It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Einstein proved right on gravity

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:
Kon

posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Done a quick look on the board to make sure I'm not posting some old news. Forgive me if I am, sensei. *bows*

The speed of gravity has been measured for the first time, revealing that it does indeed travel at the speed of light.
It means that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity has passed yet another test with flying colours.

More...




posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 12:32 PM
link   
It would seem to make sense though, if you applied it to black holes. At the point of the event horizon, the acceleration of the light away from the hole would be the same as the acceleration of gravity into the hole, so it would be "stuck" and never get to you, hence it would be black.



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 12:42 PM
link   
His link is the "more..." if that's what you are asking...

...as for the speed of light and the speed of gravity, I guess I kinda get what you mean, but I think that is only based on the "escape velocity" but perhaps....hmm, how does gravity effect something that is moving the SPEED of gravity...or in effect, the speed of light.

These two speeds must be connected for a reason, maybe they are not two speeds but one speed, and because light has no actual mass, it moves "WITH" gravity or such...and that's why it is bent by gravity like through a prism, and all, not because it is being effected by gravity, but because it is moving with gravity like it were on a conveyor belt?

So then the speed of light isn't slowing down, just the speed of gravity? And so then...how would that effect the universe?

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Why would they say this now? They've measured radio wave's before... I don't understand how they can measure the speed of something when what they are measuring it against is traveling at the same speed... And if gravity travel's at C velocitie's, then how can it be trapped by gravity when it's traveling at the same speed as well....

AND, if gravity is 'traveling' at C....how? I've never heard of gravity having a certain speed before...

I've heard and alway's thought the more mass = more gravity. That's why the earth's gravity is more than the moon and the sun's is more than the earth's... But where'd this speed thing come from? I don't even know what theory to search for...



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 06:28 PM
link   
I think it is better to just think of it as, Gravity's effect is felt merely at what would be the speed of light...not so much as it is literally travelling at the speed of light.

But crap, I hate to think of our universe as a hologram but this kinda lends aid to that theory, if gravity and light are far more connected than we thought. Than maybe Gravity isn't related to mass, but to energy...which is related to mass AND the speed of light.

So if you could in effect lower the energy of something...then you'd might be able to negate gravit? Hmm so many possible theories that might spring from this in the future.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 07:37 PM
link   
FM,

I dunno...but it kinda make's sense to me now... sorta...

But, what do you mean by lower the energy of something? How would you go about doing this?

The idea keep's popping in and out....but I can't figure it out...seem's almost within reach... I know...I'll sleep on it before i get a headache



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Well I suppose a magnetic field could be used to lower the energy of something, that is the only thing I can think of that would affect say a particle, without a chemical//nuclear reaction.

What I mean though is, if gravity is not based on mass like we thought, but rather it is based on ENERGY, that means it is dependant on both the speed of light, AND mass. Or I should say not dependant but it effects those...

...so if it were based on energy, where the more energy (and thus more mass) the more effect gravity has on that something.

Then lowering that energy would in effect lower the amount of gravity, and reversing that energy (all with magnetic fields) theoretically would reverse the gravity too, so instead of being pulled//pushed down, you'd be repelled up


Now I just had a thought, seemingly the entire mass of quarks (the smallest and so far unknown to be divisible and thus the true "atom"
) is represented in eVs ... Electron Volts. TN1 you seem to know more about this so jump in any time


But so if they even represent mass of the small object that makes up all other mass, with energy, than it would seem sensible to tie gravity's effect onto that energy rather than the mass of an atom persay.

Hmmm...Depending on what the fabric of space is...understanding how gravity and the space/time fit together, and treating gravity as a form of energy and thus just another manipulatable force by magnetism, theoretically, then we are on a path to figuring out how to go around the speed of light, and travel great distances near instantaneously.

That is if gravity and space are connected in a way that you could distort one with the other, and if gravity is indeed manipulatable with Magnetism.

Which it may be, because in another thread where I had discounted the theory, some French scientists figured Gravity was "more" at the poles due to magnetism, I figured this was due to the spin of the earth, but maybe they were more on to something, and consequently the powerful magnetic field of the earth minutely affects gravity.

And that's a POWERFUL magnetic field, which would mean to get the energy to truly begin to manipulate it, we'll have to conquer anti-mater


Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 08:09 PM
link   
FM,

That remind's me... I've read something that said a zpe generator would create a gravitational field.... In other word's, just as you said.. more energy = more gravity.... and since energy can be manipulated by a magnetic feild....... We gotta figure this out


TN1

posted on Jan, 9 2003 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Actually the problem in the unification of the forces is the gravity and only the gravity!!! We all know what is the speed of light right now ,this is a constant for the time being and it will remain for some billions of years ,it will depend on the evolution of the universe!But the problem is that the electromagnetic force the weak and strong force need a range to act ! And of course they do need time as well but the gravity is acting IMMEDIATELY !!!This implies with an infinite speed!So there are other parameters that we haven't thought before ...



