TED Conversations

A wal
  • A wal
  • Cambridge
  • United Kingdom

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

The actual cause of gravity.

This has to do with the special theory of relativity. http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=743 See below for a nutshell description. Length contraction and time dilation work slightly differently with angular velocity than they do with linia velocity. They get curved and accumulate to produce gravity. It's the orbit of the electrons that create the time dilation and length contraction associated with gravity, but it's really just an extension of special relativity.

Basically if an object is floating in space and it sees another object coming towards it at half the speed of light then it could just as easily claim that it's moving towards the other object at half the speed of light and the other object is stationary. There is no way to tell which one is moving. The only statement you can make is that they moving towards each other at half the speed of light. All the laws of physics remain the same in any inertial frame, meaning all frames are equal and no frame can be said to be unique in any way. Having said that, you could use the cosmic background radiation as a frame of reference for all others, but you could do that with any frame of reference. When you're sitting on a train and you throw a ball into the air it does go flying backwards, because the laws in all non accelerating frames are the same, including the speed of light. You can't measure your speed relative to light because you'll always get the same answer. That means if two objects are heading away from Earth at different relative velocities and you shine a flash light, the light beam will pass both of them at the same speed, meaning all three observers measure time and space differently to keep the speed of light the same. Velocity is just a measurement of distance over time. There's one spacial dimension involved because you can always draw a straight line between any two objects, and time. Both shorten from the perspective of an accelerating observer to keep the speed of light constant. Simple.

+1
Share:
progress indicator

  • Steve C

    • 0
    Oct 20 2012: I heard that Einstein ignored electricity (plasmas) in his equations. Is that true?
  • thumb

    Kevin Jacobson

    • 0
    Sep 21 2012: Mass comes from the Higgs Boson, which was thankfully discovered by the particle physicists on July 4th, 2012 at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland.
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      Sep 21 2012: You've misunderstood. Maybe it's my fault though. I should change the title, it's a bit misleading.
  • thumb

    A wal

    • 0
    Sep 21 2012: Okay, I obviously didn't make this as clear as I'd hoped. Spin/angular momentum as well as causing frame dragging (an angular force that pulls objects round) also causes a radial force that acts in the same way that gravity does, because it's the same thing. It's just the length contraction and time dilation of relative velocity, but cumulative because it's circular. You could probably view the electrons as travelling in straight lines through space-time that's curved by the short ranged strong nuclear force. Each electron that orbits a nucleus literally shortens the distance between itself and every other object in the universe causing an inwards curvature of space-time, as opposed to the outwards curvature caused by energy which is *c squared more powerful.
  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • 0
    Sep 21 2012: There are many theories about where mass comes from. There are also theories that what you see is an illusion, and that there is no mass.
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      Sep 21 2012: Everything we experience is an illusion created by our own minds in order to perceive the mathematical structure of existence, but that doesn't mean mass doesn't exist at all. I'm talking within the context of the illusion.
  • thumb

    Casey Christofaris 10+

    • 0
    Sep 21 2012: We have no clue where mass comes from see CERN and higgs boson. Also you have never...I repeat never touched anything ever in your life. The funny thing is we spend all this money on trying to figure out those 2 simple things. And when we do it will not matter.

    This is long but I recommend watching it and then watching it again down the road once you have had time to think about it.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y5bXdx5UrE
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      Sep 21 2012: Of course it matters! I know I've never touched anything. The atoms don't come into contact with each other. It's an electro-magnetic field that makes objects appear solid. Sacred geometry is interesting despite the ridiculous name and it does look like the universe uses it and is fractal in nature. Pretty dam cool.
      • thumb

        Casey Christofaris 10+

        • 0
        Sep 21 2012: yes 100% cool. But isn't not going to get us off this rock. I would of rather seen that CERN money go to getting us off this rock. Which is really all that matters in this point in time. Because I don't care how energy efficiency we get our resource are still limited. Maybe in our travels some other species will be able to tell us why we have mass.

        If the higgs boson is the partial that give us mass, what impact is that going to have on society as whole, will it feed the hungry, cure hiv/aids, supply fresh water to people who need it. Frankly I don't know ....maybe. We have other places that could use a global effort and finance. If we don't know why we have mass or why we never actually touch anything, those two traits our are fundamental understanding of what makes this reality "real". I am real because I can see, taste and touch thing...oh wait I don't touch any thing. So lets get over that and move on.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          Sep 21 2012: I'd already thought of a fractal universe before I even knew what a fractal was because it seemed to make sense in the context of a four dimensional sphere. Travel in any direction including in time or inwards/outwards and you end up back where you started. I was never really sure about it though. It's still seems a bit too trippy.

          How advanced do you think our technology is. Doing what you suggest is a hell of a lot more difficult, time consuming and expensive than building a particle accelerator, not to mention the fact that anything we build is limited to below the speed of light from the perspective of anyone back on Earth. The accelerator is also limited to the speed of light but they can cheat using time dilation and length contraction, so they're not really limited at all. That's what's responsible for the difference in age in the twin paradox.
    • thumb

      Andres Aullet 10+

      • 0
      Sep 21 2012: Hi Casey, I also found this about Mr. Nassim Haramein:

      https://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/who-is-nassim-haramein/

      And even though i have followed physics for decades, I have never seen any scientific papers published by him

      how does the video you provided relate to the question of where does mass come from?
      • thumb

        Casey Christofaris 10+

        • 0
        Sep 21 2012: Oh I am not saying he's has not gone a little of his rocker since the video was taken. I still think that what talks about in the video are correct. About, mass if we find the Higgs boson and we declare that that is what is give us mass. Then the next question should be what is giving the higgs boson mass, you can see how this can be a continuing circle.

        I personally do not believe we have evidence of alien life and that is not what the video talks about. I 100% do think that aliens are out there. But who knows everything is theory right?
    • thumb

      Andres Aullet 10+

      • 0
      Sep 21 2012: Well, i watched most of the video (i confess that i did not watch the last 30 minutes) and didn't hear of any real scientific theory. I studied physics and i consider myself familiar with it, and i don't think he was talking science.

      I recognize that it's tempting to take obscure or non intuitive concepts (such as the particle / wave nature of matter and energy, or the impossibility of ever catching an electron and observing it at rest) and try to use this "obscureness" to apply it to science in general, implying that nobody really knows what is "true" or not in the world around us

      If you are familiar with particle physics, you may remember that there are other bosons like the gluons that are consistently observed in experiments in particle accelerators, and the photons that don't even need a particle accelerator to be observed.

      Nothing physically changed around us during the past decades when it was found that the properties of gluons and photons predicted by the standard model indeed agree to what we observe in experiments. And nothing is likely to change if the results of experiments in the LHC turn out to confirm the predictions regarding the Higgs boson agree with that is observed during high energy collisions.

      If by "everything is theory" you mean that all hypothesis have equal scientific value and that none of them can claim a higher (closer) degree of correspondence to observed phenomena, then i must disagree with you

      cheers
      • thumb

        Casey Christofaris 10+

        • 0
        Sep 21 2012: Actually I agree with the article you posted on the other conversation. And I think that syntax can be argued over and over again. And yes we are searching for a closer and closer understanding of the world around us. However I think some or most scientist and physicist stop thinking about what we think could be going on, and that we need to re tool our information to make sure what we have is still congruent with what we are seeing. My example of this is Gamma Ray Burst that completely destroys our math and physics (there are other but I am more versed in this subject). Instead of saying hey maybe there is something more going on, they make it fit into our current model.

        see convo
        http://www.ted.com/conversations/13537/the_big_bang_didn_t_really_hap.html
        • thumb

          Andres Aullet 10+

          • 0
          Sep 21 2012: Thanks for the link to the other conversation Casey,

          Now regarding gamma ray bursts, why do you say it completely destroys our math and physics? If each phenomena that physics cannot explain or that we lack a mathematical model for were to destroy them completely, we would have lost both long time ago

          Dark matter is a black box, a place holder term we use instead of saying "we don't know yet what causes it"

          But you have to acknowledge that whatever theory in the future that is able to explain dark matter and gamma ray bursts, must be backwards compatible and explain also everything that general relativity and quantum mechanics can explain, and in that realm, the new theory must be indistinguishable from the current ones we have

          cheers
      • thumb

        Casey Christofaris 10+

        • 0
        Sep 21 2012: Basically the idea of circular explosion or "beam" explosion. If we use the circular explosion is wipes out e=mc2 but if we use beam explosion it fits pretty in the box. Thank you for acknowledging that dark matter is just a term for we don't know. It drives me crazy that its passed off as science. I realize that it either needs to be backwards compatible or completely rewrite our understanding of everything that still makes sense. Making something that were valid before now invalid and or thing that were once considered invalid valid.

