| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"gubbenimanen" |
| Date: |
31 Aug 2006 10:30:18 AM |
| Object: |
Gravity is photon interference? |
Imagine photons that are redshifted by the Doppler effect. If photons
travel at speed of light away from us, the wavelength is infinite (?)
and they go dark/invisible; the dark energy in the universe.
According to Heisenberg uncertainty principle (dx * dv > h/m) if the
speed is known accurately (v=c, dv=0) than the position width (dx) is
very large. A photon traveling at c with zero mass thus covers a large
distance!
Photons with long wavelengths may be acting like gigantic vibrating
membranes on matters by wave interference? Could this be gravity?
Photons leaving the Sun creating a higher density ripple pattern
(stronger gravity) at short distance. Galaxies gathers at large scale
ripple.
Roger Persson
.
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
01 Sep 2006 08:56:05 AM |
|
|
"gubbenimanen" <gubbenimanen@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157038218.415499.150270@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
Imagine photons that are redshifted by the Doppler effect. If photons
travel at speed of light away from us, the wavelength is infinite (?)
and they go dark/invisible; the dark energy in the universe.
I also tend to agree that "Photons with long wavelengths may be acting
like gigantic vibrating membranes on matters by wave interference" could
in fact be the quantum fabric strings of gravity.
What's the speed of a nearly continuous photon?
Say that of 1e-100 hz
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Quantum mechanics is just a refinement of the laws of thermodynamics. |
04 Sep 2006 07:31:56 PM |
|
|
Hi Gubbenimanen, The best way to understand the uncertainty principle
if to realize that the more coherent a light source is the more certain
we can know ( a priori ) it's frequency, momentum and diffraction pattern.
But photons from an _Ideal_ laser are at absolute zero,
so they radiate nothing which we can detect at a slit;
i.e. knowing more about the frequency means knowing less about the position.
So, as you can see,
quantum mechanics is just a refinement of the laws of thermodynamics,
....it's about dissipation, uniformity, gaussianity, discrete structure,
temperature and mass-energy.
As for gravitational fields ( as defined by General_Relativity )...
You can say that spacetime is a virtual ground state
which has its own intrinsic momentum.
As the universe dissipates ( i.e. becomes more uniform )
gravity is the remnent of the once-denser anisotropies.
The speed of light in an ideal vacuum is a constant
for the same reason the speed of sound in a particular medium is a constant.
The main difference is that, by definition, a vacuum has no wind
and nothing but a massless photon can actually move at c.
Dark energy ( a.k.a. negative pressure, at cosmic scales )
is observed to be a function of Density_Cosmos.
Because e = m * c^2, Omega_Total always equals 1,
Omega_Lambda always equals .74, and w always equals -1, we get:
Pressure_Cosmos always equals: - ( .74 / .26 ) * Density_Cosmos * c^2
( the positive pressure of radiation is insignificant ).
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/W.PNG
This means black holes'd have much negative pressure ( a.k.a. dark energy );
in other words, they'd be a time-dilated White_Hole with great
Consumable_Gibbs_Free_Energy ( a.k.a. NegEntropy or _Life_ ).
Cold_Dark_Matter might be an _Ultra_ Uniform/Cold, low NegEntropy state.
By " life ", I mean something much more general than water-based life, i.e.:
Vices are just different ways to burn out ( and all things burn out ).
They're ok ( to a point ), because they're a celebration of life;
but which ones get condoned ( e.g. sex, gasoline and reproduction ) and
which ones don't ( e.g. smoking ) is a _Soft_ ( pseudorandom ) science.
Each is imprisoned in a virtual casino... the house always wins in the end.
Like you're both God _And_ Devil ( i.e. " God/Devil " )
to the animals and plants you raise to feed yourself
( i.e. like you punish and reward them, to control them ),
you're a God/Devil's tenant and a God/Devil to your tenants.
Negentropy ( a.k.a. Consumable_Gibbs_Free_Energy or life )
is the top God/Devil because, like a lit match, consumption
both creates and destroys all that ever was.
Although control is the goal, it's a mirage.
Time is pseudo-directional ( i.e. spatial )
because, like a dice toss is known to be pseudorandom ( i.e. causal ),
all randomness is pseudorandom.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Quantum mechanics is just a refinement of the laws of thermodynamics. |
05 Sep 2006 04:57:47 AM |
|
|
Hi Jeff,
That is a lot of conclusions you draw. Because everyone wants to
be/understand God, the following conclusion you draw is especially
interesting:
Negentropy ( a.k.a. Consumable_Gibbs_Free_Energy or life )
is the top God/Devil because, like a lit match, consumption
both creates and destroys all that ever was.
Question (1): How do you define NegEntropy ?
Question (2): Can NegEntropy according to your definition be proven to
exist in the Physical World ?
So, if your answer on Question (2) is Yes and you know how, you have
proven the existence of God. But I can assure you NegEntopy in the
Physical world as defined by physisits has nothing to do with God. So
suppose NegEntropy can be proven in the Physical World (which can be
done), is this the proof for you that God Exists ?
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Gubbenimanen, The best way to understand the uncertainty principle
if to realize that the more coherent a light source is the more certain
we can know ( a priori ) it's frequency, momentum and diffraction pattern.
But photons from an _Ideal_ laser are at absolute zero,
so they radiate nothing which we can detect at a slit;
i.e. knowing more about the frequency means knowing less about the position.
So, as you can see,
quantum mechanics is just a refinement of the laws of thermodynamics,
...it's about dissipation, uniformity, gaussianity, discrete structure,
temperature and mass-energy.
As for gravitational fields ( as defined by General_Relativity )...
You can say that spacetime is a virtual ground state
which has its own intrinsic momentum.
