The basketball equals a sphere like solid surface mass;

The fish tank equals the universe;

Do you need to read what I wrote again now that you should understand what I was getting at better, because here you show that you have missed the point

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 04:47 PM

If it's not on Earth the only difference is you won't have the pressure gradient from top to bottom. The density of the water will tend to even out even more if your fish tank is away from a strong gravitational field. Your example is nothing like gravity.

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 04:54 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

If it's not on Earth the only difference is you won't have the pressure gradient from top to bottom. The density of the water will tend to even out even more if your fish tank is away from a strong gravitational field. Your example is nothing like gravity.

I am considering the fundamental nature of the concepts.

The fundamental nature of the concept of a massive body.

The fundamental nature of the concept of material gravity medium (which is a massive amount of (thought to be tiny in size and mass) massive bodies).

I am speaking about the universe as a whole.

Mass.

Gravity medium.

I am not speaking about a small condition of exiting amongst and amidst many differing masses in differing warped space.

I am speaking about the most fundamental comprehension of the raw necessities of these essences.

The purest comprehension of a massive body,

In, the purest comprehension of the material gravity medium;

How do these fundamental aspects of nature, most intimately and accurately physical interact with one another;

That is what I am getting at;

When I say imagine a massive sphere,

And when I say imagine the material gravity medium,

I am saying ignore every other mass and warping and matter and energy of the universe;

I am saying just imagine the purest nature of singular massive body,

Amidst, the purest nature of area of material gravity medium;

In analogy, I represented these as a basketball in water,

To attempt to depict, as a starting point, how we may work towards comprehending how these differing material circumstances interact with one another, to produce the phenomenon we are familiar with;

What might we have to tweak about the analogy, as a starting point, to get closer to an end point, of most purely comprehending these fundamental natures

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 05:03 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

If it's not on Earth the only difference is you won't have the pressure gradient from top to bottom. The density of the water will tend to even out even more if your fish tank is away from a strong gravitational field. Your example is nothing like gravity.

You understood that convoluted mess?? I read it 3 times and still couldn't decode that. Swear it's encrypted.

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 05:32 PM

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

If it's not on Earth the only difference is you won't have the pressure gradient from top to bottom. The density of the water will tend to even out even more if your fish tank is away from a strong gravitational field. Your example is nothing like gravity.

You understood that convoluted mess?? I read it 3 times and still couldn't decode that. Swear it's encrypted.

Quote a few lines at a time in order, and I will further clarify what you dont understand. Dont quote the whole thing at once, go line by line, and quote one line at a time or a few in order at a time.

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 06:14 PM

Considering that gravitons have mass, and have a binding energy, and potentially differing areas can cause interferences may unlock one to comprehending what dark matter might be;

Gravitons have not been proven to exist. And if they do exist, they probably do not have mass.

And I know I keep repeating myself, but designing an experiment i.e. stating your hypothesis even if you don't have observational evidence, designing an experiment even if it's just a thought experiment and then drawing some conclusions from possible results has to be done to even get to first base with this type of question. Maybe it's old school, but I still believe you have to start with the fundamentals, show the anomalies and then propose experiments to analyze the anomalies. You've jumped from little creatures throwing a ball on an isolated planet to gravitons that may or may not exist to dark matter with nothing in between. It's illogical. Good science isn't done that way even if it's only a thought experiment.

"General relativity also gives us some insight into the nature of gravitons. In general relativity, the distribution of mass and energy in the universe is described by a four-by-four matrix that mathematicians call a tensor of rank two. This is important because if the tensor is the source of gravitation, you can show that the graviton must be a particle with a quantum mechanical spin of two. Another nice fallout of this correspondence is that the graviton is the only possible massless, spin two particle. If you observe a massless, spin two particle, you have found the graviton.

So why hasn’t anyone found a graviton yet? The problem with searching for gravitons is that gravity is incredibly weak. For instance, the electromagnetic force between an electron and a proton in a hydrogen atom is 1039 times larger than the gravitational force between the same two particles. Perhaps a more intuitive example is the behavior of a magnet and a paperclip. A magnet will hold a paperclip against the Earth’s gravity. Think about what that means. A little magnet, like the one that held your art to your parent’s refrigerator when you were a kid, pulls the paperclip upwards, while the gravity of an entire planet pulls downward, and the magnet wins.

Individual gravitons interact very feebly, and we are only held to the planet because the Earth emits so many of them. Because a single graviton is so weak, it is impossible for us to directly detect individual classical gravitons."

www.pbs.org...
edit on 7-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 06:33 PM

This article from CERN is a perfect example of how experimental proposals are suggested to solve a complex question. You really need to do the same thing.

