Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A question about gravity and photons

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut

I believe what Einstein proposed in his "Elevator" thought experiment was that the force created by acceleration was indistinguishable from the force created by gravity to an observer with no other frame of reference but themselves (ie: enclosed in an elevator).

This does not equate to acceleration and gravity being the same thing.



Ok, and we were talking about why photons have relativistic mass. Its the photons reference from.

All unaccelerated observers agree on the amount of invariant mass in closed systems at all times, and although different observers may not agree with each other on how much relativistic mass is present in any such system, all agree that the amount does not change over time.




posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

ANYONE I know who has taken any undergraduate level class that covers relativity would trace the path of Einstein. And he DISCOVERED relativity with a similar thought experiment. So everyone gets told acceleration is the same as gravity. Its just something we say, all the time.

"Acceleration doesn't cause gravity"
For all intensive purposes, im sorry. It does.

edit on 3-11-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-11-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-11-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)


Ole Rømer did the first relativity equations for light when he discovered the finite speed of light in 1676. Einstein didn't really discover relativity, he came up with some models, arbitrarily based on tensors, to deal with the data transforms involved in relativistic computations for a finite speed of light.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa
Ole Rømer did the first relativity equations for light when he discovered the finite speed of light in 1676. Einstein didn't really discover relativity, he came up with some models, arbitrarily based on tensors, to deal with the data transforms involved in relativistic computations for a finite speed of light.



GAHHHH.
Obviously I was refering to special relativity.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Yes, it would still have gravity. It's a result of it's mass, not a result of it's motion.


To be technical the motion of the Earth such as its rotation also contributes to the term which is the source of gravity, but it is quantitatively much, much smaller than the effect from the rest mass of the Earth.

As the regular "warping" is a perturbation to what Newtonian gravity would show, this effect is a perturbation to a perturbation in magnitude.

And yes, it was experimentally measured and confirmed by an extraordinary and heroic experiment called Gravity Probe B, a space mission which took 40 years to plan and execute.


so what is it about, the quantum mechanics,and/ or the atoms that cause the "force of gravity"? is it something about the energy/motion of the atoms? so is gravity like a "left over field like effect" from the massive amounts of atoms bound by the strong force,, all "seeking" other atoms to compound with?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by yampa
Ole Rømer did the first relativity equations for light when he discovered the finite speed of light in 1676. Einstein didn't really discover relativity, he came up with some models, arbitrarily based on tensors, to deal with the data transforms involved in relativistic computations for a finite speed of light.



GAHHHH.
Obviously I was refering to special relativity.


I'm going to assume you meant General Relativity (published 11 years after Special Relativity). Lord knows why people are starring you there.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

I'm going to assume you meant General Relativity (published 11 years after Special Relativity). Lord knows why people are starring you there.


It was a typo. Think about it. you just brought up Romer. He discovered that c was finite. I was talking about the equivalence principle. Obviously what I was saying was I was 'not referring to special relativity', since thats what you are annoying me with.

Edit: and they are starring them cause this is 'check on google real quick' bush league crap so they can tell im right*. Frankly, i feel silly being apart of it. But thankfully not as silly as these clown shoes who are chronically addicted to being wrong should.
*No offense to my fans, its all statistical generalizing. You could just be clever, but your probably googling. haha.
edit on 5-11-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-11-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by yampa

I'm going to assume you meant General Relativity (published 11 years after Special Relativity). Lord knows why people are starring you there.


It was a typo. Think about it. you just brought up Romer. He discovered that c was finite. I was talking about the equivalence principle. Obviously what I was saying was I was 'not referring to special relativity', since thats what you are annoying me with.

Edit: and they are starring them cause this is 'check on google real quick' bush league crap so they can tell im right*. Frankly, i feel silly being apart of it. But not as silly as these clown shoes who's chronically addicted to being wrong should.
*No offense to my fans, its all statistical generalizing. You could just be clever, but your probably googling. haha.
edit on 5-11-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)


You are the one promoting Einstein's theories as explanations about the properties of physical matter? One would expect you to get the names of the theories correct, especially when you are 'GRAHHH'ing at people who were correcting your previous sloppy historical description of the evolution of Einstein's theories.

I don't need to use any of Einstein's theories to attempt to explain why particles have mass and how this relates to charge.