As the universe dissipates ( i.e. becomes more uniform )
gravity is the remnent of the once-denser anisotropies.
The speed of light in an ideal vacuum is a constant
for the same reason the speed of sound in a particular medium is a constant.
The main difference is that, by definition, a vacuum has no wind
and nothing but a massless photon can actually move at c.
Dark energy ( a.k.a. negative pressure, at cosmic scales )
is observed to be a function of Density_Cosmos.
Because e = m * c^2, Omega_Total always equals 1,
Omega_Lambda always equals .74, and w always equals -1, we get:
Pressure_Cosmos always equals: - ( .74 / .26 ) * Density_Cosmos * c^2
( the positive pressure of radiation is insignificant ).
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/W.PNG
This means black holes'd have much negative pressure ( a.k.a. dark energy );
in other words, they'd be a time-dilated White_Hole with great
Consumable_Gibbs_Free_Energy ( a.k.a. NegEntropy or _Life_ ).
Cold_Dark_Matter might be an _Ultra_ Uniform/Cold, low NegEntropy state.
By " life ", I mean something much more general than water-based life, i.e.:
Vices are just different ways to burn out ( and all things burn out ).
They're ok ( to a point ), because they're a celebration of life;
but which ones get condoned ( e.g. sex, gasoline and reproduction ) and
which ones don't ( e.g. smoking ) is a _Soft_ ( pseudorandom ) science.
Each is imprisoned in a virtual casino... the house always wins in the end.
Like you're both God _And_ Devil ( i.e. " God/Devil " )
to the animals and plants you raise to feed yourself
( i.e. like you punish and reward them, to control them ),
you're a God/Devil's tenant and a God/Devil to your tenants.
Negentropy ( a.k.a. Consumable_Gibbs_Free_Energy or life )
is the top God/Devil because, like a lit match, consumption
both creates and destroys all that ever was.
Although control is the goal, it's a mirage.
Time is pseudo-directional ( i.e. spatial )
because, like a dice toss is known to be pseudorandom ( i.e. causal ),
all randomness is pseudorandom.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Locally, you, me and our Gods/Devils exist; yet, net net, we don't. |
05 Sep 2006 05:27:13 PM |
|
|
Hi Mpilot, You asked me:
Suppose NegEntropy can be proven in the Physical World ( which can be done ),
is this the proof for you that God Exists ?
See:
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Non-gaussianity
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy
NegEntropy ( a.k.a. Consumable_Gibbs_Free_Energy )
is a discrete structure ( a.k.a. a Non_Gaussianity )
that can shift, oscillate and dissipate.
In other words, it can consume and be consumed.
And that, in the broadest sense of the word, is life.
That which consumes you is both your God and Devil,
as it both punishes and rewards you ( i.e. it farms you like a crop ).
Yet, net net, the universe doesn't happen, it just is.
Although the Copenhagen_Interpretation chickens out on the issue,
it's best to assume that causality is universal, just as Einstein did.
So the answer is not that simple.
Locally, you, me and our Gods/Devils exist; yet, net net, we don't.
Like I said:
Each is imprisoned in a virtual casino... the house always wins in the end.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Locally, you, me and our Gods/Devils exist; yet, net net, we don't. |
09 Sep 2006 04:37:05 AM |
|
|
Hi Jeff,
That you for your answer.
Physical and Informational NegEntropy is in my opinion a very
intersting concept.
Suppose we define Informational Negentropy N as the difference of the
entropy of 2 variables, Z and X, then we have N=H(Z)-H(X). Then your
God could be defined as knowing Z because he can "decypher" with Z the
variabele X to obtain the Negentropy N. The obove is a very fundamental
theorem in Information Theory. If we have 3 variable, say X=Source
Information, Y=Encrypted Information and Z is the Key with which X is
encrypted in Y then the following invariant holds N = H(Z) - H(X) >= -
I(X,Y), where I(X,Y) is the mutual information between X and Y. If the
mutual information I(X,Y) <= 0 then X and Y are independent, so knowing
X reveals nothing from Y. And this is the fact when the NegEntropy >=
0, so then you have a perfect secure Information System.
Physical NegEntropy does exist also. It can be derive from the fact
that anti-matter exists. In this case the anti-matter can be seen as Z
and the matter as X in the previous Information Theory example.
The Gibbs Free Entropy G (Physical Entropy) and Shannon (Information)
Entropy S are exactly the same, except for Boltzmann's constant, so G
(in Joules / Kelvin) = k.ln(2).S (in Bits).
So you see, there are many similaraties between Information Entropy and
Physical Entropy.
If you would define God as the Entity who has Z, so can decode X given
Y, then I agree with you.
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Mpilot, You asked me:
Suppose NegEntropy can be proven in the Physical World ( which can be done ),
is this the proof for you that God Exists ?
See:
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Non-gaussianity
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy
NegEntropy ( a.k.a. Consumable_Gibbs_Free_Energy )
is a discrete structure ( a.k.a. a Non_Gaussianity )
that can shift, oscillate and dissipate.
In other words, it can consume and be consumed.
And that, in the broadest sense of the word, is life.
That which consumes you is both your God and Devil,
as it both punishes and rewards you ( i.e. it farms you like a crop ).
Yet, net net, the universe doesn't happen, it just is.
Although the Copenhagen_Interpretation chickens out on the issue,
it's best to assume that causality is universal, just as Einstein did.
So the answer is not that simple.
Locally, you, me and our Gods/Devils exist; yet, net net, we don't.
Like I said:
Each is imprisoned in a virtual casino... the house always wins in the end.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Perhaps a flame war is an example of NegEntropy in action. |
09 Sep 2006 09:49:33 PM |
|
|
Hi Mpilot, you began by saying: " [ Thank ] you for your answer. "
You're most welcome. Usually I'm just ignored. Most replies are pure flames.
