3
   

Who's familiar with the conversion? - "In 15 years' ship-time they could reach Andromeda

 
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 11:29 am
@maxdancona,
By the way does Quantum Spooky Action-at-a-Distance obey the law that information can not be transfer faster then light?

God the subject of Quantum mechanics always gave me headache and in fact I am the type of simple engineer that would be happier in a Newtonian universe.

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 11:29 am
@layman,
Quote:

Exactly! That is just another way of acknowledging that the car (not the earth) is accelerating.

It merely points out that the mass of the car is quite a bit less than the mass of the earth. The same force is applied to the earth as is applied to the car.

When we have 2 objects of equal mass and apply force which one doesn't move?
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 11:42 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

By the way you seems to have a very very solid understanding of the subject matter and are able to explain it in a very clear manner so I been wondering what is your background.

A physics teacher at the university level at the very least would be my guess.


Thanks I was a physics teacher in high school, and in college as an adjunct (not having a PhD. makes a university career difficult).

I lost patience with the students Wink. I now work as an engineer.
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 11:50 am
@parados,
This discussion is about frames of reference. You bring up a a different issue (which of course can be calculated using the same rules in any frame of reference).

My point is that before any force is applied you can choose any inertial frame of reference. The laws of nature work the same way no matter which inertial frame works. You can pick an inertial frame where before any problem the Earth is moving (and stays moving according to Newton's first law).

Layman asked me to PROVE IT (the caps are his) when I said that the laws of nature work the same in any frame of reference. This is actually very easy to show by experiment in a physics laboratory.

If you take a basic physics course, you will likely do exactly that. Educators understand that science is based on experiment and so they have beginning students doing experiments.

Of course, many of these experiments can now be watched on YouTube. Here is one that seems pretty good....


layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 11:54 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Layman asked me to PROVE IT (the caps are his) when I said that the laws of nature work the same in any frame of reference.


Wrong, Max. What I said was:

Quote:
PROVE IT! I mean prove something that shows the earth is the one accelerating. You are merely asserting this without any reasoning or support of any kind. You announce uncontroversial facts, but then draw a conclusion that is irrelevant to, and in no way follows from, those facts. In fact, you have already contradicted the conclusion you are trying to imply, when you said:


I could say "the sky is blue," and that would be true. But that doesn't say anything about whether the car or the earth is accelerating. I did NOT ask you what color the sky is. Prove the claim you are trying to make. You have asserted that I am wrong when I say the car, not the earth, accelerates.

PROVE IT with a RELEVANT response.
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:05 pm
@layman,
I think I see what you are misunderstanding. I never said the Earth had accelerated or was accelerating. Go back and read my explanation again. If you show me where I ever said the Earth is accelerating in any discussion related to this problem please point it out and I will admit you are right. Otherwise, it is you who are wrong.

I have agreed with you that it is the car in this example that accelerates. An object. such as the Earth in the example of the "end of acceleration" frame I defined, can be in motion without accelerating (I think this is the exact point that your reasoning is breaking down).

I defined an inertial frame of reference where Earth started at the beginning of the problem at 60 mph West. If you start out going 60 mph and keep going at 60 mph (according to Newton's first law) there is no acceleration.

This is just Newton's first law. Newton's laws work in any inertial frame of reference... including the one in which the Earth is moving 60 mph West.


layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:08 pm
@maxdancona,
Thanks for the video, Max. Within the first 2:00 it shows that a "frame of reference" which defies physical laws is NOT the correct one.

It makes my point for me.

Watching for a couple of more minutes, it shows than an "optical illusion" is JUST THAT. It is NOT the true state of affairs. It is an illusigon. It shows that the wall is the one "really moving" wrt to the earth's frame. It doesn't show that such things "can't be known." It shows the opposite. They can be known.

If they couldn't be known, then the video couldn't show you which one (the wall or the man) is the one moving in the earth's frame.

layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:10 pm
@maxdancona,

Quote:
I defined an inertial frame of reference where Earth started at the beginning of the problem at 60 mph West. If you start out going 60 mph and keep going at 60 mph (according to Newton's first law) there is no acceleration.


Yes, you did, and thereby proved my contention, NOT your denial of my contention. There is no acceleration of the earth.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:15 pm
@maxdancona,
Now I had found someone who understanding is far beyond mine beside Quantum Spooky Action-at-a-Distance question could you deal with the subject of if the gravitational field obey the speed of light then why is the orbit the earth around the sun not unstable due to the motion of the sun causing the gravity center of the sun being 8 minutes behind as far as the earth is concern it true position?
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:32 pm
@BillRM,
Are you going to try to make me remember the GR I took 25 years ago? I didn't get my PhD, and gravity is weird.

But let's look at this based on what I know (and remember) now. The obvious question is why would such an orbit be unstable, even without General Relativity? If you look at things from the Suns frame of reference, the 8 minute time delay doesn't cause an unstable orbit.

