Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #369850 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-12 16:50 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-11-21 13:36 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 84 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 16:50 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-13 12:09 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-14 12:18 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 22:41 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-14 17:42 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 23:09 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 16:16 +0000
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-15 13:57 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 10:10 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-16 11:21 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 16:54 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-16 12:04 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 17:13 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 17:19 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-16 12:23 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-15 17:43 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-14 11:17 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-15 13:57 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-15 14:43 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2015-11-16 11:19 +1100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-16 12:50 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-13 22:40 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-13 23:01 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 04:53 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 02:22 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 12:25 +0100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 04:30 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 04:34 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 05:05 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 05:23 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 05:55 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 06:05 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 06:36 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 07:13 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 16:34 +0100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-14 07:36 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 08:03 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 17:04 +0100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 16:08 +0100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 16:08 +0100
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 14:27 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 08:29 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 05:58 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 14:30 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 11:40 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 15:00 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 12:06 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 16:07 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 12:12 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-14 11:57 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 15:03 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 20:20 +0000
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 16:19 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 06:11 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 14:32 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 09:31 -0600
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 08:23 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 16:27 +0000
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 16:52 +0000
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-14 14:40 -0500
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Ty Knotts <TyKnotts@hotmail.org> - 2015-11-14 20:13 +0000
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 10:15 -0600
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-14 11:26 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-16 09:29 -0600
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-16 07:41 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-13 23:25 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-14 02:21 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 20:04 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 21:15 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 18:38 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 19:02 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-11 05:37 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 17:03 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 17:23 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 21:46 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-13 19:36 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-13 19:41 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-11 17:29 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-17 13:51 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-17 14:01 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-17 14:06 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-17 14:26 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-17 14:39 -0800
Re: Instantaneous action at a distance is real alsor@interia.pl - 2015-11-21 13:36 -0800
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-16 12:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <79052bbd-6644-4c86-a0e9-b7e043cd8704@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370156 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 16 listopada 2015 01:19:34 UTC+1 użytkownik Sylvia Else > > These are artificial, thus nonrealistic, unfortunately. > > It predicts the results of certain measurements, and when we do the > measurements, we get the predicted results. That's real enough in the > ordinary sense of the word. > > Sylvia. There is none of real predictions from the Bell's-quantum fallacy. Therefore our babies can still sleep safe. :) The fantastic predictions of the great Bell's theorem: |x-y| > 1 - xy, what is something like: |x+y| > |x| + |y|, formaly, is comparable only to the giant Ptolemy discoveries, ie. we live in the God's... hot pussy. :))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 22:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eab6e9a2-1217-4a05-8e58-6f3c0fdea01a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369850 |
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:50:40 AM UTC+10, John Gogo wrote: > http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html I don't think so John, and I'll give you a quick reason why I personally find action at a distance to be unlikely. Supposing you have a 5 atom body, and its freefalling towards a 1 billion atom body. With action at a distance, it is necessary that the 5 atom body exert a force equally over all parts of the 1 billion atom body, just as for the 1 billion atom body to exert a force equally over all parts of the 5 atom body. It would be necessary therefore, if action at a distance were true, for that 5 atom body, to have dissipated 5 billion force carriers for any one instant. Just think about what that means. It's better to think of forces as they are applied. Even in the case of magnetism, force carrying particles are interacting with bodies in order to produce a force, and this is always happening at some "point of application", or "application point". This is the point where two bodies or particles meet, and a force is produced. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-13 23:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e97310c6-25a0-49b3-a11a-47c04b5e50ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369912 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 4:40:10 PM UTC+10, Y wrote: > On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:50:40 AM UTC+10, John Gogo wrote: > > http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html > > I don't think so John, and I'll give you a quick reason why I personally find action at a distance to be unlikely. > > Supposing you have a 5 atom body, and its freefalling towards a 1 billion atom body. With action at a distance, it is necessary that the 5 atom body exert a force equally over all parts of the 1 billion atom body, just as for the 1 billion atom body to exert a force equally over all parts of the 5 atom body. > > > It would be necessary therefore, if action at a distance were true, for that 5 atom body, to have dissipated 5 billion force carriers for any one instant. Just think about what that means. > > It's better to think of forces as they are applied. Even in the case of magnetism, force carrying particles are interacting with bodies in order to produce a force, and this is always happening at some "point of application", or "application point". This is the point where two bodies or particles meet, and a force is produced. > > -y This is why btw, I think that gravity is mediated by some kind of particle which is being absorbed into a planet. This is also why I don't g for the 'curved' spacetime idea as an ontology. In my view, curved spacetime is a strictly mathematical artifact. This question is pissing me off a bit, because I'd like to find out what kind of energy gravitation is. Being that gravitation appears to interact with everything, it's difficult to isolate what it interacts with and what it does not interact with. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 04:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8a0e4b9m9fahd67hs0vdnblc0594p78ol6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #369916 |
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 23:01:25 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 4:40:10 PM UTC+10, Y wrote:
>> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:50:40 AM UTC+10, John Gogo wrote:
>> > http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html
>>
>> I don't think so John, and I'll give you a quick reason why I personally find action at a distance to be unlikely.
>>
>> Supposing you have a 5 atom body, and its freefalling towards a 1 billion atom body. With action at a distance, it is necessary that the 5 atom body exert a force equally over all parts of the 1 billion atom body, just as for the 1 billion atom body to exert a force equally over all parts of the 5 atom body.
>>
>>
>> It would be necessary therefore, if action at a distance were true, for that 5 atom body, to have dissipated 5 billion force carriers for any one instant. Just think about what that means.
>>
>> It's better to think of forces as they are applied. Even in the case of magnetism, force carrying particles are interacting with bodies in order to produce a force, and this is always happening at some "point of application", or "application point". This is the point where two bodies or particles meet, and a force is produced.
>>
>> -y
>
>
>
>This is why btw, I think that gravity is mediated by some kind of particle
That _would_ be action at a distance.
>which is being absorbed into a planet. This is also why I don't g for the 'curved' spacetime idea as an ontology. In my view, curved spacetime is a strictly mathematical artifact.
Not an artifact, just the only way to describe
the geometry of Spacetime as time passes.
>This question is pissing me off a bit,
Ohhhh, that's too bad, surely nobody
would want that.
>because I'd like to find out what kind of energy gravitation is.
In the Divergent Matter model, it is just
entropic energy, an unlimited supply.
There is no other way the supply could
be endless, that is a good argument for DM.
>Being that gravitation appears to interact with everything,
>it's difficult to isolate what it interacts with and what it does not interact with.
>
>-y
No, it isn't, because it doesn't "interact",
objects move the only way they can, to the
extent their inertial mass allows them.
That means gravity affects all objects,
according to their mass, and according to
the gravitating objects's mass, that is why
the proportionality formula works.
The underlying net repulsion of the
elementary particles in the Divergent
Matter model is the cause of the entropy
progress of the universe, and it is always
the same because the measuring units
and devices are expanding too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 02:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ea3bf923-a76f-4531-b007-4fe257ccc477@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369923 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 7:53:55 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote: > On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 23:01:25 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 4:40:10 PM UTC+10, Y wrote: > >> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:50:40 AM UTC+10, John Gogo wrote: > >> > http://phys.org/news/2015-11-nist-team-spooky-action-distance.html > >> > >> I don't think so John, and I'll give you a quick reason why I personally find action at a distance to be unlikely. > >> > >> Supposing you have a 5 atom body, and its freefalling towards a 1 billion atom body. With action at a distance, it is necessary that the 5 atom body exert a force equally over all parts of the 1 billion atom body, just as for the 1 billion atom body to exert a force equally over all parts of the 5 atom body. > >> > >> > >> It would be necessary therefore, if action at a distance were true, for that 5 atom body, to have dissipated 5 billion force carriers for any one instant. Just think about what that means. > >> > >> It's better to think of forces as they are applied. Even in the case of magnetism, force carrying particles are interacting with bodies in order to produce a force, and this is always happening at some "point of application", or "application point". This is the point where two bodies or particles meet, and a force is produced. > >> > >> -y > > > > > > > >This is why btw, I think that gravity is mediated by some kind of particle > > That _would_ be action at a distance. Not really, because the force carrying particle is what is making the application of force - not some body "AT A DISTANCE". -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 12:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n275io$dr3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #369926 |
Dne 14/11/2015 v 11:22 Y napsal(a): > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 7:53:55 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote: >>> >>> This is why btw, I think that gravity is mediated by some kind of particle >> >> That _would_ be action at a distance. > > > Not really, because the force carrying particle is what is making the application of force - not some body "AT A DISTANCE". > As any action intermediated by boson particles ( strong, weak and EM interactions ) are in fact two local actions, not action on distance. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 04:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <15ee97be-6e72-4234-aa7f-ce9870de665d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369928 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 9:25:26 PM UTC+10, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 14/11/2015 v 11:22 Y napsal(a): > > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 7:53:55 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote: > > >>> > >>> This is why btw, I think that gravity is mediated by some kind of particle > >> > >> That _would_ be action at a distance. > > > > > > Not really, because the force carrying particle is what is making the application of force - not some body "AT A DISTANCE". > > > > As any action intermediated by boson particles > ( strong, weak and EM interactions ) > are in fact two local actions, > not action on distance. > > -- > Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) > > Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant. For once we agree Poutnik. There is no action at a distance when a body absorbs a force carrier. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 04:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <98e113f1-b7c4-4a0f-8109-f33ab52c1f2f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369928 |