_Very_ rarely does anyone actually address the topic of my post.
Edward_Green had some wonderful comments ( he's a good guy );
but he quickly abandoned me, saying he wouldn't " play by Relf's rules ".
You told me:
Physical and Informational NegEntropy is,
in my opinion a very, interesting concept.
Suppose we define Informational Negentropy N as the difference of the
entropy of 2 variables, Z and X, then we have N=H(Z)-H(X).
Information theory incorrectly uses the word Entropy
where it should be using the word Gaussianity ( normal distribution ).
NegEntropy is where, locally, Gibbs_Free_Energy can be lowered by an ignition.
Gibbs_Free_Energy is Enthalpy ( total heat, in joules )
minus temperature ( Kelvins ) times entropy ( joules per kelvin ).
You could apply the word NegEntropy to information theory
only if it described " information which is consumed as is consumes ".
For example, an ignited match increase in _Both_ temperature and entropy;
as it generates heat and gets consumed as it consumes.
Perhaps a flame war is an example of NegEntropy in action
( in the information theory sense of the word ).
It must define, " temperature * dissipation ", not just Gaussianity.
You concluded:
So you see,
there are many similaraties between Information Entropy and Physical Entropy.
I disagree; you lost me at ( N=H(Z)-H(X) ), sorry.
You wrote:
If you would define God as the Entity who has Z,
so can decode X given Y, then I agree with you.
In the most general sense of the word ( beyond liquid water " life " ),
The top god ( who is also the top devil ) is:
Cosmic, spontaneous, eternal ignition.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Perhaps a flame war is an example of NegEntropy in action. |
10 Sep 2006 04:18:46 AM |
|
|
Hi Jeff,
You are correct, I misspelled the word "Thanks" in the speed of typing.
Now the content part.
Information theory incorrectly uses the word Entropy
where it should be using the word Gaussianity ( normal distribution ).
In Information Theory Shannon uses Gibbs Entropy, but if you want to
use Gaussianity, that's fine with me. The NegEntropy=N definition I
have used (N=H(Z)-H(X)), is the NegEntropy definition of Leon Brillouin
(see his Book Science and Information Theory).
NegEntropy is where, locally, Gibbs_Free_Energy can be lowered by an ignition.
Gibbs_Free_Energy is Enthalpy ( total heat, in joules )
minus temperature ( Kelvins ) times entropy ( joules per kelvin ).
If you use the definition of NegEntropy of Leon Brillouin in this
context, then H(Z) = The Gibbs_Free_Energy by your definition of the
system Z under consideration.
In the most general sense of the word ( beyond liquid water " life " ),
The top god ( who is also the top devil ) is:
Using God in this context is in my opinion dangerous. Physics has to do
with explanation and measurement of a factual reality.
You concluded:
So you see,
there are many similaraties between Information Entropy and Physical Entropy.
I disagree; you lost me at ( N=H(Z)-H(X) ), sorry.
If you look at the definition of Leon Brillouin, you will see this
definition is correct according Leon Brillouin.
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Mpilot, you began by saying: " [ Thank ] you for your answer. "
You're most welcome. Usually I'm just ignored. Most replies are pure flames.
_Very_ rarely does anyone actually address the topic of my post.
Edward_Green had some wonderful comments ( he's a good guy );
but he quickly abandoned me, saying he wouldn't " play by Relf's rules ".
You told me:
Physical and Informational NegEntropy is,
in my opinion a very, interesting concept.
Suppose we define Informational Negentropy N as the difference of the
entropy of 2 variables, Z and X, then we have N=H(Z)-H(X).
Information theory incorrectly uses the word Entropy
where it should be using the word Gaussianity ( normal distribution ).
NegEntropy is where, locally, Gibbs_Free_Energy can be lowered by an ignition.
Gibbs_Free_Energy is Enthalpy ( total heat, in joules )
minus temperature ( Kelvins ) times entropy ( joules per kelvin ).
You could apply the word NegEntropy to information theory
only if it described " information which is consumed as is consumes ".
For example, an ignited match increase in _Both_ temperature and entropy;
as it generates heat and gets consumed as it consumes.
Perhaps a flame war is an example of NegEntropy in action
( in the information theory sense of the word ).
It must define, " temperature * dissipation ", not just Gaussianity.
You concluded:
So you see,
there are many similaraties between Information Entropy and Physical Entropy.
I disagree; you lost me at ( N=H(Z)-H(X) ), sorry.
You wrote:
If you would define God as the Entity who has Z,
so can decode X given Y, then I agree with you.
In the most general sense of the word ( beyond liquid water " life " ),
The top god ( who is also the top devil ) is:
Cosmic, spontaneous, eternal ignition.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Compressing a file _Increases_ NegEntropy, freeing up bandwith. |
11 Sep 2006 12:17:11 AM |
|
|
Hi Mpilot, Nice to hear from you again. You told me:
The NegEntropy=N definition I have used (N=H(Z)-H(X)),
is the NegEntropy definition of Leon Brillouin
( see his Book Science and Information Theory ).
Although I'm effectively unable to edit WikiPedia, I prefer it to books.
Usenet is the top dog, in my book; but it can't answer the simple questions.
Looking at WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Negentropy I see that, in information theory,
NegEntropy is the absolute value of the deviation from the bell curve.
In other words, it's a measure of how much more you could compress the file.
NegEntropy, as Erwin Schrödinger first coined it,
was to mean " ignitable ( consumable ) Gibbs Free Energy ".
And I add:
Like a lit match, consumption consumes you; to live fast is to die fast.
