Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Ghost Gravity - At Intended Post Location

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Duane Eddy on April 13, 2003 17:17:58 UTC

You said:
I haven't given up yet, but I think there must be more to it. Making adjustments to fit it to fact doesn't seem productive though.

- Dont try to fix it all at once. The rate of expansion is dependent on some factors which have not been addressed. Determine conditions in which the idea is correct and incorrect.
Identical expansion rates work for two objects with the same size and mass.
Identical expansion rates do not work when three equal objects are used.
Does it work if one object is twice the size of the other?
Is the expansion of an object a function of one objects mass or both objects masses?

I said: " If the fabric of space was constantly flowing toward a mass particle in one wave form carrying objects toward the mass with it while the reflected energy wave being emitted is in another form which does not cause the acceleration affect. Something like a constant expansion could be experienced. "

You said:
This makes some sense, but how is it different from the inflating-balloon scenario? I mean, what difference does it make whether matter is expanding out into space or space contracting toward matter? Aren't both hypothesis exactly equivalent?

-Exactly, they are equivalent.
When everything expanded at the same rate a it was easy for me to contemplate your model with a coordinate system which did not expand with the model.
As I started to think about differing expansion rates for each object it was easier for me to consider the expansion with a coordinate system which could also expand with an object. In this way I could tag along with an object as it expanded. I typically try all coordinate systems to see which makes the model easier to understand.

You said:
I wasn't talking about inertia and gravity, I was talking about the measurement of mass. Before Einstein people thought inertial mass (resistance to acceleration) was not the same as gravitational mass (weight).

-Ops. My mistake.

You said:
But Einstein pointed out that a free-falling object has no weight, even if it is in the presence of a gravitational field. I'm not sure what different people make of it, I could never find a clear explanation for the fact, but to me it seems to suggest that, contrary to appearances, a free-falling object is not accelerating at all.

-You are correct, the falling object is not accelerating.

You said:
Trouble is, how do you explain the appearance of acceleration?

-The observer is accelerating not the falling object. I know this because the observer has a force applied to their feet as they stand on the planet. If the observer has a mass and a force they must have an acceleration because F = M x A.

I said:
" They are close to being the same properties however an objects attraction to itself may have some special properties due to the identical nature of the objects of attraction. "

You said:
The problem with your hypothesis, in my opinion, is that if the object attracts itself then all uniform movement would eventually cease. In other words, your hypothesis seems to violate conservation of momentum. Can you explain why an object keeps moving when you seem to be saying it is attracted to its previous location?

--I call this the ghost gravity thought experiment.

-Two objects A and B are drifting past each other in space.

-Object B responds as if object B is stationary and object A is moving.
Object A responds as if object A is stationary and object B is moving.

-Object A considers itself stationary because A's gravitational field is moving with A.
Object B considers itself stationary because B's gravitational field is moving with B.

Nether object A or B considers itself to be moving therefore it does not detect a motion to resist.

-Object B now collides with object C.

-Due to the collision object B is now accelerated or moves from its previous coordinate system a distance less then the radius of an electron.

-We will call this distance R.

-Object B now considers itself moving because its (previous or ghost) gravitational field remains in the old coordinate system.
At the same instant mass B is generating a new gravitational field corresponding with its new coordinate system.
Mass B is attracted to its ghost gravitational field causing a force toward its old coordinate system.

Each particle of mass in B now considers itself R distance from an identical Ghost mass.

The distance R is very small which can cause the inertial force to be extremely large due to the inverse square relationship between force and distance in the gravity equations.

If object B makes many incremental moves in the same direction quickly then many ghost gravitational fields will be produced causing the inertia force to be a function of the speed of velocity change and mass.

The ghost gravitational fields future does not need to be defined for this thought experiment to explain current experimental results.
R quickly becomes large enough that the gravitational attraction between the mass particles and their ghost doubles in object B are to small to be detected.

-I is amazing what can be accomplished with thought experiments.
It is also amazing how the art has been neglected.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins