Theory of Gravitation

[hagent]

Great discussion so far. It's strange though that no one has once mentioned string theory though. There's no way to discuss a modern understanding of gravity without discussing Bosonic String Theory, M Theory, quantum gravity, and Supersymetry.

Funny (not in a ha ha way).

I was but ten dimensions are hard to right down on two dimensions. :) Plus I don't have the math skills for an intellegent conversation. Just nice over all thereories - minus the math.

The Townsend Brown / Bi-field effect does leave some possible credible evidence on my previous posts; especially when his device worked better in a vaccum.

[skyfrog]

Great discussion so far. It's strange though that no one has once mentioned string theory though. There's no way to discuss a modern understanding of gravity without discussing Bosonic String Theory, M Theory, quantum gravity, and Supersymetry.

Funny (not in a ha ha way).

String theory we have heard the magic of it, but it seems so hard to be understood. This is probably due to our simple mind, but also could be due to it is wrong. Comparing with Einstein's theory, Einstein's theory is even eaiser to get hold.

Quantum gravity is very promising. it agrees with Einstein's theory, but graviton hasn't been found yet.

[Eric B.]

Great discussion so far. It's strange though that no one has once mentioned string theory though. There's no way to discuss a modern understanding of gravity without discussing Bosonic String Theory, M Theory, quantum gravity, and Supersymetry.

Funny (not in a ha ha way).

Well, there really is no modern understanding of gravity. Our current explanation for it is 100 years old and internally inconsistent. Supposedly the curving of empty space produces gravity, but of course anything that is capable of curving could just as easily serve as a (forbidden and taboo) medium for light.

The people searching for gravity particles, super strings, 10 dimensions, membranes, wave particles, virtual particles, etc are doing so because they firmly believe that mechanisms can be derived from equations. It's an utterly ridiculous concept easily disproved, yet thousands of very intelligent physicists accept it. The more abstract the math becomes the more difficult it becomes to find any mechanism that can plausibly match the math, but that doesnt stop the physicists. Instead of abandoning their abstract models, they have decided to abandon mechanisms! But abandoning mechanisms isn't enough to save these abstract models, so they have also decided to abandon the most fundamental law of nature: that an effect comes after a cause.

-Eric B.

[Mark]

I wonder if someone will figure out something very sublime about matter and threaten life far more than any atomic bomb, something like the strange theme of this movie. It's hard to describe but the "effect" that occurs that changes things makes for an interesting premise. It's as if something very grand is happening or settling out into some other state of being, it's almost eerie. I liked this movie.
Mark
http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Quiet-Earth-DVD ... dZViewItem

[mk]

Before I push a rewind button, which leads back to my last post, I just have to reply to the advanced theories. All IMHO:

First, we can only envision three (volumetric) dimensions. Maybe four dimensions, when envisioning the change in a three dimensional system, when applying time as fourth dimension.

Now, envisioning more then three dimensions is just not possible. At least without mathematics, which are capable of presenting systems with larger than the mentioned dimension number, which we are capable of envisioning.

Only because mathematics can explain and represent things in a very abstract way, does not necessaryly mean that we can understand the things. Or one could also say, only because we can comprehend things does not mean we can understand (in the case of envisioning) them.
String theory is just one example.
Or think of 2D creatures. Would they be able to envision a 3D system as ours?

[Al Belli]

Hi Marten,

If You have not read the book " Flatland ", You might enjoy it. It takes place in a two dimensional land. The link has the full text. This book was written in the 1880's.

http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/flatland/

Al Belli

[mk]

Sounds interesting, Al.

"Rewind" to my former post(-s):
Now applying the acceleration distance, expressed as the difference starting point distance Ro and the final distance at collision Rfin = 2*rsun, both relatively to the centers of gravity or points of merged masses A and B, in the centers of each object A and B.
As mentioned before, let's assume A and B being about equal to the sun (rsun = 6.96*10^8 m).

However, I forgot to apply a necessary condition, which consists of:

Ro > Rfin or
Ro > 2*rsun

So we probably saw the integrated result of abs(Rfin -> 0), not the questioned abs(Rfin -> infin.).

Now we have to envison the graph, which is a simple 1/R^2 or 1/R type, depending on which formula we're considering. Due we only refer to the first quadrant, both types are approaching the x-axis (R) for R -> inf. and the y-axis (FG or E) for x -> 0.
So within the above condition, we see the area below the FG graph approaches a certain area, thereof a certain energy, that can be used for acceleration only.

It appears more practical to calculate the max. possible velocity instead of the distance for a certain TLARed velocity. When considering object A, assuming mA = mB and rA = rB, we're getting:

lim [Ro -> inf.] vfin,A

------------------ Edit -------------------
Damn it! I forgot a "2" as factor. We're accelerating two masses, indeed, but the equal fields (for this case) are overlapping each other. F = abs(-F).

lim [Ro -> infin.] vfin,A

= lim [Ro -> infin.] sqrt(c^2 - c^2 / (G*mB / (c^2) * (1/(2*rsun) - (1/Ro)) + 1)^2)

= 436700 m/sec = 0.00146*c = 1.46%o*c

Thereof:
vfin,rel = vfin,A+vfin,B = 2*vfin,A = 873400 m/sec

Due we're only dealing with velocities being fractions of the speed of light. Else a Lorentz-Transformation would have to be done.
------------------ /Edit -------------------

Ouhh. Nice.

Any corrections?

I'm not planning to stick back to it...well, forget about this one!

[mk]

Hey Forrest,

Where's your solution, please?

---

Oh, besides I had a short QSO with a friend of mine studying physics.

So far, the speed of gravitation, or whether gravitation "information" are transmitted instantenous or at a finite speed or even at the speed of light, still makes for a question tag of physics.

Go ahead, gentlemen and -women!

[WebPilot]

If You have not read the book " Flatland ", You might enjoy it. It takes place in a two dimensional land. The link has the full text. This book was written in the 1880's.

http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/flatland/

Hi Al,

It appears we read a lot of similar books. Perhaps, it is because we live in the same state?

Another, if I may suggest, book to read is The Planiverse (computer contact with a two-dimensional world) - Dr. Alexander Keewatin Dewdney, Poseidon Press, 1984.

-fde

[WebPilot]

Hi Marten,

Sorry for the delay, but I had to help a "buddy" replace and bleed a master cylinder in a car yesterday.

Now, I make no claim in being an expert in celestial mechanics, but I am not afraid to give it a whirl. I tried to keep it simple and here is what I derived and computed as an example case:



-fde

[larry cottrill]

Forrest -

Nice exposition. I would not call that a very "appreciable perecentage", but it feels about right for the objects and distances involved.

This reminds me of my old idea (has occurred to many others, I'm sure) of how to get rid of nuclear waste. You package it up, boost it out behind the earth until it has zero orbital velocity, and let it fall in. At the same time, you could equip your death ship with nifty instrumentation that would send you lots of useful solar data from close in, up to the point where it all just melts and quits working, so there would be some net scientific benefit. You could even have some automated high temp, high radiation or solar wind experiments or whatever. You would time your launches for when Mercury and Venus wouldn't get in the way, of course. Seems like a shoo-in to me. However, I have a feeling that the requisite launch energy (and risks of a launch failure!) would be deemed prohibitive. But, it would certainly remove the problem from your "backyard", which is what everybody worries about.

L Cottrill

[mk]

Okay, so we see the velocities being at a fraction of the speed of light only.

Within this conclusion, Forrest's methode is way more practical.
Hehehe...silly me!
I intended to do this one, too. Obviously it was way too late, so I thought 1/R2 - 1/R1 equals with 1/(R2 - R1). Later the reciprocal, of course, could be achieved simply, and being R2 - R1. Ahwww...I didn't notice this stupid mistake all the time.
Damn it. Why making it simple if one can make it complicated?


Now the formula for extremly different objects:
But assume both ball shaped.

R1 > R2 > 0 m
mA >> mB > 0 kg

vfin,B = sqrt(c^2 - c^2 / ((G*mA / c^2) * (1/R2 - 1/R1) + 1)^2) [m/sec]

Whohoo! Surprise, surprise, the same!
The only difference is that R2 approaches rA, due the extremly lighter object should be extremly smaller, too.

Now setting R2 = rA, we're getting a maximum possible velocity of e.g. at least our sun:

lim [R1 -> infin.] vfin,B = 617590 m/sec = 0.00206*c = 2.06%o*c.


Well, I don't know what went wrong last time, but after restarting my calculator and typing everything again, the following can be presented. Perhaps or rather probably I just missed to delete a remaining "2" in the formula.

However, just put in the correct values for R1 and R2 in the first formula and you get the same, seemingly correct result as via Forrest's formula.
E.g. for c = 3*10^8 m/sec, G = 6.67*10^-11 m^3/(kg*sec^2), mA = 1.99*10^30 kg, R1 = 1.471*10^11 m, and R2 = 7.02*10^8 m, I'm getting:

vfin,B = 613470 m/sec = 0.002045*c = 2.045%o*c

Finally!

BTW Which program do you use to write formulas, Forrest?

[WebPilot]

Nice exposition. . .

Thanks.

Yes, 0.205% of the speed of light is a bit sluggish, but if the sun were to become a mere 100 times more massive, then the impact velocity would become 2%.

I imagine, somewhere in the universe, there may be a star comparable to the size of ole Sol, and is this massive.

. . . Or is there?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marten,

Yes, it is difficult and takes time to get things right. I have the same problem. Congrats!

I was so focussed on getting the formulation correct, that I neglected to check my work on the example problem. I think I forgot to change km to m and arrived at a larger velocity, which was sqrt(1000) too large. Then, I got excited. duh ...

Which program do you use to write formulas, Forrest?

Well, I've used several different methods, but for the small stuff, I use Word found on the Microsoft Office '97 CD which has equation capabilities.

You may still be able to find it with the key 2nd hand somewhere. You can guess where I found mine for 5 bucks (US).

-fde

[skyfrog]

Hi Forrest,

A powerful and elegant approach of solving the open question. Math is very far away from me now, I'd like to learn more from your formulation via a simple discussion.

You attach the coordinate system to mass M, will this accurate enough when dealing with situations of m =~ M ? ie, the coordinate is itself accelerating ? If r is itself relative to M, will K.E. still equal to 1/2 x m x (r dot)^2 ?

I think your solution is 100% correct for M>>m, but need more discussion as to m =~M.

[hagent]

How about two black holes orbiting each other in a viscious circle. Each black hole would be about the same mass. They would be orbitting each other just outside of each other's event horizon.

An object would travel at 90 degrees to their orbits and pass right between them, and continue past a quite a velocity.

Might be the ulitimate sling shot and still survive.

"Let the Chimp go first" :)