You wrote:
If you use the definition of NegEntropy of Leon Brillouin in this
context, then H(Z) = The Gibbs_Free_Energy by your definition of the
system Z under consideration.
H(Z) is the bell curve and H(X) is the deviation from it.
So, according to you ( and Brillouin ),
the less compressed a file is ( i.e. the less guassian it is )
the more NegEntropy is has.
That's the _Exact_ opposite of what I'd say because
compressing a file _Increases_ NegEntropy, freeing up bandwith.
It pisses me off !
You told me:
Using God in this context is in my opinion dangerous.
Physics has to do with explanation and measurement of a factual reality.
My land _Lord_ is my most immediate god,
closely followed by my boss and the state.
The universe is _Eternally_ dissipating, I posit, in accordance with
the standard model ( Quantum Mechanics ) and thermodynamics;
so the cosmos is the ultimate God, as it consumes all.
What's more _Real_ than that ? God ( a.k.a. Satan ) lives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Compressing a file _Increases_ NegEntropy, freeing up bandwith. |
11 Sep 2006 02:44:52 AM |
|
|
Hi Jeff,
You said:
H(Z) is the bell curve and H(X) is the deviation from it.
So, according to you ( and Brillouin ),
the less compressed a file is ( i.e. the less guassian it is )
the more NegEntropy is has.
That's the _Exact_ opposite of what I'd say because
compressing a file _Increases_ NegEntropy, freeing up bandwith.
It pisses me off !
Well, in order to get an understanding of NegEntropy you have to
understand NegEntropy can only be determined as a difference between 2
Entropy values.
So the NegEntropy N can only be calculated if you also know the value
of another variable, eg the Key with which Information is Encoded. So
given an encoded File F, then if the Entropy of the Key K with which
the source content S in the File is encoded, then the content S is
perfect secure in the File and can only be decoded from file F with the
Key K. So if N =3D H(K) - H(S) > 0 then H(S|F)=3DH(S). If a loss-less
coding scheme is used then also holds that the Source S can be lossless
decoded given F and K, so H(S|F,K) =3D 0. The content S is perfecty
secure, because the NegEntropy N =3D H(K) - H(S) >=3D -I(S,F) and N>0, so
I(S,F)<0, so S and F are independent.
The Entropy values (Gibbs and Shannon Entropy, which are other than a
constant the same values) are based on bionomial distribitions. These
distributions can be approximated by Gaussian distributions, is the
number of states is big (eg a long file F, with a lot of bits).
A nice overview of the meanins of entropy can be found at:
www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e7010068.pdf
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Mpilot, Nice to hear from you again. You told me:
The NegEntropy=3DN definition I have used (N=3DH(Z)-H(X)),
is the NegEntropy definition of Leon Brillouin
( see his Book Science and Information Theory ).
Although I'm effectively unable to edit WikiPedia, I prefer it to books.
Usenet is the top dog, in my book; but it can't answer the simple questio=
ns.
Looking at WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Negentropy I see that, in information the=
ory,
NegEntropy is the absolute value of the deviation from the bell curve.
In other words, it's a measure of how much more you could compress the fi=
le.
NegEntropy, as Erwin Schr=F6dinger first coined it,
was to mean " ignitable ( consumable ) Gibbs Free Energy ".
And I add:
Like a lit match, consumption consumes you; to live fast is to die fast.
You wrote:
If you use the definition of NegEntropy of Leon Brillouin in this
context, then H(Z) =3D The Gibbs_Free_Energy by your definition of the
system Z under consideration.
H(Z) is the bell curve and H(X) is the deviation from it.
So, according to you ( and Brillouin ),
the less compressed a file is ( i.e. the less guassian it is )
the more NegEntropy is has.
That's the _Exact_ opposite of what I'd say because
compressing a file _Increases_ NegEntropy, freeing up bandwith.
It pisses me off !
You told me:
Using God in this context is in my opinion dangerous.
Physics has to do with explanation and measurement of a factual reality.
My land _Lord_ is my most immediate god,
closely followed by my boss and the state.
The universe is _Eternally_ dissipating, I posit, in accordance with
the standard model ( Quantum Mechanics ) and thermodynamics;
so the cosmos is the ultimate God, as it consumes all.
What's more _Real_ than that ? God ( a.k.a. Satan ) lives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Brillouin totally reversed the meaning of the word NegEntropy. |
11 Sep 2006 04:17:50 PM |
|
|
Hi Mpilot, Brillouin totally reversed the meaning of the word NegEntropy
from what Erwin Schrödinger had intended it to mean.
Schrödinger coined the word NegEntropy as a broad description of " life ";
it was to mean, " Consumable Gibbs Free Energy ".
Gibbs Free Energy is:
Enthalpy_In_Joules - Kelvins * Entropy_in_Joules_Per_Kelvin
For example, Gibbs Free Energy is consumed when you ignite a match
because the heat goes up _And_ energy is dissipated ( increasing gaussianity ).
In information theory, Gibbs Free Energy _Should_ mean,
" Consumable resourses " ( e.g. bandwidth ).
Compressing a file ( i.e. making it more gaussian )
increases the available bandwidth, thus _Increasing_ NegEntropy,
....not _Decreasing_ the file's NegEntropy as Brillouin would use the word.
You began by telling me:
Well, in order to get an understanding of NegEntropy you have to
understand NegEntropy can only be determined as a difference between 2
Entropy values.
I'd say: " Brillouin's so-called NegEntropy is a meause of non-gaussianity. "
By the way, encryption has a password, encoding does not.
An example of encoding is UTF-16 ( Unicode ).
