Ask any question you want about Physics

Interesting development to define gravity as an emergent property of an atom, Just as internal clock of an atom is an emergent property of an atom, But unfortunately MS has yet to catch up on this.

a reply to: ImaFungi

What physically will be 'touching' (as thats what physical interaction implies and demands) the ball as it comes back down?

I don't understand what you mean by "touching". Gravity acceleration near Earth is given by g = -9.81 m/s^2. If you want the velocity, you just multiply by the amount of time since the object was dropped. The only other thing that would "touch" it would be a variable like the resistance of air, other particles, wind etc - just other physical phenomena which may affect the result.

Can you explain what you mean by "touching" the object? Do you mean some unknown component of gravity?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: ImaFungi

What physically will be 'touching' (as thats what physical interaction implies and demands) the ball as it comes back down?

I don't understand what you mean by "touching". Gravity acceleration near Earth is given by g = -9.81 m/s^2. If you want the velocity, you just multiply by the amount of time since the object was dropped. The only other thing that would "touch" it would be a variable like the resistance of air, other particles, wind etc - just other physical phenomena which may affect the result.

Can you explain what you mean by "touching" the object? Do you mean some unknown component of gravity?

If we were standing anywhere on an earth size planet that had no atmosphere and that was completely motionless;

And we threw a ball away from the surface;

What physically would force the ball to go towards the surface?

The ball has to be physically touched/touching 'something' in order for its direction of travel to be altered.

Since you need movement of electrons to create electricity, they spin an armature and use the moving electrons to create electricity. Why does anything have to spin or move. Why can't you just use the earths magnetic field to create electricity as it goes through a magnet with a pickup to convert the electricity. Why can't you mount a magnet a quarter inch away from an iron chunk and fit the magnet with copper windings to pick up the magnetic field instead of spinning it. This wouldn't give much electricity, but we have improved electric circuits and have LED bulbs now. Just charge a small battery with the moving current.

You should also be able to tap into the movement of ions through a groundrod from above ground to a ground source by making a pickup. Now this would be using the variances in the energy level of the sky to the earth to create energy.

You said, ask any question. I am going to ask questions that I have been contemplating. Tapping into the magnet field in moderation should not hurt anything.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Since you need movement of electrons to create electricity, they spin an armature and use the moving electrons to create electricity. Why does anything have to spin or move.

Because what produces the flow of electrical current is the time rate of change of the magnetic field. A static magnetic field doesn't induce a current flow.

a reply to: Bedlam

But we are moving at well over eight hundred miles per hour as the earth turns and travels through space.

The pull of the magnet on the metal is an energy force that we should be able to learn to tap. Just because nobody has figured out how to do it yet does not mean that it can't be tapped.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Hmmm. If you were standing on a planet that had no atmosphere and was in a ground state of absolute zero (no heat generation), how would you generate the force to throw the ball? The act of throwing the ball gives it momentum - that is, IF you could throw the ball under those conditions.

Your model assumes that the ball falls back to the surface - I don't think you can know that without experimental data. If it did fall back to the surface under those conditions, then yes, something exerted a force on it. What's the force? Well the planet you're standing on still has mass and wherever you have mass you have gravity. So again, doesn't it come down to comparing the conditions of your model using the standard calculations - then look for anomalies?

For instance, assuming the planet has variable mass like the Earth, if you took two measurements - one around the equator and one at the some arbitrary place between the equator and the poles, you'd expect to see a higher value at the equator due to increased mass. If your measurements differed in some way from the standard calcs, then you would have an anomaly - i.e. something other than conventional gravity was affecting the output. Then run the same test on the ball (if it really does fall back to the surface under these conditions - we still don't know that). If the conventional calcs don't hold up, then you have another anomaly.

As a bench scientist in organic chemistry and spectroscopy, I always think in terms of designing experiments to figure out a problem. What you're proposing really comes down to the mathematics - you would have to demonstrate that these anomalies exist before you can speculate as to what causes the anomalies.