Extra dimensions, gravitons, and tiny black holes

Extra dimensions may sound like science fiction, but they could explain why gravity is so weak

Why is gravity so much weaker than the other fundamental forces? A small fridge magnet is enough to create an electromagnetic force greater than the gravitational pull exerted by planet Earth. One possibility is that we don’t feel the full effect of gravity because part of it spreads to extra dimensions. Though it may sound like science fiction, if extra dimensions exist, they could explain why the universe is expanding faster than expected, and why gravity is weaker than the other forces of nature.

A question of scale

In our everyday lives, we experience three spatial dimensions, and a fourth dimension of time. How could there be more? Einstein’s general theory of relativity tells us that space can expand, contract, and bend. Now if one dimension were to contract to a size smaller than an atom, it would be hidden from our view. But if we could look on a small enough scale, that hidden dimension might become visible again. Imagine a person walking on a tightrope. She can only move backward and forward; but not left and right, nor up and down, so she only sees one dimension. Ants living on a much smaller scale could move around the cable, in what would appear like an extra dimension to the tightrope-walker.

How could we test for extra dimensions? One option would be to find evidence of particles that can exist only if extra dimensions are real. Theories that suggest extra dimensions predict that, in the same way as atoms have a low-energy ground state and excited high-energy states, there would be heavier versions of standard particles in other dimensions. These heavier versions of particles – called Kaluza-Klein states – would have exactly the same properties as standard particles (and so be visible to our detectors) but with a greater mass. If CMS or ATLAS were to find a Z- or W-like particle (the Z and W bosons being carriers of the electroweak force) with a mass 100 times larger for instance, this might suggest the presence of extra dimensions. Such heavy particles can only be revealed at the high energies reached by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

A little piece of gravity?

Some theorists suggest that a particle called the “graviton” is associated with gravity in the same way as the photon is associated with the electromagnetic force. If gravitons exist, it should be possible to create them at the LHC, but they would rapidly disappear into extra dimensions. Collisions in particle accelerators always create balanced events – just like fireworks – with particles flying out in all directions. A graviton might escape our detectors, leaving an empty zone that we notice as an imbalance in momentum and energy in the event. We would need to carefully study the properties of the missing object to work out whether it is a graviton escaping to another dimension or something else. This method of searching for missing energy in events is also used to look for dark matter or supersymmetric particles.

Microscopic black holes

Another way of revealing extra dimensions would be through the production of “microscopic black holes”. What exactly we would detect would depend on the number of extra dimensions, the mass of the black hole, the size of the dimensions and the energy at which the black hole occurs. If micro black holes do appear in the collisions created by the LHC, they would disintegrate rapidly, in around 10-27 seconds. They would decay into Standard Model or supersymmetric particles, creating events containing an exceptional number of tracks in our detectors, which we would easily spot. Finding more on any of these subjects would open the door to yet unknown possibilities.

home.web.cern.ch...

edit on 7-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 7 2015 @ 10:23 PM

originally posted by: dragonridr
You understood that convoluted mess?? I read it 3 times and still couldn't decode that. Swear it's encrypted.
Here's the translated readers digest version:

Q: How does gravity work?
A: See Newton's explanation, or Einstein's for more complexity and accuracy.
Q: Why does it do that though? (x9)
A: We don't know exactly (x9)
Q: Maybe we do know. Maybe if we put a basketball in a fish tank we can understand how gravity works?
A: That doesn't seem very much like gravity.
Q: I mean put the fish tank in space, not on Earth?
A: That still doesn't seem very much like gravity nor even an analogy of gravity.

How did I do on my reader's digest translation?

Thanks for the post. I think it would be great if you can convince imafungi to ask more structured questions (more concise, with less rambling stream of consciousness would be nice too).

Please use EX-tags on material quoted from external sources to make it easier to tell what you wrote and what is copied from your external source. You can use the cloud icon above the reply field or type them in manually.

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:44 PM

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Phantom423

Quantum Entanglement Experiment Proves 'Non-Locality' For First Time, Will Permit Multi-Party Quantum Communication

March 28th, 2014 by Michael Ricciardi

planetsave.com...

All quantum entanglement can mean is that a fundamental field exists that propagates its force carrier faster than the fundamental field of EM propagates it?

Or that the universe is not real.

Or, as is actually the fact, the laws of physics are not simply differential operators on classical fields in x,y,z,t.

The mystery is the evolution of the wave function in an extremely complex functional space, that is, a mathematical space whose elements are functions and not points.