I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves in waves like electromagnetic energy. It's very frustrating. I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it. Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ? -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 05:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <11fd7c01-bb25-4293-a098-3fce3821067a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369932 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 5:34:35 AM UTC-7, Y wrote: > > I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves in > waves like electromagnetic energy. The "waves" of e/m propagation are approximations of the bazillions of photons that make up the phenomenon. It's probably the same with gravity. > It's very frustrating. > > I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed > to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it. > > Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really > creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ? > > -y Discussions don't solve physics questions, experiments do. Find that elusive graviton. The problem is that it would have such low energy, it would never be seen as anything but a wave, and we're still looking for gravitational waves. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 05:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <25e40edf-ff26-4df1-abfd-155e14e2507f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369935 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:05:09 PM UTC+10, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 5:34:35 AM UTC-7, Y wrote: > > > > I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves in > > waves like electromagnetic energy. > > The "waves" of e/m propagation are approximations of the bazillions of > photons that make up the phenomenon. It's probably the same with gravity. > > > It's very frustrating. > > > > I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed > > to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it. > > > > Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really > > creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ? > > > > -y > > Discussions don't solve physics questions, experiments do. Find that > elusive graviton. The problem is that it would have such low energy, > it would never be seen as anything but a wave, and we're still looking > for gravitational waves. > > Gary What if the energy isn't low, but rather very high ? -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 05:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9dab769b-1071-4858-924b-dd74eeb00985@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369941 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:24:04 AM UTC-7, Y wrote: > > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:05:09 PM UTC+10, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 5:34:35 AM UTC-7, Y wrote: > > > > > > I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves in > > > waves like electromagnetic energy. > > > > The "waves" of e/m propagation are approximations of the bazillions of > > photons that make up the phenomenon. It's probably the same with gravity. > > > > > It's very frustrating. > > > > > > I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed > > > to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it. > > > > > > Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really > > > creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ? > > > > > > -y > > > > Discussions don't solve physics questions, experiments do. Find that > > elusive graviton. The problem is that it would have such low energy, > > it would never be seen as anything but a wave, and we're still looking > > for gravitational waves. > > > > Gary > > > > What if the energy isn't low, but rather very high ? > > -y If it were, we would have discovered them by now. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 06:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <598dce6b-af6e-4fd1-a4fa-f11fa661c05a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369946 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:55:45 PM UTC+10, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:24:04 AM UTC-7, Y wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:05:09 PM UTC+10, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 5:34:35 AM UTC-7, Y wrote: > > > > > > > > I mean, we don't even know for certain, if gravitational energy moves in > > > > waves like electromagnetic energy. > > > > > > The "waves" of e/m propagation are approximations of the bazillions of > > > photons that make up the phenomenon. It's probably the same with gravity. > > > > > > > It's very frustrating. > > > > > > > > I see it all working in my head as a particle, but so far have failed > > > > to find any information, or gather any idea about how to test it. > > > > > > > > Maybe we should put the group focus on that one day and have a really > > > > creative discussion about it, instead of all the negativity ? > > > > > > > > -y > > > > > > Discussions don't solve physics questions, experiments do. Find that > > > elusive graviton. The problem is that it would have such low energy, > > > it would never be seen as anything but a wave, and we're still