Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,657
In one important sense, yeah, I know. But if you think about it that is not -entirely- true. A massless particle moves at c, which is maximum energy. But there is no such beast that we've ever found as a particle with no -energy- and maximum mass. It would seem to me that this implies a favorable direction for the action and not a true equivalency. I'm comfortable with the idea that it is only an energy spectrum... but I'm not sure if that spectrum is completely flat. It doesn't seem like it is from my amateur scholarship.
It may be that these particles are not truly massless. In fact, photons have to have some arbitrarily small mass don't they? neutrinos outpace them... it's how we can predict novas. Or was that just because photons absorb/reabsorb and neutrinos don't give a fuck and just keep on truckin? I forget. But a collection of photons can be said to have mass, and they behave in a way which is congruent with what you expect of a massive particle. I don't think it's just a confusion of terms. In a way you're describing the exact same thing, but in another way you're describing two different things.
I just wonder... if there is a force carrier for gravity, and it acts on energy... (which we know it does because of lensing), but the force of that action is stronger than we previously thought (which I think LIGO might show us is the case)... then how does that change our starmap? I think it changes things. smooths out some distortion.
You don't know what a field is. A vector field is a distribution of a physical property throughout a given space. Over here it's pointed in this direction at this magnitude, over there it is pointed in that direction at that magnitude.
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's use electromagnetic fields and charges as an analog to those of gravity.
In a given space there is nothing. The electric field is thus zero. Then at t=0 poof a single positive point charge appears. Electric lines of flux begin radiating out from the charge. These lines of flux radiate at speed c. The space is thus filled with a time invariant electric field only after the time it takes those lines of flux, traveling at speed c, to traverse the given volume of space we are considering. After such time if the point charge never moves again we will be left with a completely time invariant electric field within the volume, with electric flux radiating out of the point charge at speed c. If we move the charge then we will see a time varying change in the electric field. This change will cause a wave in the electric field, it will also travel at c, as it is dependent on the change in distribution of the flux which is radiating out of the charge at speed c.
Now if we assume as you do that the flux is radiating with infinite speed from the point charge, then any change to the speed or position of the charge will instantly change the resulting field in the entire space under consideration. There is no mathematical way a distributed field can change with some finite speed if the flux that drives that change moves with infinite velocity.
Now getting back to gravity let's look at another aspect of your explanation that leads to a paradox that you cannot resolve. We know gravity is caused by mass warping space time. So in our volume of space, where nothing exists, at t=0 a mass appears. According to you the gravity field of this mass travels at infinite speed. So at precisely t=0 every single point in that volume would have instantaneous knowledge of that mass appearing right at t=0. This is a blatant violation of relativity.
You can do this experiment at home with a high speed camera. Drop a bowling ball on a trampoline and watch the mat ripple over time until it comes to steady state. The bowling ball represents the mass, the trampoline mat spacetime. The mat does not instantaneously warp to the bowling ball.
Something simpler you can do is just turn on your faucet and watch the water streaming out. The water represents the flux emanating from the particle/mass, the field in the center of the stream is a vector pointing down into the sink with a magnitude equal to the speed of the falling water molecules. If the faucet is still the stream is undisturbed, i.e. Steady state or time invariant. Now move the faucet back and forth. Now you see waves in the stream, they propagate at the same velocity as the water molecules in the stream. The resultant vector field in the center of the stream starts to oscillate, i.e. It is time varying. If the water molecules moved with infinite velocity then there could never be waves as you move the faucet back and forth.
What you are proposing is not backed by any science or math. No physical quantity travels faster than light. There is a reason physicists say c is the speed limit of the universe.
Gravity, gravity fields, gravity particles, gravity waves all propagate at c.
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's use electromagnetic fields and charges as an analog to those of gravity.
In a given space there is nothing. The electric field is thus zero. Then at t=0 poof a single positive point charge appears. Electric lines of flux begin radiating out from the charge. These lines of flux radiate at speed c. The space is thus filled with a time invariant electric field only after the time it takes those lines of flux, traveling at speed c, to traverse the given volume of space we are considering. After such time if the point charge never moves again we will be left with a completely time invariant electric field within the volume, with electric flux radiating out of the point charge at speed c. If we move the charge then we will see a time varying change in the electric field. This change will cause a wave in the electric field, it will also travel at c, as it is dependent on the change in distribution of the flux which is radiating out of the charge at speed c.
Now if we assume as you do that the flux is radiating with infinite speed from the point charge, then any change to the speed or position of the charge will instantly change the resulting field in the entire space under consideration. There is no mathematical way a distributed field can change with some finite speed if the flux that drives that change moves with infinite velocity.
Now getting back to gravity let's look at another aspect of your explanation that leads to a paradox that you cannot resolve. We know gravity is caused by mass warping space time. So in our volume of space, where nothing exists, at t=0 a mass appears. According to you the gravity field of this mass travels at infinite speed. So at precisely t=0 every single point in that volume would have instantaneous knowledge of that mass appearing right at t=0. This is a blatant violation of relativity.
You can do this experiment at home with a high speed camera. Drop a bowling ball on a trampoline and watch the mat ripple over time until it comes to steady state. The bowling ball represents the mass, the trampoline mat spacetime. The mat does not instantaneously warp to the bowling ball.
