It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Actually what I meant to show was that depending on your reference frame, centrifugal force can be "real" to one observer and "fictitious" but apparent to another observer, so if both observers are observing the same event, the distinction is a technical one and doesn't mean that the fictitious force but apparent force doesn't have just as much effect.
originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: AntonGonist
Actually, you did claim such a thing.
You said "Gravity is not a force". Quite clearly... multiple times.
What Arbitrageur showed you is that depending on your frame of reference gravity IS a force.
The forces you feel in a moving car—those that push you back into your seat when the driver steps on the gas or throw you side to side when the car makes sharp turns—are everyday examples of fictitious forces. In general, these influences arise for no reason other than that the natural frame of reference for a given situation is itself accelerating.
The term "fictitious force" has a precise meaning within Newtonian mechanics—in fact, it's always proportional to the mass of the object on which it acts.
With general relativity, Einstein managed to blur forever the distinction between real and fictitious forces. General relativity is his theory of gravity, and gravity is certainly the paradigmatic example of a "real" force. The cornerstone of Einstein's theory, however, is the proposition that gravity is itself a fictitious force (or, rather, that it is indistinguishable from a fictitious force). Now, some 90 years later, we have innumerable and daily confirmations that his theory appears to be correct.
The equivalence principle, a crucial part of Einstein's general relativity theory, states that the gravitational force experienced in any small region of space-time is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in an accelerated frame of reference. Testing this principle is of key importance, as it could lead to interesting observations and broaden our current understanding of gravity.
"Einstein's equivalence principle consists of three main principles," Habibi explained. "One of them, called the local position invariance (LPI), states that non-gravitational measurements should be independent of the location in space time (characterized by gravitational potential) where they are carried out. The main part of our study focuses on testing the LPI principle."
So you have nothing to say in response to the link you asked for nor can you back up your nonsense. Just an irrelevant and incompetent non response. Time for you to hop along too.
Although electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces have long been explained by a single theory known as the standard model, gravitation does not fit into the equation. The current quest for a unified field theory (sometimes called the holy grail of physicists) is largely focused on superstring theory and, in particular, on an adaptation known as M-theory.
M-theory (the "M" stands for the mother of all theories, magic, mystery, or matrix, depending on the source) is an adaptation of superstring theory developed by Ed Witten of Princeton and Paul Townsend of Cambridge. Townsend and Witten's version could potentially be the unified field theory sought by Einstein for the last 40 years of his life: a simple equation that would reconcile incompatible aspects of his theory of relativity and quantum theory to explain the nature and behavior of all matter and energy. Applications of this knowledge could, through unlocking nature's secrets, enable future technologies that currently are only spoken of within the realm of science fiction: an inexhaustible source of clean energy, and time travel, for example.
Wow. Where does it it say that space is a void and that there is no underlying field.
Biggest void in space is 1 billion light years across
Radio astronomers have found the biggest hole ever seen in the universe. The void, which is nearly a billion light years across, is empty of both normal matter and dark matter. The finding challenges theories of large-scale structure formation in the universe.
The team was in for a surprise. They saw little or no radio sources in a volume that is about 280 megaparsecs or nearly a billion light years in diameter. The lack of radio sources means that there are no galaxies or clusters in that volume, and the fact that the CMB is cold there suggests the region lacks dark matter, too.
But photons going through a void actually lose energy, ending up colder than if they had been flying through a series of superclusters
The team was in for a surprise. They saw little or no radio sources in a volume that is about 280 megaparsecs or nearly a billion light years in diameter.
originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: puzzlesphere
They only know light is a wave, and sometimes that wave has particle like interactions. Waves, by definition, are a property of a medium. Science says light is a wave in a field. So the question becomes, what is the medium of light? What is this field?
According to the modern discoveries in physics, forces are not transmitted directly between interacting objects, but instead are described and interrupted by intermediary entities called fields.
In physics, a unified field theory (UFT) is a type of field theory that allows all that is usually thought of as fundamental forces and elementary particles to be written in terms of a pair of physical and virtual fields. According to the modern discoveries in physics, forces are not transmitted directly between interacting objects, but instead are described and interrupted by intermediary entities called fields.
Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics to form a theory of everything. Trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions leads to fundamental difficulties and the resulting theory is not renormalizable. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics.
The current quest for a unified field theory (sometimes called the holy grail of physicists) is largely focused on superstring theory and, in particular, on an adaptation known as M-theory.
a simple equation that would reconcile incompatible aspects of his theory of relativity and quantum theory to explain the nature and behavior of all matter and energy
The mainstream view is that since we can't find any evidence for the existence of luminiferous aether, if it exists as in say the Lorentz Aether Theory, the implications are merely philosophical, since there is no real objective, measurable difference between Lorentz Aether Theory and Relativity. If someone figures out how to measure a luminiferous aether and find objective evidence for it, that could change, but it seems unlikely that will happen, given all the experiments that have searched for it and failed to find it.
originally posted by: puzzlesphere
My question is, what would be the implications of an aether for our day-to-day lives?
Practical? Not really, our existing models predict what happens in practical matters well as far as we can tell, but there are two things which they fail to address which aren't that practical but they are sort of gaping holes in our current models.
Do you have any opinions on what a unified theory may achieve for us, on a practical level?
originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: Arbitrageur
doesn't it hold true then, that because gravity is indistinguishable from a fictitious force, that from at least one particular frame of reference, gravity acts like a real force, so for all intents and purposes is a real force, for that particular frame of reference?