Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
www.extremetech.com...

so if there are no gravity waves does that mean Einstein was wrong WRT his model for gravity? gravity waves are a prediction of relativity and gravity is one of the things we still do not understand. we can describe it; even characterize its effects mathematically both with newtonian mechanics and relativity;but both Einstein's prediction and the QM expectations have failed to materialize.

gravity is an illusion, and not a discrete force or some space twist.

electric force is the only one force in the Universe, magnetic force, which reconfigure space is the "time component" of it.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
The extrapolation is shown below. Again the illustration is grossly exaggerated since the effects of gravitational redshift/blueshift on this scale are too small for perception by the unaided human eye, which is further reason why your candle test is doomed to fail. There simply isn't enough time difference in a height change of 2 meters for you to notice anything different about a candle due to clock rates, though you may see differences for other reasons. The NIST clocks have enough difficulty detecting a change over such a small altitude change, and they are detecting changes so small they are far, far beyond the limits of unaided human perception.

Note in the top view, you can see only three tops of waveforms. In the bottom view where time has been dilated (a fixed amount of time, "X" seconds, has been stretched out), a fourth waveform top appears.

If you normalize the time scales (make a second appear the same length on the horizontal axis), the bottom waveforms will be squashed closer together, and appear to have a higher frequency and this is what we mean when we say EM radiation is "blueshifted" as it goes lower into a gravitational well. In the original Pound-Rebka experiment the altitude change was about 22 meters, though later experiments measured the same effect with higher accuracy and less uncertainty.

So this concept is my understanding of what you're saying (if the exaggerations are removed), but the big difference in your claim is that Einstein got it backwards and time speeds up in a gravitational field. The Pound-Rebka experiment and many other experiments suggest Einstein got it right and you got it wrong. You still have not shared a single shred of evidence Einstein got it wrong and sorry to be so blunt about your candle experiment but all that shows is your ignorance regarding how to determine what factors affect experimental results.

so basically, higher field density slower time flow, lower density, faster time flow..

how comes I have to repeat it over and over again

BTW> what I mean by field density I will also repeat again

nothing = 0 density
1 + charge = 1 density
1 - charge = 1 density
1 + charge and 1 - charge = 2 density

a reply to: Arbitrageur

OK, here's a question . How did the first star form when there was only hydrogen? Is it possible to get fusion with only Hydrogen?

Thermal expansion is a valid point there mate. But ahem.. do you have any idea how small the coefficient of linear expansion is?
Though am still trying to figure out the purple ribbon from the lights, which gets stronger wrt time. Any clues there ?
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

if you mean those linked in the thread from your sig, yes iv seen them, and neither show anything.

No no. Just take a single candle and move it upwards by 2 m and see the brightness of the flame become perceptibly greater.
Overall good post though and very valid points, though true anti gravity is being achieved imo.

Hey, don't get fooled by the pound rebka expt. Its a load of bunk and a very successful attempt at keeping the GR dogma alive.
a reply to: KrzYma

originally posted by: ImaFungi
I can say the number 5.1717171717171717171 (barred) is infinite and we would then see that just because a number is infinite does not mean it contains 'all possible patterns of numbers'.

That's not Pi though, is it? We were talking about Pi.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was asking;

What does 'gravity wave' mean?

Wrong term. I think you meant to be asking about gravitational wave which is a traveling space-time distortion thought to occur when two black holes merge, etc.

A gravity wave is something else, you can see their signatures in clouds which you can't do with a gravitational wave:
yigit.onair.cc...

Gravity waves are generated in the lower atmosphere and propagate upwards. Their effects can be seen in cloud structures.

originally posted by: Fingle
Could energy i.e. us/the universe = equal energy (neurotransmitters)= transmission that reflects =particle mass (reality)(the atom = infinity, expansion? = infinity ?

We are in infinitesimally small part of the universe and we don't have much gravity so if you leave the "us" and neurotansmitter" stuff out, the closest hypotheses I've seen to that is the Zero energy universe hypothesis, which isn't exactly the same but it does talk about an equality between total positive energy of mass and total negative energy of gravitational attraction being equal but opposite. I don't know if it's true, it could be:

www.livescience.com...

Light, matter and antimatter are what physicists call "positive energy." And yes, there's a lot of it (though no one is sure quite how much). Most physicists think, however, that there is an equal amount of "negative energy" stored in the gravitational attraction that exists between all the positive-energy particles. The positive exactly balances the negative, so, ultimately, there is no energy in the universe at all.