Encryption is not related to gaussianity or Brillouin's so-called NegEntropy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Brillouin totally reversed the meaning of the word NegEntropy. |
12 Sep 2006 01:34:36 AM |
|
|
Hi Jeff,
You wrote:
Gibbs Free Energy is:
Enthalpy_In_Joules - Kelvins * Entropy_in_Joules_Per_Kelvin
So the Free Energy F =3D U - TS and the Gibb Entropy is S =3D (F-U) /
T=2E..(1)
The Free Energy is F is also given by F =3D -T ln (Z)...(2), where Z is a
partition function.
The probability distribition for a system in equilibrium is given by p
=3D e^-(epsilon/T)/Z...(3)
(2)+(3) gives: F =3D epsilon_i + T ln(p_i)...(4)
The equilibrium value for the internal energy is by definition given
by:
U =3D sum_i (epsilon_i.ln(p_i))...(5)
Rewriting the above expression and given that sum_i(p_i)=3D1 gives:
S =3D - sum_i (p_i. ln(p_i))...(6)
(6) is the Gibbs Entropy. In the special equilibrium case where the
total energy is fixed, so all states haveequal a-priori probability p_i
=3D p =3D 1/w gives:
S =3D ln(w)...(7)
(7) is the Boltzmann Entropy
The amount of Information H that can be stored in a system is defined
by Shannon inspired on (6), so: H =3D - sum_i(p_i.lg(pi))...(8)
You see that (8) and (6) differ only in the type of logarithm. Gibbs
Entropy is in nats, Shannon entropy is in Bits, where 1 nat =3D 1.443
bits.
In information theory, Gibbs Free Energy _Should_ mean,
" Consumable resourses " ( e.g. bandwidth ).
Compressing a file ( i.e. making it more gaussian )
increases the available bandwidth, thus _Increasing_ NegEntropy,
...not _Decreasing_ the file's NegEntropy as Brillouin would use the word.
I have given above a quantitative comparision between the entropies in
Physics and Information Theory. Your interpretation is just an
interpretation. You should give the Shannon Entropy in order to define
exactly what you mean with bandwith, compression etc. in order to take
away the ambiguity.
I'd say: " Brillouin's so-called NegEntropy is a meause of non-gaussianit=
y=2E "
The definition of NegEntropy N according to Brillouin again: N=3DH(Z) -
H(X).
This is not a measure for non-gaussianity, this is just the difference
between 2 entropies in equilibrium situations.
By the way, encryption has a password, encoding does not.
An example of encoding is UTF-16 ( Unicode ).
There is encoding with and without Key.
Encryption is not related to gaussianity or Brillouin's so-called NegEntr=
opy.
The given Negentropy N=3DH(Z) - H(X) is in Information Theory the so
called Vernam cipher, which is an encryption system invented by Vernam
in 1921.
Jeff...Relf wrote:
Hi Mpilot, Brillouin totally reversed the meaning of the word NegEntropy
from what Erwin Schr=F6dinger had intended it to mean.
Schr=F6dinger coined the word NegEntropy as a broad description of " =
life ";
it was to mean, " Consumable Gibbs Free Energy ".
Gibbs Free Energy is:
Enthalpy_In_Joules - Kelvins * Entropy_in_Joules_Per_Kelvin
For example, Gibbs Free Energy is consumed when you ignite a match
because the heat goes up _And_ energy is dissipated ( increasing gaussian=
ity ).
In information theory, Gibbs Free Energy _Should_ mean,
" Consumable resourses " ( e.g. bandwidth ).
Compressing a file ( i.e. making it more gaussian )
increases the available bandwidth, thus _Increasing_ NegEntropy,
...not _Decreasing_ the file's NegEntropy as Brillouin would use the word.
You began by telling me:
Well, in order to get an understanding of NegEntropy you have to
understand NegEntropy can only be determined as a difference between 2
Entropy values.
I'd say: " Brillouin's so-called NegEntropy is a meause of non-gaussianit=
y=2E "
By the way, encryption has a password, encoding does not.
An example of encoding is UTF-16 ( Unicode ).
Encryption is not related to gaussianity or Brillouin's so-called NegEntr=
opy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
31 Aug 2006 12:39:50 PM |
|
|
gubbenimanen wrote:
Imagine photons that are redshifted by the Doppler effect.
Which Doppler effect?
If photons
travel at speed of light away from us, the wavelength is infinite (?)
No.
and they go dark/invisible; the dark energy in the universe.
No infinite wavelength, so not possible.
According to Heisenberg uncertainty principle (dx * dv > h/m) if the
speed is known accurately (v=c, dv=0) than the position width (dx) is
very large. A photon traveling at c with zero mass thus covers a large
distance!
Actually the HUP is dx * dp >= hbar/2. For a photon, p = h/wavelength.
Photons with long wavelengths may be acting like gigantic vibrating
membranes on matters by wave interference? Could this be gravity?
No, because gravity only couples to mass. Gravity is an inertial
force, ie its acceleration is independent of test mass. And virtual
photons only couple to charge. Accelerations due to virtual photons
are never independent of test mass. So the two could never be
reconciled.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brad Guth" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
04 Sep 2006 08:27:05 AM |
|
|
"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1157045990.781516.11970@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
gubbenimanen wrote:
Imagine photons that are redshifted by the Doppler effect.
Photons with long wavelengths may be acting like gigantic vibrating
membranes on matters by wave interference? Could this be gravity?
No, because gravity only couples to mass. Gravity is an inertial
force, ie its acceleration is independent of test mass. And virtual
photons only couple to charge. Accelerations due to virtual photons
are never independent of test mass. So the two could never be
reconciled.
Gravity is photon interference? or is it vise versa?
Then what's the speed or velocity of a nearly continuous photon?
