Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why electricity flows

page: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Good question. I'm not sure we will have a full answer to that until we have a quantum theory of gravity, which we are still working on but don't have yet. It's a theoretical gap.


Perhaps, in reality, there is no such thing as a gravitational pull. Perhaps there is only a downward gravitational push. Perhaps gravity is actually mass's passive resistance to the Aether moving through it.

These ideas come from the e-book The Quantum Key by Aaron C. Murakami, published in 2009 by White Dragon Press.
edit on 11/14/12 by Mary Rose because: Typo




posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Good question. I'm not sure we will have a full answer to that until we have a quantum theory of gravity, which we are still working on but don't have yet. It's a theoretical gap.


Perhaps, in reality, there is no such thing as a gravitational pull. Perhaps there is only a downward gravitational push. Perhaps gravity is actually mass's passive resistance to the Aether moving through it.


Perhaps I had too much split pea soup. Perhaps you had Gatorade. Perhaps, you know.


These ideas come from the e-book The Quantum Key by Aaron C. Murakami, published in 2009 by White Dragon Press.


No, I heard these ideas clearly when the sound of my flatulence was translated into Sumerian and then back to English. The Universe hast spoken.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ImaFungi
are quantum mechanics effected/influenced by the forces of the massive/macro systems they reside in or near?

Good question. I'm not sure we will have a full answer to that until we have a quantum theory of gravity


I was tempted to post that, but I didn't since the subject is hard, I didn't, I'm glad you had the guts.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Yes, when one is stumped, there's always ridicule. Which, I repeat, is a sign of weakness.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Yes, when one is stumped, there's always ridicule. Which, I repeat, is a sign of weakness.


Stumped exactly how? By the sheer silliness of 100% unfounded claims? What weakness are you talking about? Do you call refusal to embrace idiocy "weakness"?

And oh yeah, I'll be laughing at fools.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Good question. I'm not sure we will have a full answer to that until we have a quantum theory of gravity, which we are still working on but don't have yet. It's a theoretical gap.


Perhaps, in reality, there is no such thing as a gravitational pull. Perhaps there is only a downward gravitational push. Perhaps gravity is actually mass's passive resistance to the Aether moving through it.

These ideas come from the e-book The Quantum Key by Aaron C. Murakami, published in 2009 by White Dragon Press.


Oh, so you PAID for this as well? I'm thrilled you elected to subject yourself to THAT kind of tax.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Stumped exactly how?

By a quantum theory of gravity:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm not sure we will have a full answer to that until we have a quantum theory of gravity, which we are still working on but don't have yet. It's a theoretical gap.



Originally posted by buddhasystem
I was tempted to post that, but I didn't since the subject is hard, I didn't, I'm glad you had the guts.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Mary, it's OK for a physicist to say that an area of study is hard for them to master. That's the spirit of honesty. By contrast, some stone cold eff stupid woo-woos declare that they have discovered most of the secrets of the Universe by listening to some "vibrations", "frequencies" or by consuming "orgone".

Physics is hard. Newsflash. No amount of New Age Crystals are going to fix that. No amount of New Age Crystals are going to make woo-woos into smart people.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Good question. I'm not sure we will have a full answer to that until we have a quantum theory of gravity, which we are still working on but don't have yet. It's a theoretical gap.


Perhaps, in reality, there is no such thing as a gravitational pull. Perhaps there is only a downward gravitational push. Perhaps gravity is actually mass's passive resistance to the Aether moving through it.


Perhaps I had too much split pea soup. Perhaps you had Gatorade. Perhaps, you know.


These ideas come from the e-book The Quantum Key by Aaron C. Murakami, published in 2009 by White Dragon Press.


No, I heard these ideas clearly when the sound of my flatulence was translated into Sumerian and then back to English. The Universe hast spoken.


if there were 2 bodies lets say,, two earths' exactly the same size,, the distance of the earth and moon apart... and they were all that existed in a vacuum or spacetime.... but they were not moving, were not rotating, were not revolving,,, would they attract?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
if there were 2 bodies lets say,, two earths' exactly the same size,, the distance of the earth and moon apart... and they were all that existed in a vacuum or spacetime.... but they were not moving, were not rotating, were not revolving,,, would they attract?


Absolutely. Second line.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Blue Shift
It's relatively well understood how it flows, but the explanations as to why it flows are quite a bit fewer and not quite as convincing.