In the case of the ball, if these anomalies showed up in the calculations, then whatever is "touching" the ball, or causing it to act in an unexpected way, would have to be subjected to rigorous testing. I think it would really come down to whatever data could be accumulated and then plugged in to speculative models.

None of this says that what you're proposing isn't possible. It just says that you start with the fundamentals and work your way up the ladder through the process of discovery to find out what caused the anomalies.

originally posted by: rickymouse
Since you need movement of electrons to create electricity, they spin an armature and use the moving electrons to create electricity. Why does anything have to spin or move. Why can't you just use the earths magnetic field to create electricity as it goes through a magnet with a pickup to convert the electricity. Why can't you mount a magnet a quarter inch away from an iron chunk and fit the magnet with copper windings to pick up the magnetic field instead of spinning it. This wouldn't give much electricity, but we have improved electric circuits and have LED bulbs now. Just charge a small battery with the moving current.

You should also be able to tap into the movement of ions through a groundrod from above ground to a ground source by making a pickup. Now this would be using the variances in the energy level of the sky to the earth to create energy.

You said, ask any question. I am going to ask questions that I have been contemplating. Tapping into the magnet field in moderation should not hurt anything.

In order to produce power you need a changing magnetic field.Earths magnetic field doesn't fluctuate enough to produce energy. We instead use magnets to produce a current.The only way I could think of producing energy is to move a coil really fast over the earth nit the best solution.

a reply to: dragonridr

From studying the subject, I discovered that these forces were only neglected because they couldn't produce enough energy to power anything before. But now, it may be feasible because of improved technology to use these forces to run things.

They basically ignored anything they could not use to create a lot of energy before. You do not need a eight horse generator to power five small LEDs lighting your camp.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Bedlam

But we are moving at well over eight hundred miles per hour as the earth turns and travels through space.

The pull of the magnet on the metal is an energy force that we should be able to learn to tap. Just because nobody has figured out how to do it yet does not mean that it can't be tapped.

It doesn't matter that the earth is moving. You're not getting a time rate of change of flux through the wire loop because the magnet's not moving in relation to the wire.

From the POV of the wire, the magnet is motionless, the field static. You thus get no electrical current.

There isn't, btw, any thing called an "energy force". And yes, it can't be tapped. It seems mystical, and it pulls things, so it might seem as if you could. But it's the same thing as gravity in that way. Consider if you had a hill and a rock. You have the rock at the top. The gravity is pulling on the rock. So you let it fall! Wow, if you could have extracted it, you could have derived mgh worth of energy from the rock's descent.

So let's do it again, right? But now you realize that it takes mgh worth of energy to get it back up the hill, and more. So you can't ever get ahead that way.

Same with a magnet. A static pull nets you nothing in terms of energy. And once the metal object is pulled to the magnet (or whatever) you'll now find it takes all the energy you get back in separating them.

It's the same tale with any perpetual motion machine. Sad, but true.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: dragonridr

From studying the subject, I discovered that these forces were only neglected because they couldn't produce enough energy to power anything before.

No, they're neglected because they don't produce net energy at all.

A magnet sitting in a wire loop, stationary, produces zero, zip.diddley, bupkes. Nada. Nothing. The thing that makes the magic is the time rate of change of the magnetic field with regard to the wire loop. And that's how you get a generator.

So you have to either move the wire, or move the magnet, or both. But now you're going to find that the mechanical resistance of that system is equal to the electrical energy you get out, so that you are basically transforming mechanical energy in the thing causing the motion into electrical energy in the loop. Minus some loss.

And that's why it's harder to turn a generator as you increase the load on it. No free lunch, I'm afraid.

a reply to: Bedlam

I'm not talking about the magnet being the energy source, I am talking of the magnet causing the creation of the flow of energy. Sort of like energy flowing through rocks being able to draw up water out of the earth if they are aligned right with no need for a pump. They have discovered that they can orient the molecules of a substance and it reacts with the water. It could also possibly be done with air. You do not get the energy out of the magnet, the magnet is a tool that can be used to remove the energy out of the environment.