Say that of a 1e-100 hz photon (that's an extremely low frequency
photon)
Seems as though such multi-light-year wavelength photons could be
entirely similar to if not actually what the graviton represents.
In other words, folks here in Usenet naysay land still don't actually
know what such an extremely low frequency photon's velocity is all
about.
My swag is suggesting that such a low frequency photon might be a nearly
resting photon that's of many light years in it's wavelength and could
thereby represent gravity or the graviton itself. After all, there's
likely more than 1e100 photons per atom to work with.
If an object of gravity is moving away from us, then the gravity photon
or graviton red-shift as related to measurably representing the gravity
shift per second should also be doing the same as a visual photon that's
either red or blue shifting. Graviton red-shifting as departing or as
blue-shifting if items are coming together seems perfectly doable.
Put some other fancy names on it and call it good. Perhaps calling it
G-Shift, or GRS for graviton red shift or GBS for graviton blue shift.
Of course it we had any gravity nullification points established with
hosting a sufficient science probe that's feeding us live GRS/GBS data,
as such we'd know considerably more for certain than we do right now.
Such as going for the graviton nullification point or gravity-well zone
that's between our solar system and that of the much more powerful
Sirius star system, that which I believe could have been accomplished by
now if the Saturn_V actually had that 50t payload capability of exiting
such horrific tonnage so quickly, and thus entirely away from Earth's
gravity. Such a hefty departing 50t probe of mostly(90+%) high density
fuel would have been more than sufficient, and because it's purely
robotic is why such an effort wouldn't have cost us 10% of one Apollo
mission, or perhaps we're talking as little as 1% of what the total of
those hocus-pocus Apollo missions have set us back.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
31 Aug 2006 12:47:47 PM |
|
|
gubbenimanen wrote:
Imagine photons that are redshifted by the Doppler effect. If photons
travel at speed of light away from us, the wavelength is infinite (?)
and they go dark/invisible; the dark energy in the universe.
NO! The wavelength is determined by the energy of the photon. Now
think about the relative speed between source and observer.
Photon
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Photon.html
Doppler Effect
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DopplerEffect.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "gubbenimanen" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
31 Aug 2006 05:19:43 PM |
|
|
Thanks for the answers, gentlemen!
About infinite wavelength. In eq. (3) at
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DopplerEffect.html you can see
that wavelength goes to infinity if v --> c. So this tells infinite
wavelength is possible.
I got my Heisenberg equation from eq (6.22) in The Feynman Lectures on
Physics book. According to eq. (2) at
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Photon.html momentum p = h v/c
so dp could be thought of as a dv too.
Photons also couples to mass ... they originates from atoms. In the
center of the Sun you get zero gravity because most photons shoots
away from the center, creating a wake of long wavelength "membranes"
that cancels out at the center. If my theory of interference is correct
than gravity should ripple the same wavelength as those "photon wake
membranes". Maybe this explains the vibrating sun? And gravity should
travel with speed of light.
Roger Persson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
31 Aug 2006 05:58:34 PM |
|
|
gubbenimanen wrote:
Thanks for the answers, gentlemen!
About infinite wavelength. In eq. (3) at
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DopplerEffect.html you can see
that wavelength goes to infinity if v --> c. So this tells infinite
wavelength is possible.
I got my Heisenberg equation from eq (6.22) in The Feynman Lectures on
Physics book. According to eq. (2) at
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Photon.html momentum p = h v/c
so dp could be thought of as a dv too.
Photons also couples to mass ... they originates from atoms. In the
center of the Sun you get zero gravity because most photons shoots
away from the center, creating a wake of long wavelength "membranes"
that cancels out at the center. If my theory of interference is correct
than gravity should ripple the same wavelength as those "photon wake
membranes". Maybe this explains the vibrating sun? And gravity should
travel with speed of light.
Roger Persson
Photons originate from charged particles--here's what happen in the
center of the sun.
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter17/17f02.html
Diffusion of Energy from the Center of the Sun
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter17/17f03.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "gubbenimanen" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
31 Aug 2006 06:18:02 PM |
|
|
Mmm, those photons created in the center of the Sun travels very slow.
What about the photons leaving the surface? Then they should be able to
travel at c away from the sun with infinite wavelengths (from the
center). See this about p-modes of the Sun:
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/sun/sun-chapter2.html ..
gravity ripple?
Roger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
31 Aug 2006 06:35:14 PM |
|
|
gubbenimanen wrote:
Mmm, those photons created in the center of the Sun travels very slow.
Actually, like all photons, they propagate at the speed of light. They
just don't get very far before being absorbed by another charged
particle in the extremely dense (an hot) plasma... to be re emitted and
absorbed... losing energy in the process... it is the lower density of
the photosphere that allows photons to escape the confines of the sun.
What about the photons leaving the surface? Then they should be able to
travel at c away from the sun with infinite wavelengths (from the
center).
Although the range of wavelength is broad, the peak of energy of the
solar spectrum is at about 6000 K with the wavelength at the peak
close to the center of human vision--about 550 nm or so.
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter7/07f06.html
See this about p-modes of the Sun:
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/~ah297/un-esa/sun/sun-chapter2.html ..
gravity ripple?
Roger
.
|
|
|
| User: "gubbenimanen" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
01 Sep 2006 03:50:18 AM |
|
|
Thanks! I made a mistake in the wavelength thinking. It's a moving
light source that shows dopplershifted photon wavelengths but
wavelengths from a non-moving light source doesn't change.
Roger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
02 Sep 2006 02:31:34 PM |
|
|
gubbenimanen wrote:
Thanks! I made a mistake in the wavelength thinking. It's a moving
light source that shows dopplershifted photon wavelengths but
wavelengths from a non-moving light source doesn't change.
