Gravity is a force .. not Energy

[Handy andy]

You're probably thinking of quarks, which are one kind of fermionic particle.

 

Is it not better to view all particles as being waves. Then everything is waves of one kind or another. Fermions being stationery waves, bosons being waves travelling at light speed.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

So how did gravity work before there were atoms ? or fermionic matter? Not all the history of our universe was matter available.

 

Or better yet this lab experiment that uses lasers to generate a gravitational field?

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/023009

 

Same article but published at arxiv for those that prefer arxiv.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.01023&ved=0ahUKEwi8-Lyz4dTTAhXpv1QKHYwOBbAQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNFV4HS0tqUmytAUIleAh6o9Sm_2vg&sig2=lnR3ot4f5VwB0k7zBMpXkg

 

 

Here is the more popularly known Tolman tests on lasers generating gravity.

 

https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_149385056757712&key=6afc78eea2339e9c047ab6748b0d37e7&libId=j29k06cn010009we000MAjvoizlu8&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fthreads%2Feffect-of-photon-gravity-on-another-photon-traveling-in-the-opposite-d.764878%2F&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fauthors.library.caltech.edu%2F1544%2F1%2FTOLpr31a.pdf&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F&title=Effect%20of%20photon%20gravity%20on%20another%20photon%20traveling%20in%20the%20opposite%20d%20%7C%20Physics%20Forums%20-%20The%20Fusion%20of%20Science%20and%20Community&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fauthors.library.caltech.edu%2F1544%2F1%2FTOLpr31a.pdf

 

By the way that was done back in 1931...

 

Why we even have laser driven sails. How is that possible if only matter can generate force?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion

 

I call that sufficient proof your wrong. Better study Roger

 

Why we even have laser driven sails. How is that possible if only matter can generate force?

 

 

 

So how did gravity work before there were atoms ? or fermionic matter? Not all the history of our universe was matter available.

 

Or better yet this lab experiment that uses lasers to generate a gravitational field?

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/023009

 

Same article but published at arxiv for those that prefer arxiv.

 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.01023&ved=0ahUKEwi8-Lyz4dTTAhXpv1QKHYwOBbAQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNFV4HS0tqUmytAUIleAh6o9Sm_2vg&sig2=lnR3ot4f5VwB0k7zBMpXkg

 

 

Here is the more popularly known Tolman tests on lasers generating gravity.

 

https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_149385056757712&key=6afc78eea2339e9c047ab6748b0d37e7&libId=j29k06cn010009we000MAjvoizlu8&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fthreads%2Feffect-of-photon-gravity-on-another-photon-traveling-in-the-opposite-d.764878%2F&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2Fauthors.library.caltech.edu%2F1544%2F1%2FTOLpr31a.pdf&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F&title=Effect%20of%20photon%20gravity%20on%20another%20photon%20traveling%20in%20the%20opposite%20d%20%7C%20Physics%20Forums%20-%20The%20Fusion%20of%20Science%20and%20Community&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fauthors.library.caltech.edu%2F1544%2F1%2FTOLpr31a.pdf

 

By the way that was done back in 1931...

 

Why we even have laser driven sails. How is that possible if only matter can generate force?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion

 

I call that sufficient proof your wrong. Better study Roger

 

Why we even have laser driven sails. How is that possible if only matter can generate force?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The driven prof, is the fact that <<the source of the laser is the one making it possible for compressing the wave and this is call matter...and by the way the force generated from the opposed source (laser) not the beam ; is inversely proportional at the impact of the beam at target.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[Mordred]

Your definition of matter is incorrect. You really need to get around these basic physics definitions.

The Pauli exclusion principle shows that bosons can stack on the same spacetime coordinate. However fermions in the same quantum number state will not stack but will take up a spacetime point. You can literally stack an infinite number of photons onto the precise same spacetime coordinate. You cannot stack two fermions in the same state onto the same coordinate.