You are only looking at the magnetic field and saying it cannot be tapped. Look at the relationship it has to the environment in the area. It is not the magnet's energy that you are tapping, it is the environments energy steered through the magnet.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Bedlam

I'm not talking about the magnet being the energy source, I am talking of the magnet causing the creation of the flow of energy. Sort of like energy flowing through rocks being able to draw up water out of the earth if they are aligned right with no need for a pump. They have discovered that they can orient the molecules of a substance and it reacts with the water. It could also possibly be done with air. You do not get the energy out of the magnet, the magnet is a tool that can be used to remove the energy out of the environment.

You are only looking at the magnetic field and saying it cannot be tapped. Look at the relationship it has to the environment in the area. It is not the magnet's energy that you are tapping, it is the environments energy steered through the magnet.

Problem is the magnetic flux is just to low. You would get maybe a billionth of a volt for every meter or so. The problem is we need to rely on a change in the magnetic field to produce any sort of power. Aligning a magnetic field doesn't produce energy this is just potential energy. We need to alter it or Change it's flux to produce work. Be far easier to just dig down and use geothermal.

a reply to: dragonridr

A guy patented lights that ran off of trees. This patent disappeared, probably bought up by some company. The problem with pulling the energy off of a tree is that it can possibly cause problems with the tree.

I ran all kinds of tests on the trees here and even though the surface charge is in a seemingly non usable form, the charge seems unlimited. Converting it to something we can use is probably what the guy did. He could have used the difference in the energy voltage in the upper tree vs the ground to create a current. A difference of six hundred volts or so even with low amps in the UVA spectrum could be converted. It would be enough to run some LEDs but it could also tax a tree so I am going to make my own little tower. This energy is used to promote radio transmission power in towers, something designed by Tesla I think.

But if it jeopardizes the trees, it is not a viable source. The electrolytes in a tree are much better than in a copper wire at transmitting a signal from a wireless fault finder. I thought about using a tree as an antenna, but because they are such good conductors, you do not want to be putting a copper wire attached to one then to your TV in an area prone to lightning strikes. Also, I do not know if they would actually pull in the right frequencies for the TV stations.

Now, I know that a lot of power cannot be created by what I am studying, but if you could make some power, plus use technology that makes power out of the conversion of hot to cold like they use on woodstoves, coupled with solar panels it could add up if you had energy efficient batteries.

Tesla is working on batteries technology now that seems impressive.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: ImaFungi

Hmmm. If you were standing on a planet that had no atmosphere and was in a ground state of absolute zero (no heat generation), how would you generate the force to throw the ball? The act of throwing the ball gives it momentum - that is, IF you could throw the ball under those conditions.

Well I dont know about the absolute zero aspect; imagine an earth size planet that is of a rock hard material with no atmosphere;

The particles that make up the planet can be vibrating and moving, so they dont have to be at absolute zero necessarily;

But the planet as a whole object, is not moving;

as in rotating, or traveling in any direction;

The fact of whether a human could exist in this environment is not important, I am only after and pointing towards fundamentalities and principles;

So imagine it is a robot which has sophisticated battery packs and a ball slinging mechanism;

The reason I came to wonder about this scenario, is because I was wondering how might a planets motion effect its force of gravity;

And then Arbitrageur told me that even if a planet was not moving, even if a planet was rotationally and linearly motionless, it would still have its associated gravity, it would still 'create a well';

So then I think, if a ball slinging robot was on a earth size planet (I say with no atmosphere to make the scenario simpler), and the planet as an objective object was not rotating or traveling in any direction, but was still and motionless (though yes the individual atoms and molecules may be vibrating to avoid absolute zero);