You lost me here. There is a field, and the prime property of an electric charge is that it will experience force when a field is present. The force will cause a change in momentum. What's there to be convinced about???


what is an electric charge? what is the difference between positive and negative electric charge?
what is a field?


This gives a good intuitive understanding.

Feynman Lectures V2
edit on 13-11-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-11-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)


thanks a lot,, i will try and get that book...

you think you can summarize an answer for my question though to hold me over till i get it?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ImaFungi
if there were 2 bodies lets say,, two earths' exactly the same size,, the distance of the earth and moon apart... and they were all that existed in a vacuum or spacetime.... but they were not moving, were not rotating, were not revolving,,, would they attract?


Absolutely. Second line.


what about them would attract?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Stumped exactly how?

By a quantum theory of gravity:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm not sure we will have a full answer to that until we have a quantum theory of gravity, which we are still working on but don't have yet. It's a theoretical gap.
That was an oversimplified answer for a complicated subject, but what do you expect in a single forum post? We actually know quite a bit, like the mass of a proton for example. So when one of your woo friends says "scientists don't know everything", that's true, but it doesn't logically follow that the mass of a single proton is greater than the mass of Mt Everest as a consequence of not having mastered quantum gravity (or some other emerging field in science), since the mass of a proton is something we actually DO know.

The same can be said for many other similar woo claims.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ImaFungi
if there were 2 bodies lets say,, two earths' exactly the same size,, the distance of the earth and moon apart... and they were all that existed in a vacuum or spacetime.... but they were not moving, were not rotating, were not revolving,,, would they attract?


Absolutely. Second line.


what about them would attract?


Their very existence in a continuum. The fact that they have mass, and are at a finite distance. That's all you need. Motion and rotation don't factor in a big way unless it's some sort of weird Tiplerian thing where they're spinning so fast the surface velocity is relativistic or something, or the bodies are of infinite dimension or the like. But for two simple Earth sized masses in the same general area of a space, yes, they will accelerate towards each other.

They still do even in weird thought exercise constraint sets, but you have to ring in a lot of secondary effects that don't emerge in "normal" circumstances.

By existing and having rest mass, the space around the bodies deforms. They are then accelerated towards each other.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Stumped exactly how?

By a quantum theory of gravity:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'm not sure we will have a full answer to that until we have a quantum theory of gravity, which we are still working on but don't have yet. It's a theoretical gap.
That was an oversimplified answer for a complicated subject, but what do you expect in a single forum post? We actually know quite a bit, like the mass of a proton for example. So when one of your woo friends says "scientists don't know everything", that's true, but it doesn't logically follow that the mass of a single proton is greater than the mass of Mt Everest as a consequence of not having mastered quantum gravity (or some other emerging field in science), since the mass of a proton is something we actually DO know.

The same can be said for many other similar woo claims.


how does the mass of 3 individual quarks compare to the mass of a proton?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ImaFungi
if there were 2 bodies lets say,, two earths' exactly the same size,, the distance of the earth and moon apart... and they were all that existed in a vacuum or spacetime.... but they were not moving, were not rotating, were not revolving,,, would they attract?


Absolutely. Second line.


what about them would attract?


Their very existence in a continuum. The fact that they have mass, and are at a finite distance. That's all you need. Motion and rotation don't factor in a big way unless it's some sort of weird Tiplerian thing where they're spinning so fast the surface velocity is relativistic or something, or the bodies are of infinite dimension or the like. But for two simple Earth sized masses in the same general area of a space, yes, they will accelerate towards each other.

They still do even in weird thought exercise constraint sets, but you have to ring in a lot of secondary effects that don't emerge in "normal" circumstances.

By existing and having rest mass, the space around the bodies deforms. They are then accelerated towards each other.


how do you know space deforming in the way we observe it at least,, is not a result of velocity/momentum?

in other words how do you know that the space which is gravitationally indented in the vicinities of the earth- moon distance... would be deformed to the same magnitude as if the bodies were stationarily at the earth-moon distance from one another?

Same thought experiment... but perhaps adjust the ratio of distance,, and replace the earth mass bodies, with 2 atoms.... do atoms have gravity? do atoms attract in this situation? do they attract from a force other then gravity?



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
how do you know space deforming in the way we observe it at least,, is not a result of velocity/momentum?