A classical orbit is a central force. In a frame of reference where the center doesn't change, the orbit is just as stable.

So, the question is, why doesn't classical (non-relativistic) mechanics work just fine even if you make the one assumption that gravity acts with an 8 minute time delay?
layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:37 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
So, the question is, why doesn't classical (non-relativistic) mechanics work just fine even if you make the one assumption that gravity acts with an 8 minute time delay?


And the answer to that question is that, once again, you have a mistaken premise. In classic mechanics there is NO 8-minute delay. As Laplace had demonstrated long ago, the effect of gravity is virtually "instantaneous" in classical mechanics.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:47 pm
@layman,
You are correct about that Layman.

But, I was asking the hypothetical question in response to Bill's point... if you added the 8 minute delay to gravity, but didn't change anything else about classical mechanics, would it lead to an unstable orbit?

I am not sure it would.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 12:48 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Yes, you did, and thereby proved my contention


Whether I did or not is easy enough to prove. If I did... you will provide a link.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 01:07 pm
@layman,
In 2002, there was a peer-reviewed article published here: Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”, T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Foundations of Physics 32:1031-1068 (2002).

J.P. Vigier is a highly respected physicist who worked with Einstein as an assistant. I am having trouble getting the original article online (for free, anyway). However, a prior summary of the issues by the other author (Van Flandern) was published in "Physics Essays" and can be found here:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

An excerpt:

Quote:
The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say


The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous. This seemed unacceptable on two counts....[But] it is widely accepted, even if less widely known, that the speed of gravity in Newton’s Universal Law is unconditionally infinite. (E.g., Misner et al., 1973, p. 177)...

Conclusion: The Speed of Gravity is ³ 2x1010 c

Einstein special relativity (SR) is able to prove based on its premises that nothing can propagate faster than the speed of light in forward time. Is our result for the speed of gravity an experimental falsification of SR? The correct answer must be a qualified “yes and no”. Strictly, the minor new interpretation of SR needed for consistency with our result is no more a falsification of SR than GR was a falsification of Newtonian gravity. In both cases, the earlier theory was incomplete rather than wrong. We will now examine exactly what must change about SR for full consistency with all existing experimental evidence and this new result as well.

...it was widely believed that GR was based on SR. But GR is usually implemented using a preferred frame closely coinciding with the local gravity field, with the consequence that only the features that SR and LR have in common were integrated into GR. The reciprocity of time dilation between two inertial frames, a key way in which SR differs from LR, plays no role in GR.





BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 01:08 pm
@maxdancona,
I agree that gravity is weird but as far as why if the gravity field is 8 minute behind the sun true positions as far as the earth is concern and hours as far as the outer planets are concern would result in unstable orbits let see the planets would have a focus points that is not the current position of the sun and pulling a number out of thin air let say a 100 miles a minute for the sun own movement around the center of the galaxy resulting in an "error" of 800 miles for earth and 30000 miles for the outer planets.

The planets would not in fact would not be orbiting the "same" sun as the center or focus would be not located in the same place depending on how far they are from the sun and then in the case of anyone planet the focus would change depending on if the planet was in a part of it orbit that was in the direction of the sun movements or again that movement.

Lord I am getting a headache trying to think how to begin to write the equations but I think you would have an unstable situation.

layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 01:14 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
if you added the 8 minute delay to gravity, but didn't change anything else about classical mechanics, would it lead to an unstable orbit?

I am not sure it would.


Yes, it would--according to the paper I just cited, anyway. You might want to read it. Rather interesting.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 01:20 pm
@BillRM,
I am going to need to read the following any numbers of time to try to understand it.


Quote:


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?

To begin with, the speed of gravity has not been measured directly in the laboratory—the gravitational interaction is too weak, and such an experiment is beyond present technological capabilities. The "speed of gravity" must therefore be deduced from astronomical observations, and the answer depends on what model of gravity one uses to describe those observations.

In the simple newtonian model, gravity propagates instantaneously: the force exerted by a massive object points directly toward that object's present position. For example, even though the Sun is 500 light seconds from the Earth, newtonian gravity describes a force on Earth directed towards the Sun's position "now," not its position 500 seconds ago. Putting a "light travel delay" (technically called "retardation") into newtonian gravity would make orbits unstable, leading to predictions that clearly contradict Solar System observations.

In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed. This might seem to contradict the Solar System observations described above, but remember that general relativity is conceptually very different from newtonian gravity, so a direct comparison is not so simple. Strictly speaking, gravity is not a "force" in general relativity, and a description in terms of speed and direction can be tricky. For weak fields, though, one can describe the theory in a sort of newtonian language. In that case, one finds that the "force" in GR is not quite central—it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field—and that it depends on velocity as well as position. The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the newtonian result.