And the robot threw the ball away from the surface (what we refer to from our perspective as 'up');

In order for gravity to be;

A masses unavoidable 'warping' of material gravity medium;

The robot would throw the ball away from the surface;

In that and those moment/s the ball would have momentum away from the surface;

If it is thought that this stationary body planet, has an intrinsic square of the distance gravity field slope creation;

That is to say the presence of the planet existing amidst the material gravity medium

(material gravity medium; seemingly exists absolutely equally throughout the universe, and relatively equally in terms of geometry/density due to the differing massive bodies that exist variously amidst it)

Effects areas beyond its body, beyond its rocky surface;

The entire concept of which is what inspired field theory to righteously avoid spooky action at a distance;

So if a ball leaves the surface in this scenario;

Instead of me going further, I will have you, considering all I have just said, state what appears to you would occur to the ball.

then whatever is "touching" the ball, or causing it to act in an unexpected way, would have to be subjected to rigorous testing. I think it would really come down to whatever data could be accumulated and then plugged in to speculative models.

Ok, well let me attempt to back track. I first asked Arb, when a bowling ball is dropped from a skyscraper, what physically is forcing the balling ball to fall; and now I see it may be a tricky situation.

I wanted to be quick to say that; 'the only way in which things are moved is by being moved by things' (therein lies my 'touching')

So I was thinking, holding a bowling ball off a skyscraper, there is the two things touching, letting go, the bowling ball is no longer being touched, yes energy was exerted by you (or an elevator) to get up to that position (and we understand mathematically how we can swap number values and feel comfortable, but I am seeking the physical reasons as to how reality is occurring);

So then the bowling ball is let go, and it is moving, even though to the eye, there is no thing, that is forcing it to move;

Well I will leave it at that, because I asked the other stuff above, and im a bit stuck here

originally posted by: rickymouse
Since you need movement of electrons to create electricity, they spin an armature and use the moving electrons to create electricity. Why does anything have to spin or move. Why can't you just use the earths magnetic field to create electricity as it goes through a magnet with a pickup to convert the electricity. Why can't you mount a magnet a quarter inch away from an iron chunk and fit the magnet with copper windings to pick up the magnetic field instead of spinning it. This wouldn't give much electricity, but we have improved electric circuits and have LED bulbs now. Just charge a small battery with the moving current.

It's not exactly what you describe, but we have done experiments with electrodynamic tethers. One such experiment became infamous on the UFO forum because some people seem to think that tiny little out of focus particles near the camera are gigantic miles wide alien spaceships on the other side of the tether. This is the infamous STS-75 video which generated so much debate:

UFO NASA's unexplained tether overload incident

As the beginning of the video explains, the tether actually generated more current than expected and it was fried as a result. There are potential applications for this idea, but obviously we have a lot to learn before implementing it.

Also the costs of launching tethers means it's probably not very economical to generate electricity this way for use on Earth's surface, but the energy extracted could be used for spacecraft propulsion, including reducing the need to send so much fuel up to the ISS to keep it in orbit, which is a major expense of operating the station.

There are other ideas for collecting power in orbit that are probably more efficient than the tether, but those too are plagued with the same problem of how to get the power safely to the surface where it's needed. It could be sent via microwaves but if you've cooked food in a microwave oven, you probably understand some of the risks involved in sending power to the Earth via microwaves. Some bad aim of the satellite transmitting the power and it might cook some people.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
If we were standing anywhere on an earth size planet that had no atmosphere and that was completely motionless;

And we threw a ball away from the surface;

What physically would force the ball to go towards the surface?

The ball has to be physically touched/touching 'something' in order for its direction of travel to be altered.