Well, gravity is found in cases where the is no relative motion of objects in their center of mass reference frame. Simply put, when you sit on your chair, your proverbial feels the load of your body.


in other words how do you know that the space which is gravitationally indented in the vicinities of the earth- moon distance... would be deformed to the same magnitude as if the bodies were stationarily at the earth-moon distance from one another?


There are many examples. I'll give you one - artillery. This is a subject studied with attention to detail bordering on obsession. And artillery is extremely precise, while relying on the hypothesis that at this scale of velocity, the gravitational pull does not depend on it. I can say the same about rocketry.

It's not about subtlety, of course. GPS satellites only operate because we take into account both special and general relativity (as applies to time dilation). But that, I'm afraid, veers way too far from the topic.


do atoms have gravity?


You bet. You are made of them, you know.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
how do you know space deforming in the way we observe it at least,, is not a result of velocity/momentum?

in other words how do you know that the space which is gravitationally indented in the vicinities of the earth- moon distance... would be deformed to the same magnitude as if the bodies were stationarily at the earth-moon distance from one another?


That's the part in my prior post where I disclaimed other outliers such as the bodies being relativistic in some way. Momentum comes in to the stress-energy tensor, but not enough under "normal" circumstances to be more than a unicorn poot. If the bodies are more or less at rest wrt each other, these things don't cause measurable effects.



Same thought experiment... but perhaps adjust the ratio of distance,, and replace the earth mass bodies, with 2 atoms.... do atoms have gravity? do atoms attract in this situation? do they attract from a force other then gravity?


Do they have gravity, yes. Do they attract in that situation, yes. Is that attraction of a magnitude that could ever be measured on an atom-by-atom pair basis, no, because gravity is a weak force. Do they attract from a force other than gravity, absolutely, two atoms mostly interact through electric fields when they do, with the occasional bit of magnetic field coupling.

There are a number of ways in which this can happen, either in a macroscale way (ionic or covalent bonding) or in weird minor ways (London dispersion force, magnetic dipole-dipole interactions etc).

The weakest of these forces totally swamp out inter-atomic gravity. However, if you've got a lot of material, and a lot of time, and not much else really disturbing the pot, then gravity will cause the material to coalesce. That's how stars are formed.

edit to add:

When you've got enough of them in one place, you obviously can observe a mass of atoms attracting another mass of atoms - which is why you have weight. But on an atom by atom basis, it's not a big factor in how they interact.
edit on 14-11-2012 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
"do atoms have gravity? "


You bet. You are made of them, you know.



I could be wrong,, but i dont think the example you provided relate to, my question if 2 bodies were motionless... i dont think any example can relate because there is no way of creating this experiment really,, it comes down to ones interpretation of what gravity is,and how it operates in reality..

are atoms attracted to one another because of their gravity? or because of other forces ( electromagnetic?)..

could the idea that gravity works only because space-time is bent,, be omitted,, if it is thought that gravity is the attraction between the 9.0 x 10^49 atoms of one body to the 9.0 x 10^49. of the other ?

is every plancks length of space-time composed of a weaving of particles? space-time is a tapestry of waves and particles with no such thing as empty space inbetween ... anywhere? is that an accurate statement?
edit on 14-11-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by ImaFungi
how do you know space deforming in the way we observe it at least,, is not a result of velocity/momentum?

in other words how do you know that the space which is gravitationally indented in the vicinities of the earth- moon distance... would be deformed to the same magnitude as if the bodies were stationarily at the earth-moon distance from one another?


That's the part in my prior post where I disclaimed other outliers such as the bodies being relativistic in some way. Momentum comes in to the stress-energy tensor, but not enough under "normal" circumstances to be more than a unicorn poot. If the bodies are more or less at rest wrt each other, these things don't cause measurable effects.


does the non massive dense regions of matter/energy in the universe, ( planets, stars, comets, galaxies etc) more precisely space, have mass? pressure? energy?( or is this space i am describing what is thought to be dark energy, dark matter?) does the vacuum have a force on a massive collection of atoms ( a body)? im thinking.. is the matter trying to attract and clump, and the vacuum trying to separate the clumps of matter,, so if a massive body is present alone in a vacuum,, the vacuum is "squeezing" the body,,, this squeezing effect coupled with motion of the body is what creates gravity "wakes" or distortions which other bodies may fall under influence of?






top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join