It is worth reminding yourself that relativity applies to *data*, not to the physical properties of the local object. Thus relativity never gives physical properties to objects. Einstein himself often did not make this distinction and Einstein frequently primed the wrong variable.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


I whole-heartedly agree with you. People should realize Einstein´s ideas were not original; he just summarized existing theories and added some of his own though experiments to it. He never received the Nobel Prize for his work on relativity, because the Nobel Comittee realized this. It has been shown by numerous scientists that his equations are either blatantly wrong or applied in situations where they cannot be, according to his own principles. Photons are considered massless since the current theories require them to be and not because they are proven to be so. It´s all theory and counter-intuitive, and therefore for me not in line with reality.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by RationalDespair
 


You are SOOOOOO far from the truth its painful.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

It is worth reminding yourself that relativity applies to *data*, not to the physical properties of the local object. Thus relativity never gives physical properties to objects. Einstein himself often did not make this distinction and Einstein frequently primed the wrong variable.


What are you talking about. Now your gunna start sounding silly again.

Primed the wrong variable? Do you even know what your talking about?
Sorry sir, babbling wont work with me There are some complaints from mathematicians about how he derived lorentz transformations but its trivial at best.
edit on 5-11-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 







edit on 5-11-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by ubeenhad
 







edit on 5-11-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)

rofl.
But..
Analogies are missleading. Mathematicians and Physicists are one in the same. One does problems that are given to them to do, the other goes out and finds the problems then solves them. The best mathematicians in the world work in fundemental physics.

And if you go harping on Einstein referencing poincare or romer then Im just gunna leave the thread. Because you understand the various papers released by Einstein, and why they are so important.... Right?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Can we get back to the point at hand, I don't feel Ive pwned a few of you enough about this Acceleration = Gravity argument.

ACCELERATION IS THE SAME AS GRAVITY.

/end bait



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Actually, I'm a mathematician and a physicist, so I can't really argue with that line of logic



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Can we get back to the point at hand, I don't feel Ive pwned a few of you enough about this Acceleration = Gravity argument.

ACCELERATION IS THE SAME AS GRAVITY.

/end bait


Nope, it's really not, as has been shown


Easiest proof in the world:

F=ma ; W=mg

Gravity is a force, in which case, on the surface of the earth at sea level, a, the acceleration due to gravity, is approximately 9.81 m/s^2
It cannot be both a force and the acceleration. You are thinking of acceleration due to gravity


Gravity's effect is acceleration, but gravity in and of itself is not an acceleration, it's a force that produces an acceleration






edit on 5-11-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
 

.... The best mathematicians in the world work in fundemental physics.
...


To be honest, I struggle with maths, always have and I've always envied those "pure math" whiz kids.

I also don't see mathematics being more "pure" than other sciences. I think that Kurt Gödel threw that spanner in those works.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


Thats more like it. No science, so im a little disappointed but its better than nothing.

Equivalence principle.

Equivalence principle states that “inertial force and gravitational force are the same thing.” – Or, “acceleration and gravity are the same thing.” Source



Gravitational Mass and the Inertial Mass (the value of mass that gravity acts on and the M in the venerable F=MA) are indeed one and the same.



Oh and here is a good one.
www.youtube.com...
Watch at like 1:30. Susskind the mighty jew says the equivalence principle is the idea that in some sense gravity and acceleration are the same thing.

Now are you going to bring some alternative physics to the table? Cause so far your just arguing that the statement doesn't fit in every context, when it doesn't have to. Thats well known in the science community, surprised you missed that. Infact, common terms in chemestry, or mathematics, are used in a different context in physics. Infact, different physical science fields use different meanings for the same term. So usually you gotta go with what the intended meaning of the speaker, not some BS to fit your internet ego agenda.

PLEASE throw me a bone(science bone), i wanna believe your not just non-sensing me and you really are an old ass trig teacher or something that calls himself a physicist(cause your NOT a phd, so your not a physicist sorry pal. You gotta know GR before they give you those in physics.) but so far its starting to look like armchair, mommas basement type. Prove me wrong!



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
and the acceleration. You are thinking of acceleration due to gravity


Gravity's effect is acceleration, but gravity in and of itself is not an acceleration, it's a force that produces an acceleration



wtf. COME ON ARE YOU DUMB? With your logic, acceleration of a body due to a rocket wouldn't experience relativistic effects. AND THEY FREAKING DO. google it.

Your loosing skin.
all over the place.
edit on 5-11-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


It would be much easier to just admit you were wrong than to try to keep digging that hole...



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
beezzer is still reading, and playing with his toes. humming, and drawing ladybugs with a crayon.

(I'm just a biologist)






new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join