 

This is how matter is defined.

 

"Matter has many definitions, but the most common is that it is any substance which has mass and occupies space."

 

The occupy space applies in terms of the Pauli exclusion principle.

 

There are classes of models in cosmology of toy universes that literally has no matter yet still has gravity. The Einstien field equations itself tells us that all forms of energy (ability to perform work) contribute to spacetime curvature via the energy/momentum stress tensor.

 

This has been well tested.

 

Declaring matter is needed when you obviously don't understand how matter is defined in physics won't get you far.

 

(Its been mentioned numerous times to you only fermions count as matter)

 

Arbitrarily choosing to ignore this will not make you right. Neither will ignoring the basic definition of energy or mass.

 

For example the Cosmological constant is performing work. (it is causing accelerated expansion) yet there is no particle for the cosmological constant.( nor can there be one). The ideal gas laws show that when you have a field of particles the number density of those particles will decrease as the volume increases.

 

However the Cosmological constant stays constant. (so it cannot be due to some unknown particle) Yet there is a pressure influence due to the cosmological constant that drives (contributes to) expansion.

 

Pressure is force per unit volume. So how can the cosmological constant exert force without even being a type of particle field let alone a matter field.?

 

Keep in mind energy is the "ability to perform work." you cannot perform work unless you have the required energy. So you cannot generate force which is a measure of work..

Matter has many definitions, but the most common is that it is any substance which has mass and occupies space. Defined by the Pauli exclusion principle

Ignoring the bold part will never make you right. It just means your making garbage assertions without studying rudimentary and basic physics.

 

Lets put this bluntly.

1) Every particle in the Standard model of Particle physics has an Energy value. Regardless if that particle has a rest mass.

2) Every particle therefore has the ability to perform work or exert an effective force. (cause action)

3) matter is a classification that only, only, only ...includes fermions

Edited May 13, 2017 by Mordred

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Your definition of matter is incorrect. You really need to get around these basic physics definitions.

The Pauli exclusion principle shows that bosons can stack on the same spacetime coordinate. However fermions in the same quantum number state will not stack but will take up a spacetime point. You can literally stack an infinite number of photons onto the precise same spacetime coordinate. You cannot stack two fermions in the same state onto the same coordinate.

 

This is how matter is defined.

 

"Matter has many definitions, but the most common is that it is any substance which has mass and occupies space."

 

The occupy space applies in terms of the Pauli exclusion principle.

 

There are classes of models in cosmology of toy universes that literally has no matter yet still has gravity. The Einstien field equations itself tells us that all forms of energy (ability to perform work) contribute to spacetime curvature via the energy/momentum stress tensor.

 

This has been well tested.

 

Declaring matter is needed when you obviously don't understand how matter is defined in physics won't get you far.

 

(Its been mentioned numerous times to you only fermions count as matter)

 

Arbitrarily choosing to ignore this will not make you right. Neither will ignoring the basic definition of energy or mass.

 

For example the Cosmological constant is performing work. (it is causing accelerated expansion) yet there is no particle for the cosmological constant.( nor can there be one). The ideal gas laws show that when you have a field of particles the number density of those particles will decrease as the volume increases.

 

However the Cosmological constant stays constant. (so it cannot be due to some unknown particle) Yet there is a pressure influence due to the cosmological constant that drives (contributes to) expansion.

 

Pressure is force per unit volume. So how can the cosmological constant exert force without even being a type of particle field let alone a matter field.?

 

Keep in mind energy is the "ability to perform work." you cannot perform work unless you have the required energy. So you cannot generate force which is a measure of work..

Matter has many definitions, but the most common is that it is any substance which has mass and occupies space. Defined by the Pauli exclusion principle

Ignoring the bold part will never make you right. It just means your making garbage assertions without studying rudimentary and basic physics.

 

Lets put this bluntly.

1) Every particle in the Standard model of Particle physics has an Energy value. Regardless if that particle has a rest mass.