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:08 PM

originally posted by: mbkennel

Or, as is actually the fact, the laws of physics are not simply differential operators on classical fields in x,y,z,t.

The mystery is the evolution of the wave function in an extremely complex functional space, that is, a mathematical space whose elements are functions and not points.

Symbolically, with math, and computer, and paper, you can simulate any sort of 'fake' circumstances.

Like a particle being both 1 inch away from another particle and 1 million miles at the same time and at the same 2 spaces.

If the universe is fake, as your interpretations of aspects of it, then this is acceptable;

If the universe is real, then a particle cannot both be an inch away from another, and 1 million miles.

If there are subtle tethers which are physical tethers, which is what 'tangle ment' is, then this would be physical reason from the assumed properties of certain fundamental quanta in certain circumstances;

But as I said, that would also imply, that these tethers are components of a physical field, which transfers its force, faster than the physical EM field does.

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:20 PM
I feel the project is a failure.

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:33 PM

originally posted by: GetHyped
I feel the project is a failure.

What would the project not being a failure consist of?
edit on 8-5-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 05:42 PM
Photon -- particle or a wave? It has no mass. How do you view photon (pure energy) to remain a particle while it is in transit in open space if one counts photon as a particle?
There has to be some mechanism to keep it a particle (isolated, with defined shell entity)?

Electron has mass, I can see it, in a way, as a particle because of this very fact. (but later on this).

Photon is pure energy, it should not have boundaries, IMO. Once released, it spreads like a wave, no? What keeps it "together' in one discrete piece?

thank you)

this question is to OP, forgot to ad))

DO.
edit on 8-5-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-5-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 07:32 PM

originally posted by: darkorange
Photon -- particle or a wave? It has no mass. How do you view photon (pure energy) to remain a particle while it is in transit in open space if one counts photon as a particle?
There has to be some mechanism to keep it a particle (isolated, with defined shell entity)?

Electron has mass, I can see it, in a way, as a particle because of this very fact. (but later on this).

Photon is pure energy, it should not have boundaries, IMO. Once released, it spreads like a wave, no? What keeps it "together' in one discrete piece?
Both the photon and electron can exhibit both wavelike and particle-like properties, depending on the experiment. You can call them wavicles. Photons aren't isolated, in fact you can have many of them superimposed and they rarely interact with each other, except for an occasional high energy photon interaction.

Saying a photon can exhibit particle-like behavior doesn't mean it's like a marble, it's not. It means that the energy is quantized.

What keeps it "together"? Is that a trick question? Did you know that the same photon can pass through both slits of a double slit experiment? Seems like it's not really "together" in that experiment, if you believe the Copenhagen interpretation taught in textbooks.

There is also the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation which says it does pass through one slit or the other, but the interference is from the "Pilot Wave".

As stated in the OP we still don't know the underlying reality. We make observations, fit models to the observations, and we have several candidate interpretations for the underlying reality behind the model, without any good experiments so far to say which is correct.

edit on 8-5-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 07:58 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: darkorange
Photon -- particle or a wave? It has no mass. How do you view photon (pure energy) to remain a particle while it is in transit in open space if one counts photon as a particle?
There has to be some mechanism to keep it a particle (isolated, with defined shell entity)?

Electron has mass, I can see it, in a way, as a particle because of this very fact. (but later on this).

Photon is pure energy, it should not have boundaries, IMO. Once released, it spreads like a wave, no? What keeps it "together' in one discrete piece?
Both the photon and electron can exhibit both wavelike and particle-like properties, depending on the experiment. You can call them wavicles. Photons aren't isolated, in fact you can have many of them superimposed and they rarely interact with each other, except for an occasional high energy photon interaction.

Saying a photon can exhibit particle-like behavior doesn't mean it's like a marble, it's not. It means that the energy is quantized.

What keeps it "together"? Is that a trick question? Did you know that the same photon can pass through both slits of a double slit experiment? Seems like it's not really "together" in that experiment, if you believe the Copenhagen interpretation taught in textbooks.

There is also the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation which says it does pass through one slit or the other, but the interference is from the "Pilot Wave".

As stated in the OP we still don't know the underlying reality. We make observations, fit models to the observations, and we have several candidate interpretations for the underlying reality behind the model, without any good experiments so far to say which is correct.

Thank you. My very question was to clear wave like particle answer. You did not get my point.

DO.
edit on 8-5-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 11:35 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

It means that the energy is quantized.

Can you conceive of any hypothetical example of how it would be possible or make sense in any reality that could ever be possible, for energy to not be quantized?

new topics

top topics

61