Roger
:-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
03 Sep 2006 03:21:56 AM |
|
|
gubbenimanen wrote:
Imagine photons that are redshifted by the Doppler effect. If photons
travel at speed of light away from us, the wavelength is infinite (?)
and they go dark/invisible; the dark energy in the universe.
According to Heisenberg uncertainty principle (dx * dv > h/m) if the
speed is known accurately (v=c, dv=0) than the position width (dx) is
very large. A photon traveling at c with zero mass thus covers a large
distance!
Photons with long wavelengths may be acting like gigantic vibrating
membranes on matters by wave interference? Could this be gravity?
Photons leaving the Sun creating a higher density ripple pattern
(stronger gravity) at short distance. Galaxies gathers at large scale
ripple.
Roger Persson
-------------------------------
while you deal with *** any *** attraction force
just forget about any photons!! (and save your time and money !!)
no physical entity that moves in straight lines can do any attraction
force !!!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
02 Sep 2006 03:21:11 PM |
|
|
gubbenimanen wrote:
Imagine photons that are redshifted by the Doppler effect. If photons
travel at speed of light away from us, the wavelength is infinite (?)
and they go dark/invisible; the dark energy in the universe.
According to Heisenberg uncertainty principle (dx * dv > h/m) if the
speed is known accurately (v=c, dv=0) than the position width (dx) is
very large. A photon traveling at c with zero mass thus covers a large
distance!
Photons with long wavelengths may be acting like gigantic vibrating
membranes on matters by wave interference? Could this be gravity?
Photons leaving the Sun creating a higher density ripple pattern
(stronger gravity) at short distance. Galaxies gathers at large scale
ripple.
Roger Persson
You have some bits and pieces of a model that actually has some
experimental support. The degree of chaos in coherent matter
instead of HUP, is the operative mechanism however. See if these
papers flesh out your musing a bit.
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0107015
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
BTW paper 1 and 3 are html and pdf of same.
Sue...
.
|
|
|
| User: "gubbenimanen" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
02 Sep 2006 08:02:55 PM |
|
|
Thanks! But I think I need to study more physics and mathematics to
understand these papers.
Could this model explain gravity?:
The photon is a particle travelling at speed c. The particle is charged
and thus surrounded by an electromagnetic field. This field is obeying
the dopplershift law and is compressed (stronger) when approaching us
and extended (weaker) when leaving us. Then gravity could be the net
electromagnetic force attracting us towards the radiating source. The
flux of photons would be denser nearer the radiating source and
proportional to 1/r^2.
Roger
.
|
|
|
| User: "gubbenimanen" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
09 Sep 2006 06:27:24 PM |
|
|
If the EM field around photons gets shaped like comets due to
dopplershift then the field in front of the photon gets a zero
interaction distance (wavelength) and a infinite interaction distance
behind it according to eq. (3) at
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DopplerEffect.html.
Now consider photons sent from two masses. When photons travel towards
each other they don't interact but when they have passed each other the
long field tails will start to interact with each other. The magnetic
fields will intertangle like two corkscrews. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field ). Is it possible that EM
fields can move the masses?
Another question. Gravity from a galaxy cluster distorts the image of a
distant galaxy ( http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011007.html ) Why does the
galaxy image bend away from the cluster gravity center and not bend
towards it?
Roger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "gubbenimanen" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
02 Sep 2006 09:18:23 PM |
|
|
Mmmm, this model tells me that gravity from sun on moon is zero during
total moon eclipse? And how do I explain black holes?
Roger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
04 Sep 2006 07:48:55 AM |
|
|
gubbenimanen wrote:
Mmmm, this model tells me that gravity from sun on moon is zero during
total moon eclipse?
Compare aluminum foil and equally thick paper between
a permanent magnet and a piece of steel, then reconsider
what that model tells you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
<< And how do I explain black holes? >>
You explain ~black holes~ after you are proficient
with this material:
"space-time"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node113.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node13.html
"Retarded potential"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/teal_tour.htm
Roger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
02 Sep 2006 09:33:41 PM |
|
|
gubbenimanen wrote:
Mmmm, this model tells me that gravity from sun on moon is zero during
total moon eclipse? And how do I explain black holes?
Roger
Perhaps you didn't realize that current gravitation models are
in agreement with empirical data.
References
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalForce.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html
Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", Addison Wesley (2003)
"A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain when
gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational force law
F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2
o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and,
since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy.
o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel
positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational
interaction. Gravity is always attractive.
o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law is a 1/r^2
interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for gravitational
interactions as there is for the strong and weak interactions.
o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting between
individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales. The ratio of
the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic repulsion between two
protons separated by a distance r is
F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2
-------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36
F_elec e^2 / (4 pi e_0 r^2) (e^2/4pi e_0)
where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge.
These four facts explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in physical
phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is the weakest force,
gravity governs the organization of the universe on the largest distance
scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These distance scales are far beyond
the subatomic ranges of the strong and the weak interactions. Electromagnetic
interactions COULD be long range were there any large-scale objects with net
electric charge. But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic
forces are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale net
charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the structure of the
universe on the largest scales.
For a more thorough comparison see: Observational and Experimental
Evidence Bearing on General Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
04 Sep 2006 07:36:51 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
gubbenimanen wrote:
Mmmm, this model tells me that gravity from sun on moon is zero during
total moon eclipse? And how do I explain black holes?
Roger
Perhaps you didn't realize that current gravitation models are
in agreement with empirical data.
GR is a mathematical formalism, not a model. If GP-B detects a
space-time continuum that can be dragged, I'll eat my scarf.
The transformation from Coulomb to Lorenz gauge actually
models a *discontinuum* for the sake of invariance.