2) Every particle therefore has the ability to perform work or exert an effective force. (cause action)

3) matter is a classification that only, only, only ...includes fermions

 

 

 

 

Ok !~ then the Inertia of the laser meaning (stationary) will be what will make possible for the beam of photons to accumulate momentum in a form of compress positive wave..

Edited May 13, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[Mordred]

yes except inertia means at rest or at a constant velocity.

 

The more energy a wave has, including its monentum. (think of rest mass as the binding energy). inertia mass being the momentum term. The light beam has no binding energy as photons have no charge. It is charge neutral. The binding energy of charge is what establishes the rest mass of a particle. (for the strong force its color charge, weak force flavor charge.) this binding charge sets the coupling constant value for each force.

 

Thus resulting in rest mass.(the total binding energy due to the sum of a particles (charges) Inertia mass is gained when you increase in velocity.

 

Both forms of mass can perform work, they both have an energy value and as such can equally perform action.

 

Edit charge means simply to attract or repel.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Mordred

[swansont]

Ok !~ then the Inertia of the laser meaning (stationary) will be what will make possible for the beam of photons to accumulate momentum in a form of compress positive wave..

Which is a meaningless description until you define it, mathematically. Otherwise it sounds like a bite of word salad.

[Thorham]

Yes, gravity is a force in Newtonian gravity.

 

In GR, it is slightly more subtle: gravity is a result of the curvature of space-time.

 

I wonder if it's knowable what gravity is physically.

[Strange]

 

I wonder if it's knowable what gravity is physically.

 

 

No. It is impossible to know what things "really" are.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Which is a meaningless description until you define it, mathematically. Otherwise it sounds like a bite of word salad.

 

 

 

Well !~ if the momentum is = to X force, and ; is a force moving an object, then it must have an opposite force that is = X also and that opposite force is the ''laser'' it self,,therefore the laser must be fixed stationary to give rise to the compressed wave .

Edited May 14, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[Thorham]

No. It is impossible to know what things "really" are.

With a hundred percent certainty on the lowest 'mechanical' levels it's indeed impossible, but what about higher levels? For example, it seems that we know that chemical reactions are a kind of interaction between atoms. Perhaps it's possible (in the future maybe) to say something similar about gravity with a good amount of certainty.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Thorham

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

 

I wonder if it's knowable what gravity is physically.

 

Gravitons Scientific Forum

I definitely have to believe they are a component of the Gravitational force(s) an s for more than one graviton.

For matter to be moved or displaced there must be inter action meaning matter does not let itself through by the same .

For every action there is a reaction.To read the weight of a body on the scale demonstrate to me, a force must includes matter in the equation. I Think the third law is valid in this case and self evident.

I think logic is a term that people are lacking in physics afraid to face evidence, when affected by it constantly throughout their life, G.f._

If a PARTICLE is too small to be seen but evidence of it’s action is a fact from the reaction of the other bigger particle, than logic should not be influenced by the size of its opponent._

Gravity is gravitation from gravitons in motion and when constrained by bigger particle in their path they will be felt as a whole on that surface:

Thanks for reading. Roger

Edited May 14, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[swansont]

Well !~ if the momentum is = to X force, and ; is a force moving an object, then it must have an opposite force that is = X also and that opposite force is the ''laser'' it self,,therefore the laser must be fixed stationary to give rise to the compressed wave .

Force is not momentum, and the notion that the force is transmitted through the photons like it was a rigid body violates Newton's third law. You still get a force even when the light is pulsed, so how does this force get transmitted, with these dark areas? Why wouldn't the laser recoil immediately, rather than having to wait until the light hits something?

 

You still haven't defined what you mean by compressed wave.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Force is not momentum, and the notion that the force is transmitted through the photons like it was a rigid body violates Newton's third law. You still get a force even when the light is pulsed, so how does this force get transmitted, with these dark areas? Why wouldn't the laser recoil immediately, rather than having to wait until the light hits something?