That seems like a big assumption on your part. I make no such assumption that the ball must be touching anything to have its trajectory altered and fall back to Earth. I can't say for sure it's not but if it is touching something that makes it fall back down, we don't know what. That could just be the way a thrown ball behaves in a gravitational field, without touching anything.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Interesting video about the tether. It almost looks like those little things floating around are interacting with the tether. It never says really what those swimming things are on the video, it just addresses the tether even though the guy asks. Actually, one of them seems to hit the tether and twist around it emerging shaped a little different. I'm sure the crap is just something dumped out of the space ship.

a reply to: rickymouse
The interaction is an illusion, as is the illusion that the particles go behind the tether.

I wanted to make a sequel to the UFO film "I know what I saw" called "No, you don't" but I couldn't get funding (just kidding). It is an interesting illusion, but the tether is 75-80 miles away and the particles you see are less than 1 mile away. This was demonstrated in an ATS thread by ATS member depthoffield. Apparently Jeff Hoffman agrees that the "UFOs" on camera weren't near the tether, and he explains what they are.

www.jsc.nasa.gov...

There were a lot of little bits and shreds of melted tether globs that were floating around. If you go on YouTube you can find a lot of references to the UFOs [unidentified flying objects] which were photographed by STS-75, because in fact what happened was that all of these were rather close to the TV camera so they were out of focus and they looked like these big disks. As they went in front of the tether, just because of the strange optics of the situation, it looked like they were going behind the tether because the tether was so bright that it basically washed out the pixels. The UFO community has had a ball with that. I occasionally get emails asking, “What about these UFOs that you guys photographed? Is this another NASA cover-up?” There were no UFOs, but there were a lot of little flying globs of solidified tether material.

In any case I thought there was a very interesting scientific experiment with an electrodynamic tether taking place, that sometimes got overlooked amidst all the UFO discussion.

a reply to: ImaFungi

The centrifugal force created by a rotating planet affects gravity only in a very small way. For all practical purposes here, I think you can disregard rotation.

As for throwing a ball, it still would be dependent on the mass of the planet and the mass of the ball divided by the square of the distance. So nothing really changes. The only thing that could change it would be interference by another body mass somewhere in space close enough to the planet that you would have to factor it in.

The entire concept of which is what inspired field theory to righteously avoid spooky action at a distance;

Hypothetically, if you converted the planet and the ball into 2 particles and the particles interact (or entangle) and then they separate to any distance, measuring one would affect the other regardless how far apart they are. It may be a stretch, but maybe the gravity generated by the two particles is a clue to this counterintuitive concept of entanglement. I think Einstein finally accepted QM and its weirdness. I don’t think it’s avoided – it’s just not understood (as far as I know).

I still think that classical mechanics answers most of the questions in your models. As for "spooky action at a distance" and entanglement, that takes us to a whole new realm which can only be dealt with mathematically. And that's a tough one. But if you want to go there, I'm game.

a reply to: Phantom423
Imafungi mis-applied Einstein's phrase "spooky action at a distance" which referred to quantum entanglement which is non-local, apparently, which is what makes it spooky. It generally doesn't apply to things like the Earth/ball interaction, which he didn't consider "spooky" as it was defined by his theory of relativity.

Other interactions which are local can be thought of as just "action at a distance" without the spooky part, though with Einstein's math in general relativity, I'm not sure we even need to say that about throwing a ball. It's been said the ball just travels in a straight line through curved space-time so from that perspective nothing need alter its path through that application of mathematics.

www.math.brown.edu...

What does it mean for space to be curved? Moving through curved space is not the same as driving down a curved road, because when you're moving through curved space, you think you're travelling in a straight line! How can this be? Imagine approaching an area of great curvature, which therefore is very hard to traverse. The easiest way to get to the other side is to go around, rather than through. Thus the line (which is the shortest distance between two points, as defined by geometry) of your path is not straight, but curved. Such a line is called a geodesic. curved geodesics

In our universe, things travel along geodesics of spacetime. Because these geodesics are curved by the presence of matter, an object's geodesic will curve inward toward a massive body. We observe this effect as gravitation.