References
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalForce.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Gravity.html
Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity", Addison Wesley (2003)
"A few properties of the gravitational interaction that help explain when
gravity is important can already be seen from the gravitational force law
F_grav = G m_1 m_2 / r_12^2
o Gravity is a universal interaction in Newtonian theory between all mass, and,
since E = mc^2, in relativistic gravity between all forms of energy.
o Gravity is unscreened. There are no negative gravitational charges to cancel
positive ones, and therefore it is not possible to shield (screen) the gravitational
interaction. Gravity is always attractive.
In quantum tweezers, and the Lue Langevin neutron experiment,
gravity is screened and repulsive.
o Gravity is a long-range interaction. The Newtonian force law is a 1/r^2
interaction. There is no length scale that sets a range for gravitational
interactions as there is for the strong and weak interactions.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
o Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental interactions acting between
individual elementary particles at accessible energy scales. The ratio of
the gravitational attraction to the electromagnetic repulsion between two
protons separated by a distance r is
F_grav G m_p^2 / r^2 G m_p^2
-------- = -------------------- = ------------- ~ 10^-36
F_elec e^2 / (4 pi e_0 r^2) (e^2/4pi e_0)
where m_p is the mass of the proton and e is its charge.
There is no evidence that gravity is fundamental.
These four facts...
Gravity probe B might give you a *fact* untl then, the Tajamar
de Matos experiment is what is the empirical evidence and
it shows gravity and inertia are not fundamental.
Sue...
explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in physical
phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is the weakest force,
gravity governs the organization of the universe on the largest distance
scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These distance scales are far beyond
the subatomic ranges of the strong and the weak interactions. Electromagnetic
interactions COULD be long range were there any large-scale objects with net
electric charge. But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic
forces are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale net
charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the structure of the
universe on the largest scales.
Your refrigerator door is electrically neutral too. That doesn't
prevent all
magnets from attracting its mass.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
Sue...
For a more thorough comparison see: Observational and Experimental
Evidence Bearing on General Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "malibu" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
04 Sep 2006 11:08:39 AM |
|
|
Sue... wrote:
In quantum tweezers, and the Lue Langevin neutron experiment,
gravity is screened and repulsive.
I'm liking that.
There is no evidence that gravity is fundamental.
Gravity is secondary.
It has to be, because otherwise you
get into problems with singularities.
And because matter is *always* absorbing
gravitational energy, the bigger planets
are seen to emit heat. I wonder if Jupiter were to
get still bigger if gravity would turn
it into a star.
Perhaps gravity is what powers stars?
John
Gravity probe B might give you a *fact* untl then, the Tajamar
de Matos experiment is what is the empirical evidence and
it shows gravity and inertia are not fundamental.
Sue...
explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in physical
phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is the weakest force,
gravity governs the organization of the universe on the largest distance
scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These distance scales are far beyond
the subatomic ranges of the strong and the weak interactions. Electromagnetic
interactions COULD be long range were there any large-scale objects with net
electric charge. But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic
forces are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale net
charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the structure of the
universe on the largest scales.
Your refrigerator door is electrically neutral too. That doesn't
prevent all
magnets from attracting its mass.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
Sue...
For a more thorough comparison see: Observational and Experimental
Evidence Bearing on General Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity is photon interference? |
04 Sep 2006 12:57:23 PM |
|
|
malibu wrote:
Sue... wrote:
In quantum tweezers, and the Lue Langevin neutron experiment,
gravity is screened and repulsive.
I'm liking that.
There is no evidence that gravity is fundamental.
Gravity is secondary.
It has to be, because otherwise you
get into problems with singularities.
And because matter is *always* absorbing
gravitational energy, the bigger planets
are seen to emit heat. I wonder if Jupiter were to
get still bigger if gravity would turn
it into a star.
Perhaps gravity is what powers stars?
It is best not to refer to induction fields in terms of their
energy because they tend to be so conservative that
it represents an ever diminishing component of the resultant
force.
If you're a student of General Relativity then you are
familar with the infinities and singularities that blow up
when the equations try to make the operative mechanism
(Newton 3rd force) go to zero.
Planets and magnets move the way they move to
conserve energy. The radiative componenets that disperse
or absorb energy are orthogonal to the resultant trajectories.
What is the trajectory of an electron with relation to
the region of space that most robs its motional energy?
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/gifpics/print/phalfantiphase.gif
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antprobscollected.html
The planets will move and the magnets will stick to your
refrigerator for a long time, determinied not by how much
energy they have, but how well they can keep the rest of
the universe from stealing the energy from their systems.
The good old thermonuclear explanitions for why stars shine
seem a lot more plausible because transmuting atoms need
to shed energy not conserve it as orbits and magnets.
Sue...
John
Gravity probe B might give you a *fact* untl then, the Tajamar
de Matos experiment is what is the empirical evidence and
it shows gravity and inertia are not fundamental.
Sue...
explain a great deal about the role gravity plays in physical
phenomena. They explain, for example, why, although it is the weakest force,
gravity governs the organization of the universe on the largest distance
scales of astrophysics and cosmology. These distance scales are far beyond
the subatomic ranges of the strong and the weak interactions. Electromagnetic
interactions COULD be long range were there any large-scale objects with net
electric charge. But the universe is electrically neutral, and electromagnetic
forces are so much stronger than gravitational forces that any large-scale net
charge is quickly neutralized. Gravity is left to govern the structure of the
universe on the largest scales.
Your refrigerator door is electrically neutral too. That doesn't
prevent all
magnets from attracting its mass.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
Sue...
For a more thorough comparison see: Observational and Experimental
Evidence Bearing on General Relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