Negative energy?

Stephen Hawking explains the concept of negative energy in his book The Theory of Everything (New Millennium 2002): "Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less [positive] energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together," he wrote.

originally posted by: KrzYma
BTW> what I mean by field density I will also repeat again

nothing = 0 density
1 + charge = 1 density
1 - charge = 1 density
1 + charge and 1 - charge = 2 density

Lots of people say lots of things. In science evidence is needed to back up assertions. It's not like nobody thought of a relationship between gravity and charge; lots of people did but nobody has proven it so far, which includes you.

originally posted by: 00018GE
a reply to: Arbitrageur

OK, here's a question . How did the first star form when there was only hydrogen? Is it possible to get fusion with only Hydrogen?

According to the current big bang model, it wasn't only hydrogen, it was

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

about 75% of hydrogen-1, about 25% helium-4, about 0.01% of deuterium and helium-3, trace amounts (on the order of 10−10) of lithium, and negligible heavier elements.

For stellar nucleosynthesis, hydrogen is all you really need, though in larger stars fusion of other elements occurs also.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Thermal expansion is a valid point there mate. But ahem.. do you have any idea how small the coefficient of linear expansion is?

How big does it need to be to change the reading on the scale?

Also what happens to a horizontal piece of sheet steel anchored at both ends when it expands?

I would presume that machine has some kind of internal structure or frame and is not just a cube of 6 pieces of sheet steel welded together (as evidenced by the legs). Heat rises and the piece of sheet steel on top will be affected first by the heat, much faster than the frame of the machine, if there is one. Calculate the effects of this and note the vertical displacement is not a linear function of the horizontal expansion.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Just take a single candle and move it upwards by 2 m and see the brightness of the flame become perceptibly greater.

Several possibilities have already been explained why this might occur, but we are fairly certain that based on our measurements of clock rates at such small altitude differences, whatever brightness change you see would have only an infinitesimally small and for all practical purposes not visible to the human eye contribution from clock rates.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Hey, don't get fooled by the pound rebka expt. Its a load of bunk and a very successful attempt at keeping the GR dogma alive.
a reply to: KrzYma

Maybe you could be more specific about what exactly you think was done incorrectly in the experiment...nah it's easier just to hurl unsupported assertions. KrzYma has presented zero evidence for his claim.

thought i'd put this here with the other one i posted earlier:

www.sciencedaily.com...

if these things follow the "rule of three" then there may be another article to go with these two later.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If a mass can curve space-time anywhere in the universe;

The theory of graviton, is that graviton is the quantized unit of space-time;

And the idea of curvature then is the idea of density alteration;

if for example on average a 10 foot by 10 foot by 10 foot area has 1000 gravitons, each being of a certain mass and energy (and potential binding force that binds the gravitons into their fabric like way);

When a bowling ball enters into this 10 foot by 10 foot by 10 foot area, the orientation of the 1000 gravitons is altered, it is possible there are now room for more, or less, or just the density is changed (as in they can be more tightly packed).

I meant linear in vertical direction.
For the single candle, perform the expt and report rather than, Just typing out scenarios
a reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

if you mean those linked in the thread from your sig, yes iv seen them, and neither show anything.

No no. Just take a single candle and move it upwards by 2 m and see the brightness of the flame become perceptibly greater.
Overall good post though and very valid points, though true anti gravity is being achieved imo.

Just tried it with a flashlight. Nope, no brightness increase when moving it up. I guess your time compression effect only works with candles... ROFL

a reply to: stormbringer1701

A false theory that is based on assumptions can predict and calculate anything you like.

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

if you mean those linked in the thread from your sig, yes iv seen them, and neither show anything.

No no. Just take a single candle and move it upwards by 2 m and see the brightness of the flame become perceptibly greater.
Overall good post though and very valid points, though true anti gravity is being achieved imo.

Just tried it with a flashlight. Nope, no brightness increase when moving it up. I guess your time compression effect only works with candles... ROFL

LOl, did some1 rattle your cage. It was explained earlier why flashlights wont work.

I have a question to OP to clarify for me Terrels rotation.

Length contraction is often debated as physical from pov of 'rest' frame to moving frame.

Said that, could you give more insides on how Terrel's rotation explains length contraction in basic terms?

As I understand it, moving frame exhibits visual on the passing object as being put in geometry terms perspective, leaving me observed passing object as residing under angle.

