| General > General Technical Chat |
| That damn gravity measurement... |
| (1/3) > >> |
| GlennSprigg:
'MY' theory is that 'Gravity' is like the Kinetic/Potential energy of the proverbial 'Big-Bang'!! We agonize over where it all started. Let's look at a 'Simple' physical construction, where there are two boards, held at a distance between them. To all intensive purposes, between those two boards, there are two springs attached between them. ONE has NO spring tension, and the OTHER has a 'force' trying to pull them together. All this seems perfectly feasible, BUT imagine some external device/meter that you 'point' at it, or wave it around, that can measure/detect these forces?? You can't. It's at(within) an atomic/molecular level. Your 'sensors' need to be within the atomic structure!! To my mind, it's LIKE that, when people keep trying to 'measure/detect' Gravity Waves. It's a lost cause. I 'think' that possibly Gravity can only exist, as we know it & imagine it, is because originally, ALL matter/energy was initially emanating from that single point at creation... :-// Imagine the Conundrum of 2 objects/matter 'materializing' in Space. Would the 'force' between them be instantaneous??, or maybe have to travel at the "speed of light" or something first? Hang on, it's said that energy can not be created or destroyed, but only transformed from one form to another or from one object to another... Yep. I propose also that matter is but a 'form' of energy! 'Matter' has been converted to energy as in E = MC2 in nuclear explosions. And vast amounts of Energy have, in particle accelerators or atomic 'splitters' resulted in the re-creation of matter (Protons) as well as other 'particles'. So if matter is a form of energy, then it's not a big leap to imagine the 'Big-Bang' (the source of it all!) to change how we 'try' to compartmentalize 'Gravity'. OK I'm done... 8) |
| ChristofferB:
Expressing matter in terms of energy and vice versa is completely physically justified and has been routinely exploited for a century. I have no idea what you're trying to say about gravity however, I'm afraid. |
| Domagoj T:
Why do you capitalize and put random words between apostrophes? What is the meaning of that? Anyway... --- Quote ---To all intensive purposes, between those two boards, there are two springs attached between them. ONE has NO spring tension, and the OTHER has a 'force' trying to pull them together. All this seems perfectly feasible, BUT imagine some external device/meter that you 'point' at it, or wave it around, that can measure/detect these forces?? You can't. --- End quote --- Intents and purposes... What do you need the first spring for, then? As for the second one, crude and not quite accurate analogy, but ok for lay discussion. Anyway, we can point or wave around a device that will measure that force (well, maybe not a gravitational pull of a board, but something larger). Gravimeters are devices that measure gravitational pull directly. --- Quote ---It's at(within) an atomic/molecular level. Your 'sensors' need to be within the atomic structure!! --- End quote --- Go to your bathroom scale. Is that subatomic device? No. Effects of gravity are most certainly evident on scales much larger than subatomic. --- Quote --- To my mind, it's LIKE that, when people keep trying to 'measure/detect' Gravity Waves. It's a lost cause. --- End quote --- Gravity waves have been detected and measured repeatedly. Measurements are in line with theoretical calculations. Far from lost cause. --- Quote --- I 'think' that possibly Gravity can only exist, as we know it & imagine it, is because originally, ALL matter/energy was initially emanating from that single point at creation... --- End quote --- Any reason why you think that? --- Quote ---Imagine the Conundrum of 2 objects/matter 'materializing' in Space. Would the 'force' between them be instantaneous??, or maybe have to travel at the "speed of light" or something first? --- End quote --- It would travel at the speed of light. This was also measured and observed. --- Quote ---Hang on, it's said that energy can not be created or destroyed, but only transformed from one form to another or from one object to another... Yep. I propose also that matter is but a 'form' of energy! --- End quote --- I don't see how is this related to your previous sentence, but in any case, you're not the first to propose that. Energy is routinely transformed into matter (actually matter + as much antimatter) in particle accelerators. --- Quote ---So if matter is a form of energy, then it's not a big leap to imagine the 'Big-Bang' (the source of it all!) to change how we 'try' to compartmentalize 'Gravity'. --- End quote --- That is a non sequitur. |
| T3sl4co1l:
--- Quote from: GlennSprigg on August 30, 2020, 01:51:42 pm ---'MY' theory is that 'Gravity' is like the Kinetic/Potential energy of the proverbial 'Big-Bang'!! --- End quote --- This will require quite a lot of explanation (on your part). For my part, let me explain why: There's no energy associated with the Big Bang; or rather it's not so meaningful to speak of, I think. The apparent expansion or contraction of the universe over time, is simply a side effect of a universe having a more-or-less uniform mass-energy distribution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric Energy is conserved for objects in space, but space-time as a whole doesn't need to conserve it. So, something being "like" the kinetic or potential energy of a spacetime, is at best analogous. One must define those terms, because they don't apply in the normal way to a spacetime. --- Quote ---We agonize over where it all started. Let's look at a 'Simple' physical construction, where there are two boards, held at a distance between them. To all intensive purposes, between those two boards, there are two springs attached between them. ONE has NO spring tension, and the OTHER has a 'force' trying to pull them together. All this seems perfectly feasible, BUT imagine some external device/meter that you 'point' at it, or wave it around, that can measure/detect these forces?? You can't. --- End quote --- Well no, these forces* can be measured as surely as any other acceleration can be. We even carry around accelerometers in our pockets these days! *A gravitational field is an acceleration field. Force is only meaningful when a mass is given (F = ma). If you're trying to measure the gravitational field of a "board" and are having bad luck just because your boards aren't the size of minor asteroids, well, that's your problem -- that's experimental error, not fundamental physics! (These measurements have indeed been done, with economically sized masses; the error bars aren't fantastic, but the confidence level is quite good nonetheless.) Tim |
| Alex Eisenhut:
page 22 https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a093780.pdf I always wanted to build one since the concept seems simple enough.... but it isn't. I don't have the money or skills to pull it off either. At one point I thought I could get all the precision parts needed from old hard drives but even then the measurement itself seems tricky at best. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |