A question about gravity and photons

Originally posted by VoidHawk
Thanks for the reply

I know very little about this subject but I'm always pleased when someone like you comes along offering new theories, thats how we progress

It shows you have good intuition about what is physically important. My attention was drawn by Crookes Radiometers too. They used to have one sitting on the windowsill in highschool physics and chem classes, I loved it. I bought one once and ended up smashing it within hours - Crookes Radiometer don't work without a 'partial' vacuum.

I think Einstein's gas flow model for the Crookes Radiometer is bunk. Einstein very much needed his photon to be massless. That was a requirement for him. Anyone quoting Einstein on mass vs photons here should know that his major paper, for which he was given the Nobel, was entitled ""On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light". Go look up 'heuristic' if you don't get what that really means - especially those who romanticise his work and believe in things like 'relativistic mass' (relativity never actually gives physical properties to matter, it gives properties to transferred *data* reflecting or emitting from that matter).

Every mindful scientist knows there is a problem between zero-mass theories for photons and the reality of the photoelectric effect. The physical bombardment evidence for emission of physical 'charge particles' is strong too. It is current theory that disallows these conclusions. Not the lack of physical data. Everyone should know that newton's equation for transferred force and coulomb's charge equations for emitted charge are algorithmically equivalent.

www.scottaaronson.com...

As shown here:

Physics for Doofuses: Mass vs. charge deathmatch
Back in high school, I was struck by the apparent symmetry between mass and charge. For the one you’ve got Newton’s F=Gm1m2/r2, for the other you’ve got Coulomb’s F=Kq1q2/r2. So then why, in our current understanding of the universe, are mass and charge treated so differently? Why should one be inextricably linked to the geometry of spacetime, whereas the other seems more like an add-on? Why should it be so much harder to give a quantum-mechanical treatment of one than the other?

Originally posted by yampa
Physics for Doofuses: Mass vs. charge deathmatch
Back in high school, I was struck by the apparent symmetry between mass and charge. For the one you’ve got Newton’s F=Gm1m2/r2, for the other you’ve got Coulomb’s F=Kq1q2/r2. So then why, in our current understanding of the universe, are mass and charge treated so differently? Why should one be inextricably linked to the geometry of spacetime, whereas the other seems more like an add-on? Why should it be so much harder to give a quantum-mechanical treatment of one than the other?

It has to do with magnitude since electrical charge and gravity are different forces, they have different magnitudes (or strength). k = 1 ⁄ 4πε whereas G=6.674 x 10^-11.

They are calculated the same way because they are both forces but the constants (magnitudes of the force) are different.

Gravity is considered a very weak force, whereas electrical charge is stronger. The two equations are so similar because they are both force eqations that depend on two "things" that have a distance between them. They are essentially the same other than the magnitude due to the type of force that is being measured.

Hope that helps

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

It has to do with magnitude since electrical charge and gravity are different forces, they have different magnitudes (or strength). k = 1 ⁄ 4πε whereas G=6.674 x 10^-11.

They are calculated the same way because they are both forces but the constants (magnitudes of the force) are different.

Gravity is considered a very weak force, whereas electrical charge is stronger. The two equations are so similar because they are both force eqations that depend on two "things" that have a distance between them. They are essentially the same other than the magnitude due to the type of force that is being measured.

Hope that helps

Not just 'things'. Spheres. Spherical emissions dissipate in accordance with the inverse square.

Have you considered where G comes from and why it varies under experiment? It is not a constant constant, ya know? Have you considered that G and k might actually be accounting for mechanically and physically related phenomena at different scales?

The official CODATA value for G in 1986 was given as G= (6,67259±0.00085)x10-11 m3Kg-1s-2 and was based on the Luther and Towler determination in 1982. However, the value of G has been recently called into question by new measurements from respected research teams in Germany, New Zealand, and Russia in order to try to settle this issue. The new values using the best laboratory equipment to-date disagreed wildly to the point that many are doubting about the constancy of this parameter and some are even postulating entirely new forces to explain these gravitational anomalies.

xenophilius.wordpress.com...

reply to post by yampa


It is already known G is not a constant. If measurements from vastly different parts of the Earth had the same reading it would be cause of great concern. G should vary on Earth, much like G on other planets is not the same as on Earth.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by yampa

 

It is already known G is not a constant. If measurements from vastly different parts of the Earth had the same reading it would be cause of great concern. G should vary on Earth, much like G on other planets is not the same as on Earth.

Are you confusing G and g?

The gravitational constant denoted by letter G, is an empirical physical constant involved in the calculation(s) of gravitational force between two bodies. It usually appears in Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation, and in Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. It is also known as the universal gravitational constant, Newton's constant, and colloquially as Big G.[1] It should not be confused with "little g" (g), which is the local gravitational field (equivalent to the free-fall acceleration[2]), especially that at the Earth's surface.

reply to post by yampa


Ah, yes, I am. I'm at work and read the link you provided me quickly and they were talking about the gravitational force on Earth. I will have to look into what you have posted more thoroughly when time allows.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by yampa

 

Ah, yes, I am. I'm at work and read the link you provided me quickly and they were talking about the gravitational force on Earth. I will have to look into what you have posted more thoroughly when time allows.

The blog link I posted is talking about taking measurements for the gravitational constant between two bodies at various places on earth. I don't see any mention of the gravitational field of the earth?

reply to post by yampa

Interestingly, I was just reading about the large mammals that cropped up when the dinosaurs died out and I was wondering why they didn’t get crushed under their own weight. Here’s a strange idea that offers an explanation for that and a few other mysteries:

Interesting claim. I don’t know about that… They had pretty strong bones. Anyway, this web site proposes periodic large fast changes in the force of gravity (G).

The top of the Himalayas will have a different reading than deep within a mine shaft.

Originally posted by yampa


Not just 'things'. Spheres. Spherical emissions dissipate in accordance with the inverse square.

Have you considered where G comes from and why it varies under experiment? It is not a constant constant, ya know? Have you considered that G and k might actually be accounting for mechanically and physically related phenomena at different scales?

The official CODATA value for G in 1986 was given as G= (6,67259±0.00085)x10-11 m3Kg-1s-2 and was based on the Luther and Towler determination in 1982. However, the value of G has been recently called into question by new measurements from respected research teams in Germany, New Zealand, and Russia in order to try to settle this issue. The new values using the best laboratory equipment to-date disagreed wildly to the point that many are doubting about the constancy of this parameter and some are even postulating entirely new forces to explain these gravitational anomalies.

xenophilius.wordpress.com...

Yes, the constant of proportionality is dependent upon theoretical spherical values and can vary depending on the shape of the objects you are dealing with at close distances, but of course at a great distance, the spherical values are approached regardless of the individual shape. Also, the numerical equivalent value for G can be different at times depending on what units you are dealing with, the constant of proportionality G is always the same given the theoretical parameters.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Yes, the constant of proportionality is dependent upon theoretical spherical values and can vary depending on the shape of the objects you are dealing with at close distances, but of course at a great distance, the spherical values are approached regardless of the individual shape. Also, the numerical equivalent value for G can be different at times depending on what units you are dealing with, the constant of proportionality G is always the same given the theoretical parameters.

The experimentally confirmed variance in G is caused by the units they use? Come now.

What *causes* the variance? Why does the constant of proportionality vary depending on the orientation of the experiment?

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Yes, the constant of proportionality is dependent upon theoretical spherical values and can vary depending on the shape of the objects you are dealing with at close distances, but of course at a great distance, the spherical values are approached regardless of the individual shape. Also, the numerical equivalent value for G can be different at times depending on what units you are dealing with, the constant of proportionality G is always the same given the theoretical parameters.

The experimentally confirmed variance in G is caused by the units they use? Come now.

What *causes* the variance? Why does the constant of proportionality vary depending on the orientation of the experiment?

Exact values are the fractions used in computing, estimated values are what you get when you perform the calculations and round off the decimal point. Depending on when you do the calculator, you can end up with different values if you use very large masses due to the multiplication factor in calculating it

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Exact values are the fractions used in computing, estimated values are what you get when you perform the calculations and round off the decimal point. Depending on when you do the calculator, you can end up with different values if you use very large masses due to the multiplication factor in calculating it

hehe!

reply to post by PurpleChiten


Lol, neither of you are making sense.

And who uses the term 'constant of proportionality' for G? Not even professors most of the time, ha. You must be showing off.

reply to post by ubeenhad


Actually, professors use it quite often.... I know of at least one that does....

Acceleration is the same as gravity. So, speeding up gives you mass. Any object, no matter how big/small experiences this. You guys are arguing over semantics. Photons have no rest mass. Thats the answer. To go any deeper requires a much longer explanation than can be given on a forum.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by ubeenhad

 

Actually, professors use it quite often.... I know of at least one that does....

Now that I think about it, its the better term to put in the correct context.

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Acceleration is the same as gravity. So, speeding up gives you mass. Any object, no matter how big/small experiences this. You guys are arguing over semantics. Photons have no rest mass. Thats the answer. To go any deeper requires a much longer explanation than can be given on a forum.

Not exactly. There is acceleration due to gravity, but they aren't the same thing.

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by ubeenhad

 

Actually, professors use it quite often.... I know of at least one that does....

Now that I think about it, its the better term to put in the correct context.

Thanks

~Professor Chiten

reply to post by PurpleChiten

More semantics.
The effects of gravity is indistinguishable from the effects of acceleration.

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

More semantics.
The effects of gravity is indistinguishable from the effects of acceleration.

Not true. Think about what happens as you move further and further from the earth. The gravitational effects become less and less due to the distance... the inverse square of the distance to be exact. If you are accelerating, does moving further away from something change your acceleration? Acceleration can be caused by gravity, but gravity cannot be caused by acceleration