        Of course I think is the second option that gets over look more often then not. It would be nice if the current model still fit and we could simple just move on, change a few ones a zeros around and we are back on track. However I have this "gut" feeling that is no longer the case. And that we will start using science as the next new religion where we do conceive it as absolutes.
        • thumb

          Andres Aullet 10+

          • +1
          Sep 21 2012: Ah, I share that fear too. Science is a wonderful tool, but nobody should take it's teachings as an absolute.
      • thumb

        A wal

        • 0
        Sep 21 2012: Can't reply to your post below so I'll do it here. GR is wrong! It says that a free-falling object is equivalent to an object at rest in flat space-time rather than equivalent to an accelerating object. That fact that it's gravity doing the accelerating makes no difference. The acceleration is felt as tidal force. Tidal force a g-force are the same thing!
        • thumb

          Andres Aullet 10+

          • 0
          Sep 21 2012: Hi A wal, sorry i know that this format of 3 levels of replies makes things a little complicated.

          I could not understand why you say general relativity is wrong. Is it just the fact that it sounds contrary to common experience? or do you have some mathematical deduction that shows that the equivalence is not correct?

          I know for a fact that some of the predictions of general relativity are so far out that they don't fit within previous experience or common sense, for example, the fact that time flows slower when you are closer to the surface of the earth than when you are up in a satellite orbit, however, that prediction is confirmed beautifully with the experiment (measuring the difference between the ticking of two identical clocks in these two locations)

          do you care to elaborate a little bit?

          cheers
      • thumb

        A wal

        • 0
        Sep 21 2012: Okay, you asked for it. (: http://www.ted.com/conversations/13951/the_proper_theory_of_relativit.html
        • thumb

          Andres Aullet 10+

          • 0
          Sep 22 2012: Dear A wal...

          I took the time to read that conversation. I have two questions:

          1) are you a physicist or physics student?

          2) If you were so kind, can you please point me to the source where you copied this text from?

          I ask because it mostly takes language from general relativity but it mixes it (like in a blender) with many speculations and some other incorrect deductions and the result is not really scientific

          The resulting text is something that sounds indeed complex and daunting, contains a few catch phrases and buzz words from general relativity, but has no real content. Being confusing and sounding like scientific literature is not enough to make it a valid scientific document

          That is why I would like to see if maybe in the source documents I can find a bit more pointers to real scientific literature

          cheers
      • thumb

        A wal

        • 0
        Sep 22 2012: No, I'm not a physicist or a physics student. I just understand how relativity works. Thanks for taking the time to read it. I wrote all of that so that is the source material. By a huge stroke of good fortune I don't have to bother with any mathematics because it's already been done. It's called the special theory of relativity. The bottom line is that gravitational acceleration no different to conventional acceleration and special relativity can describe gravity perfectly well. I do have a good understanding of general relativity http://www.physicsforums.com/blog.php?b=744 which is how I know that it doesn't actually make sense. It's not even self consistent when objects are accelerated by gravity to the speed of light (at an event horizon). The problem was that it was assumed that curved space-time is physically different to flat space-time. It isn't! Of course it's going to have "buzz words" from relativity seeing as it's about relativity and I completely agree with special relativity. All I'm doing is applying that to gravity and it completely eliminates all the problems like singularities (which ALWAYS means the theory has broken down) and compatibility with quantum mechanics, and it's so much simpler. It's not my best writing, I'll give you that but I didn't think it was that much of a mess. In this version I was trying to be methodical and cover everything, well everything important. The only person to have read it so far said he understood it perfectly. He read a much shorter version of it first though as an introduction. I've got it somewhere. I'll post it when I find it.
Showing all 24 comments