Anyway, I wont go to far into my assumptions until hear an answer from who ever.


cheers)

originally posted by: greenreflections
I have a question to OP to clarify for me Terrels rotation.

Length contraction is often debated as physical from pov of 'rest' frame to moving frame.

Said that, could you give more insides on how Terrel's rotation explains length contraction in basic terms?

It doesn't. Well, not by itself, anyway. Think about Einstein's quote to put you on the right track:

"The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." - Albert Einstein

I suspect he was referring to the relativity of simultaneity, where events which occur in sequence A, B and C in one reference frame can occur in the reverse sequence C, B and A in another reference frame, which is very difficult for us to get a grip on conceptually. Time is not absolute, it's relative.

So the point is, it's not just length contraction which results in Terrel's rotation, but also the time effects of special relativity. Remember you don't see any object as it is, you see objects as they were. We see the moon as it was 1 second ago, but it hasn't changed much in the last second so that doesn't make much difference, but traveling at relativistic speeds, we can see the side of a building facing away from us due to relativistic distortions sooner than we would without the relativistic distortions (see time index 1:36 in the video below where this rotation is apparent). When the other relativistic effects are added in,the rotation becomes hard to see (mostly because of the "headlight effect"), see time index 3:22:

Optical Effects of Special Relativity

originally posted by: Nochzwei
I meant linear in vertical direction.
For the single candle, perform the expt and report rather than, Just typing out scenarios

I just tried raising and lowering a lit candle by 2 meters. I saw no difference. However I should note that my candle is different from the one in the video. It's a glass cylinder open on one end and closed on the other, about 1/4 meter long and about 8 cm wide. This isn't the exact candle I used but it's very similar:



They put the wick in the empty cylinder and fill it up with wax to within about 4 cm of the open end, so there's a "wall of glass" around the wick which probably limits some effects of convection which might occur without the glass wall. Also the environmental temperature and air density the flame is exposed to doesn't change as much as with an open candle, since there's a miniature environment inside the glass wall. While it's open above it's closed in all other directions so it minimizes some of the variables we were talking about, which have nothing to do with time.

Back to the height gauge on your antigravity machine, I think a sketch is needed to illustrate what I mean by vertical displacement from horizontal expansion. The red curved line on top is the sheet steel the height gauge in your video is touching. I know it's anchored on at least one side by the way the bracket for the scale arm is mounted, and if the sheet steel is also secured to the frame on the opposite side, this illustration shows what can happen to the sheet steel if it expands faster than the frame, which it can do because it's thinner material than the frame material.

So here's a math problem for you. Assume the machine width of the frame and the sheet steel is 1.000 meter before expansion. Now assume the sheet steel (shown in red) expands one millionth of one meter from the expansion (or say a millionth of a meter more than the frame). What will be the difference registered in the height gauge if the sheet steel bows slightly up as shown (The deflection from a millionth of a meter would be less than a pixel on this scale so I had to exaggerate the bowing for this illustration). Or in other words, solve for h as shown in the illustration. If you can do it, you might be surprised at the result. From an experimental viewpoint it's probably the worst place possible to put the height gauge since it's more or less in the middle where it will record the maximum deflection from this type of thermal expansion.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
The theory of graviton, is that graviton is the quantized unit of space-time

That's not the theory of the graviton, thus the rest of your question doesn't make much sense. The graviton is a "hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory." (Wiki)

if for example on average a 10 foot by 10 foot by 10 foot area has 1000 gravitons, each being of a certain mass and energy

There are so many different models it's hard to keep up with all of them, in string theory alone, but I think in most of them the graviton is massless.

Good effort there mate. Thanks. Wow that's a mother of a candle and if you did not see any change in brightness, which I am sure would have been there, then surely im a vampire.
Good effort on sketch as well, but a 20 min video, I would be expecting negligible or non measurable thermal expansion, with only a couple of degrees or less of a temp rise. Though any clues on the purple blue ribbon from the lights that gets stronger wrt time as the video progresses?
reply to: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The graviton is a "hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory." (Wiki)

The space-time fabric which warps cannot be nothing.

Nothing cannot warp.

What is the theory as to what exists, which warps, in the presence of mass?