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 10:24 AM
link   
*smacks himself for not seeing "More"*

Anyhow, here's another link:

www.cnn.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Hey all, I'm new!

I've been thinking, what if gravity is really plain old magnetism? I've been thinking about this for awhile now. Look at Jupiter, it's gravity field and magnetic field are larger than Earth's. Both the gravity and magnetic field of Earth is larger than our moon. The Sun's is even larger still.

I'm not really sure how to explain it though. To me, it look's like there is alway's a corrasponding [spelling?] size for the magnetic field along with that of the gravitational field. Then I heard about the levitating frog experiment. Where they used magnetic field's to levitate a frog. From what I understand, the magnetic field interacted with the frog's electron's to cause it to float without harm.

Maybe, just maybe, the magnetic field of our own planet play's with the electron's in us in a way to keep us grounded. We still don't know what gravity is, and this seem's like one possiblity. Maybe I'm wrong though.



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Yes but Gravity and Magnetism are still two seperate things. Gravity's effect is not polar for one, magnetism's is, quite polar.

I can't say for sure but I don't think the Frog experiment is accurate. I think of the experiments they do with liquid oxygen where powerful magnets attract it to the magnets as it is poured, and to apply it with a Frog I don't think they've quite achieved that ability yet.

Oh but a solid disproof of your theory is Mars, a planet that is nearly entirely devoid of any magnetic field, it has a few annomalies but not on a global scale in any way.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Hey, thanks for the input! I wasn't to sure about it anyways. Do you think that magnatism could be used as a form of antigravity? Like what they did to the frog.



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Probably, I don't think they've gotten that far yet though, I don't know where you heard about the frog...but hell frogs have rained from the sky in some places so who knows


In either case, I wouldn't doubt if magnetism would be the ultimate manipulator of ALL that is natural in this universe


Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 10:31 PM
link   
You know, it's really hard to find good information on the net. This was the best refrence I could find on the frog, complete with a formula.

www.spellmaker.com...

I'm sure I could find what I'm looking for, but for now this'll do. I've only read about it in wired magazine I think, maybe it's on thier site somewhere.



posted on Jan, 10 2003 @ 11:52 PM
link   


Read all about it: www-hfml.sci.kun.nl...



posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Yeah, that's more like it!

I don't even want to guess where one sac come's from!


How hard would it be to get some better smillie's?



posted on Jan, 14 2003 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I read a site some time ago called the Einstein conspiracy said modern physics and quantum theory was a result of Einsteins detractors useing his popularity with the media and everyday USA to promote their theory of quantum mechanics after E died. The site says Einstein was actually a skeptic when it came to quantum theory and in reality supported somethin more akin to Eaether theory. Dont know how true any of this is I have never been a follower of Physics mainly because it seems from reading about recent PHDs being total frauds (those French Bros.) I think theoretical physics is just a total pant load. I think modern Physics cant explain things because they seem to have got themselves painted into a corner (like egyptologists) they come across something like this and it dosent fit into their theory so they cant really explain it!!



posted on Jan, 15 2003 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Well, Einstein didn't believe that "God plays dice," which is a major part of quantum mechanics. I'm not sure if it goes along with the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle or not, but basically, scientists believe they have found the spontaneous creation of matter and antimatter particles. This seems to be a random event that occurs all of the time in our universe. If this is a random event, then technically, God would be playing dice.

Einstein on the other hand had some great ideas that would indicate some sort of aether (or ether). There have been several tests to find this "aether," but to no avail. Nothing has turned up, but random particle creation has. Because of things like this, modern quantum mechanics gets a big boost.

On the other hand, quantum mechanics doesn't really have a principle for quantum gravity. Most of quantum mechanics is mathematical and less tested than much of the macroscopic (big) relativity concepts. Only within the last 10 or so years have many of the quantum mechanical principles been put to a test in a lab.

If Einstein were still alive, he might still stick to his theories. It is hard to be "certain" (punn intended). Many scientists now agree that a final grand unified theory will actually be a combination of theories that are currently out there, as well as a few that might not be out there yet. Even when a grand unified theory is found, there will still be a whole lot of questions left to answer, but at least some of them might be easier.

I personally like quite a bit of quantum mechanics, but I do believe that parts of it seem to go too far. They need to watch out... they have between 4-11 dimensions. That's not cool. Other theories are now coming out to help curb those need for so many extra dimensions. One alternate includes a concept of imaginary time. It sounds like a pretty good idea, but it is a bit difficult to follow.

The best thing to do is to read up on the new proofs coming out in the science world, as well as some of the new ideas and old ideas that have been abound. You'll gain a lot of info and most of it is fairly fascinating. Good luck.




top topics



 
0

log in

join