looking > > > for gravitational waves. > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > What if the energy isn't low, but rather very high ? > > > > -y > > If it were, we would have discovered them by now. > > Gary What's the most powerful energy Gary ? Can it make two black holes freefall together ? -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 06:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6f8cab6d-d6bf-4bab-b329-3895367c6253@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369952 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 7:05:48 AM UTC-7, Y wrote: > > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:55:45 PM UTC+10, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:24:04 AM UTC-7, Y wrote: > > > > > > What if the energy isn't low, but rather very high ? > > > > > > -y > > > > If it were, we would have discovered them by now. > > > > Gary > > > What's the most powerful energy Gary ? Can it make two black holes > freefall together ? > > -y You are conflating gravity with gravitational waves. This is like saying electric charge is the same as e/m radiation. And, BTW, gravity is the so the gravity would balance one coulomb of charge on each mass. And the most powerful force is the nuclear (strong) force. Gary
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 07:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f2c4a9e9-bae5-45dc-bcbf-cc3a05c20099@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369960 |
On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 12:36:09 AM UTC+10, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 7:05:48 AM UTC-7, Y wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 11:55:45 PM UTC+10, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:24:04 AM UTC-7, Y wrote: > > > > > > > > What if the energy isn't low, but rather very high ? > > > > > > > > -y > > > > > > If it were, we would have discovered them by now. > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > What's the most powerful energy Gary ? Can it make two black holes > > freefall together ? > > > > -y > > You are conflating gravity with gravitational waves. This is like saying > electric charge is the same as e/m radiation. > > And, BTW, gravity is the so the gravity would balance one coulomb of > charge on each mass. > > And the most powerful force is the nuclear (strong) force. > > Gary The most powerful force carrier is of the nuclear (strong) force. -y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 16:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n27k6q$6qq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #369968 |
Dne 14/11/2015 v 16:13 Y napsal(a): > On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 12:36:09 AM UTC+10, Gary Harnagel wrote: >>> >>> >>> What's the most powerful energy Gary ? Can it make two black holes >>> freefall together ? >>> >> >> You are conflating gravity with gravitational waves. This is like saying >> electric charge is the same as e/m radiation. >> >> And, BTW, gravity is the so the gravity would balance one coulomb of >> charge on each mass. >> >> And the most powerful force is the nuclear (strong) force. >> > > The most powerful force carrier is of the nuclear (strong) force. > There is need of mutual agreement on precise definition of powerfulness as quantitative parameter. As for the intermediate bosons, it depends also on their energy. Depending on scenario, any of strong force, EM force or gravity can be the most powerful. Relative interaction power is usually considered related to adjacent kernel nucleons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 07:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7a2f77fa-576d-4bfa-811b-7cefc428a127@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369968 |
Given enough mass, gravity is the most powerful force, of course...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 08:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3daaa08a-3085-4ce6-b4af-197b24100454@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #369971 |
On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 8:36:08 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > Given enough mass, gravity is the most powerful force, of course... Yes, I was talking about force per unit "charge." Maybe if we made the unit of mass the Teratonne ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 17:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n27luv$dn1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #369971 |
Dne 14/11/2015 v 16:36 pnalsing@gmail.com napsal(a): > Given enough mass, gravity is the most powerful force, of course... > Given enough charge, I am not so sure. If we had been feeding the black hole by electrons long enough.... As of all parameters, black holes keep just these three: the mass the angular momentum the electric charge. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 16:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <56474E5A.90403@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #369952 |
Dne 14/11/2015 v 15:05 Y napsal(a): > > > What's the most powerful energy Gary ? Can it make two black holes freefall together ? > Only if such energy can trumph angular momentum conservation law. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-14 16:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n27il6$vh6$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #369952 |
Dne 14/11/2015 v 15:05 Y napsal(a): > > > What's the most powerful energy Gary ? Can it make two black holes freefall together ? > Only if such energy can trumph angular momentum conservation law. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer ) Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web