And then the theory of graviton, is a virtual particle that 'comes into existence from nowhere' as a mass interacts with the unnamed unthought of 'substance which warps in the presence of mass'?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Good effort on sketch as well, but a 20 min video, I would be expecting negligible or non measurable thermal expansion, with only a couple of degrees or less of a temp rise.

Yes I know and I gave you a clue to why this assumption is false, because you don't understand what's going on in the experimet. I assume this means you don't know how to solve for h. If you can't solve that simple geometry problem, antigravity experiments are over your head and you won't understand why the gauge does what it does. If you can solve for h, you'll then understand why something you thought was too small to measure is now measurable.

Though any clues on the purple blue ribbon from the lights that gets stronger wrt time as the video progresses?

More evidence you're a vampire I guess since like the candle, I don't see much change in that purple artifact either. Here are screencaps from about 5m and about 16m where it looks about the same to me, so I don't see it getting stronger:



It's an artifact of CCD technology called "Charge spill":
www-rohan.sdsu.edu...

Another artifact of digital cameras is due to charge spill in CCD detectors. Bob Collin, of Beaverton, Oregon, sent me this fine example:

Image taken with a CCD camera, showing green columns What you see here is leakage along the columns of the CCD, caused by the overexposed solar image. I'd have expected this streak to appear red, but maybe the green hue is due to a color-balance shift of the kind discussed above: notice that the clouds around the Sun appear yellow, rather than the reddish orange you'd expect. In any case, this is a camera artifact, not an atmospheric phenomenon.

What's happening here is that the Sun's bright image produces vastly more photoelectrons than the maximum capacity of the little “electron wells” in the chip that hold and transport the charges forming the image. It's sort of like those plastic ice-cube trays that have little grooves between the compartments, so that you can run water into one, and it will progressively flood the others. Here, it's electrons instead of water, but the overflowing process is analogous: excess charges flood the column, producing a bright artifact in the image, as if it had been exposed to a vertical strip of light in the image plane.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Good effort on sketch as well, but a 20 min video, I would be expecting negligible or non measurable thermal expansion, with only a couple of degrees or less of a temp rise.

Yes I know and I gave you a clue to why this assumption is false, because you don't understand what's going on in the experimet. I assume this means you don't know how to solve for h. If you can't solve that simple geometry problem, antigravity experiments are over your head and you won't understand why the gauge does what it does. If you can solve for h, you'll then understand why something you thought was too small to measure is now measurable.

Though any clues on the purple blue ribbon from the lights that gets stronger wrt time as the video progresses?

More evidence you're a vampire I guess since like the candle, I don't see much change in that purple artifact either. Here are screencaps from about 5m and about 16m where it looks about the same to me, so I don't see it getting stronger:

It's an artifact of CCD technology called "Charge spill":

Lol an engineer cannot solve a geometry problem. Seriously? I take it you are not an engineer and haven't performed shrink fits in a college lab to know what kind of VISIBLE temp change to know what temps are reqd for thermal expansion to be measurable. But nvm.
Though I do see the difference in the ribbon in the 2 screencaps you posted. Watch the video again and notice carefully towards the end 2 ribbons also appear.
CCD artifact? Maybe. But I think the machine is generating some weird radiation that is hitting the camera detector or maybe the light from the bulbs is travelling faster than c due to time dilation.

a reply to: Nochzwei

the purple banding most certainly is a CCD artifact, you see it in lots of places and always when the CCD is exposed to a very bright source. The conditions for it to happen are also perfect, the lighting in the area where the box is in general is mostly like it is in shade. So the speed at which the CCD refreshes/reads out is rather slow, in order to catch more photons.

Any bright source on scene can cause the purple banding, and it happens to be the row of bright lightbulbs.

No anti-gravity is taking place here, no manipulated time dilation. He controls the device via a Variac, which probably just spins a motor at different speeds. Inside I guess there is some kind of spinning magnet (because hey, magnets, spinning has been a common feature of all these devices)

The thermal expansion of steel ( just for reference is 12 microns / m k so a 0.7 meter pole (by eye balling it) can expect to linearly expand by 8.4 microns per degree, depends on the temperature change but electrical motors and bulbs do get quite hot, the device warming up by about 10 degrees on the inside is not out of the question, it is possibly getting hotter.

so we are looking at about 80microns of length expansion for a linear bar. Small yes, but it would give you a measured difference on the scales, and a good deflection gauge would easily show that. Now the plate on the top doesn't have to expand linearly it is trapped, so it will bow upwards as said. This would again very easily give you the observed affect