This cancellation may seem less strange if one notes that a similar effect occurs in electromagnetism. If a charged particle is moving at a constant velocity, it exerts a force that points toward its present position, not its retarded position, even though electromagnetic interactions certainly move at the speed of light. Here, as in general relativity, subtleties in the nature of the interaction "conspire" to disguise the effect of propagation delay. It should be emphasized that in both electromagnetism and general relativity, this effect is not put in ad hoc but comes out of the equations. Also, the cancellation is nearly exact only for constant velocities. If a charged particle or a gravitating mass suddenly accelerates, the change in the electric or gravitational field propagates outward at the speed of light.

Since this point can be confusing, it's worth exploring a little further, in a slightly more technical manner. Consider two bodies—call them A and B—held in orbit by either electrical or gravitational attraction. As long as the force on A points directly towards B and vice versa, a stable orbit is possible. If the force on A points instead towards the retarded (propagation-time-delayed) position of B, on the other hand, the effect is to add a new component of force in the direction of A's motion, causing instability of the orbit. This instability, in turn, leads to a change in the mechanical angular momentum of the A-B system. But total angular momentum is conserved, so this change can only occur if some of the angular momentum of the A-B system is carried away by electromagnetic or gravitational radiation.

Now, in electrodynamics, a charge moving at a constant velocity does not radiate. Technically, the lowest-order radiation is dipole radiation, and the radiated power depends on the second time derivative of the electric dipole moment; two time derivatives give acceleration. So, to the extent that A's motion can be approximated as motion at a constant velocity, A cannot lose angular momentum. For the theory to be consistent, there must therefore be compensating terms that partially cancel the instability of the orbit caused by retardation. This is exactly what happens; a calculation shows that the force on A points not towards B's retarded position, but towards B's "linearly extrapolated" retarded position.

In general relativity, roughly speaking, a mass moving at a constant acceleration does not radiate. Here, the lowest order radiation is quadrupole radiation, and the radiated power depends on the third time derivative of the mass quadrupole moment. (The full picture is slightly more complex, since one cannot have a single, isolated accelerating mass; whatever it is that causes the acceleration also has a gravitational field, and its field must be taken into account.) For consistency, just as in the case of electromagnetism, a cancellation of the effect of retardation must occur, but it must now be even more complete—that is, it must hold to a higher power of v/c. This is exactly what one finds when one solves the equations of motion in general relativity.

While current observations do not yet provide a direct model-independent measurement of the speed of gravity, a test within the framework of general relativity can be made by observing the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16. The orbit of this binary system is gradually decaying, and this behavior is attributed to the loss of energy due to escaping gravitational radiation. But in any field theory, radiation is intimately related to the finite velocity of field propagation, and the orbital changes due to gravitational radiation can equivalently be viewed as damping caused by the finite propagation speed. (In the discussion above, this damping represents a failure of the "retardation" and "noncentral, velocity-dependent" effects to completely cancel.)

The rate of this damping can be computed, and one finds that it depends sensitively on the speed of gravity. The fact that gravitational damping is measured at all is a strong indication that the propagation speed of gravity is not infinite. If the calculational framework of general relativity is accepted, the damping can be used to calculate the speed, and the actual measurement confirms that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light to within 1%. (Measurements of at least one other binary pulsar system, PSR B1534+12, confirm this result, although so far with less precision.)

Are there future prospects for a direct measurement of the speed of gravity? One possibility would involve detection of gravitational waves from a supernova. The detection of gravitational radiation in the same time frame as a neutrino burst, followed by a later visual identification of a supernova, would be considered strong experimental evidence for the speed of gravity being equal to the speed of light. However, unless a very nearby supernova occurs soon, it will be some time before gravitational wave detectors are expected to be sensitive enough to perform such a test.

See also the section on gravitational radiation.

References

There seems to be no nontechnical reference on this subject. For technical
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 01:22 pm
@layman,
This is from the same guy who believes that the "face on Mars" is a sign of an ancient advanced Martian civilization...

https://moonconspiracy.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/mars_face.jpg?w=620

We are really leaving the realm of science here. I like science fiction as much as the next guy... but it should at least be interesting as fiction.

layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 01:26 pm
@layman,
Quote:
The reciprocity of time dilation between two inertial frames, a key way in which SR differs from LR, plays no role in GR.


It is important to understand every word of this sentence (and why it was written) if you really want to understand SR and the way it differs from other theories of relative motion, Max.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Wed 18 Nov, 2015 01:31 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
We are really leaving the realm of science here.


You're just showing how illogical you can be, Max. As I said:

Quote:
In 2002, there was a peer-reviewed article published here: Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”, T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Foundations of Physics 32:1031-1068 (2002).

J.P. Vigier is a highly respected physicist who worked with Einstein as an assistant.


You like "experiments," you say? Or do you just like to make bigoted, ad hominem attacks on those who know a lot more than you do? Read the title of the peer-reviewed article again:

Quote:
"Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 11:11:12