Something simpler you can do is just turn on your faucet and watch the water streaming out. The water represents the flux emanating from the particle/mass, the field in the center of the stream is a vector pointing down into the sink with a magnitude equal to the speed of the falling water molecules. If the faucet is still the stream is undisturbed, i.e. Steady state or time invariant. Now move the faucet back and forth. Now you see waves in the stream, they propagate at the same velocity as the water molecules in the stream. The resultant vector field in the center of the stream starts to oscillate, i.e. It is time varying. If the water molecules moved with infinite velocity then there could never be waves as you move the faucet back and forth.
What you are proposing is not backed by any science or math. No physical quantity travels faster than light. There is a reason physicists say c is the speed limit of the universe.
Gravity, gravity fields, gravity particles, gravity waves all propagate at c.
Show us. Show us the equation that demonstrates gravity fields travel with infinite velocity.
Slowly evolving, ie near steady state, quasi static. Too slow to see relativistic effects, like the finite velocity of propagation. As I said before, Newtonian gravity is a simplification of Relativity where you make simplifying assumptions, like masses moving slowly compared to the velocity of propagation. You are out of your depth.
LachiusTZ
Rogue Deathwalker Box
- 14,472
- 27,162
Nice supplementary article
How scientists will keep searching for gravitational waves | The Verge
Seems like the disconnect is between warps in space time vs radiation? The effect a warp in space time has occurs instantly, but that warp occurs at c.
I would like to see you guys go back and forth on math. I have no intent of understanding it, just think the nerd out would be neat. Lol
How scientists will keep searching for gravitational waves | The Verge
Seems like the disconnect is between warps in space time vs radiation? The effect a warp in space time has occurs instantly, but that warp occurs at c.
I would like to see you guys go back and forth on math. I have no intent of understanding it, just think the nerd out would be neat. Lol
moonarchia
The Scientific Shitlord
- 24,599
- 46,310
Whatever things become in a black hole would be the all mass, no energy side of the spectrum. And photons are weird. They have no mass, but behave like both waves and particles.
Particles are just point sources, mass is just one attribute of them, others being spin and charge.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 22,617
- 29,914
What a big fucking pile of nonsense. First of all, equating electromagnetism to gravity is silly, since they work fundamentally different, and there are numerous reasons behind those differences.
The biggest, and most apparent differences that you have no grasp of are these: Gravitational pull points to where an object is IN REAL TIME. The earth is falling not toward where the sun appears to be, but where it was 8 minutes ago, while electromagnetism from the sun appears to be originating from the sun where it was 8 minutes ago. This is basic, accepted and completely true scientific fact. When two stars orbit each other half a light year apart, they fall toward where that star is located instantly, not where it appears to be located. When we orbit the center of our galaxy, we fall toward the center of the galaxy -where it is now-, not where it appears to be to us. This irrefutable fact is verified and accepted by all of science, including general relativity. You're the one not accepting it, and you're the one making up weird thought experiments to try and contradict everything that all of history and observed science has taught us.
The other major and key difference between electromagnetism and gravity is that gravity sources don't fluctuate to nearly the same degree. Sure some objects in outer space radiate mass, and there may be processes to create and eliminate mass, but everything we've ever observed tells us that this factor is inconsequential for the -incredibly- vast majority of case related to gravity. Electromagnetism on the other hand can start, stop, and fluctuate greatly over time. The much more constant nature of gravity is what allows relativity to explain that gravity can act instantaneously, and only the changes to the field itself (rare fringe cases and trivial amounts) need to propogate at light speed, because the field in theory shouldn't actually change unless things of this nature happen.
About the only way gravitational waves could be produced within our solar system would be via colliding two objects together at immense speed, and even then the waves would be -hard- to detect. A sudden physical interaction could cause the fields to warp, and would cause a wave to be released as the field corrects itself at the speed of light. The example of this often given is that if the sun suddenly completely vanished, we could continue falling toward where the sun should have been for 8 more minutes, until the gravitational wave of it disappearing reaches us.
Shit, I'm trying to put this in wikipedia examples so you can fucking look it up.
LachiusTZ
Rogue Deathwalker Box
- 14,472
- 27,162
I'm not the SME on this, but that is going to get you hammered cause it's wrong (almost certain, and certain meaning I'd bet Cad like money on it).
I'll admit, I didn't read past that.
Still waiting for that EFE solution set that shows unequivocal proof that gravity fields interact at infinite speed. Let me know when you find it.
I'm not going to engage him in his fantasy any longer. He made the assertion that gravity fields act at infinite speed. It's on him to prove it by providing mathematical proof, an equation, a paper, anything that can be reviewed. He just keeps avoiding the truth though, and goes further down his rabbit hole.
Ambiturner
Ssraeszha Raider
- 16,081
- 19,634
We all get to that point with Furry at some point which is when we say "Fuck this guy" and just troll him for entertainment.
Furry
🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
- 22,617
- 29,914
Oh, youthinkits wrong without actually knowing or checking? Clearly, it must be wrong.
Ambiturner
Ssraeszha Raider
- 16,081
- 19,634
I think the theory of gravity acting instantaneously regardless of distance was disproven in the 19th century, something to do with the orbit of Mercury.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
Yeah, for all those defending Furry for backing down when shown to be wrong, just lol.
Abefroman
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 12,594
- 11,938
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
Do you have anything to add, or just more pointless white knighting of the Rescorla of the science thread?
Abefroman
Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
- 12,594
- 11,938
As i thought you have nothing. Your just gonna keep shitting up this thread because you think you are an expert since you watched quantum leap. Fuck off faggot.