 

You still haven't defined what you mean by compressed wave.

 

Momentum is the quantity of motion, that is to say ~ the product of mass and of speed << that does generate a force .

Edited May 14, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[Strange]

With a hundred percent certainty on the lowest 'mechanical' levels it's indeed impossible, but what about higher levels? For example, it seems that we know that chemical reactions are a kind of interaction between atoms. Perhaps it's possible (in the future maybe) to say something similar about gravity with a good amount of certainty.

 

 

I think we can already say the same about gravity with the same level of certainty (at the same level of detail).

 

You could, perhaps, draw an analogy between the "balls connected by sticks" model of chemistry being like Newtonian gravity, and the full quantum description of electron orbitals interacting being equivalent to GR.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Strange

[swansont]

 

Momentum is the quantity of motion, that is to say ~ the product of mass and of speed << that does generate a force .

 

 

You did not defend the most egregious of your claims, just the semantic one.

[Thorham]

I think we can already say the same about gravity with the same level of certainty (at the same level of detail).

 

Can we really? It doesn't seem so safe to say that space-time is this physical stuff that can be curved to cause gravity. Physically you'd think it's a force, or some kind of interaction between matter and gravity particles.

Edited May 14, 2017 by Thorham

[Strange]

 

Can we really? It doesn't seem so safe to say that space-time is this physical stuff that can be curved to cause gravity.

 

 

Why not? The model is just as complete as quantum theoretical models of molecular bonding.

 

We know space and time exist (we use them everyday when we navigate and meet appointments). It could be argued that we are not quite as certain about the existence of electrons (which we can only "see" indirectly).

[Thorham]

Why not? The model is just as complete as quantum theoretical models of molecular bonding.

Because it could be a coincidence that the model is close to what's physically happening.

 

We know space and time exist.

Yes, but physically space might just be nothing, while time could simply be the speed at which things happen and not some physical thing. Or, they could both be something completely different.

 

In the case of chemical reactions it's easier, because it seems that physically there's definitely interactions going on between the involved atoms.

 

It could be argued that we are not quite as certain about the existence of electrons (which we can only "see" indirectly).

 

At least the orbital shapes can be observed, so you know there's something there. It's not so clear for space time.

[Strange]

Because it could be a coincidence that the model is close to what's physically happening.

 

 

That is true in both cases.

 

 

 

Yes, but physically space might just be nothing, while time could simply be the speed at which things happen and not some physical thing.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "physical". Space is the distance between things and time is the, err... "time" between things.

 

 

 

In the case of chemical reactions it's easier, because it seems that physically there's definitely interactions going on between the involved atoms.

 

But when we measure things, there is obviously a distance or interval involved.

 

 

At least the orbital shapes can be observed, so you know there's something there. It's not so clear for space time.

 

Space and time seem more obvious than electron orbitals to me. I can see distances and time passing. I can measure them.

 

It is only possible to see orbitals with very specialised equipment.

[studiot]

 

Momentum is the quantity of motion, that is to say ~ the product of mass and of speed << that does generate a force .

 

Or sometimes not, as dictated by Newton's First Law.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

 

Or sometimes not, as dictated by Newton's First Law.

example / If the momentum is = to X force, and ; is a force moving an object, then it must have an opposite force that is = X also and that opposite force happens to be the ''laser'' it self,,therefore the laser must be fixed stationary to give rise to the compressed wave to accumulate momentum in time .

Edited May 14, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[studiot]

example / If the momentum is = to X force, and ; is a force moving an object, then it must have an opposite force that is = X also and that opposite force happens to be the ''laser'' it self,,therefore the laser must be fixed stationary to give rise to the compressed wave to accumulate momentum in time .

 

Force = time rate of change of momentum.

 

But Newton's first Law also considers the situation where there is motion, but no force.

 

Where there is motion, but no force, there is still momentum.

There is just no change of momentum.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

 

Force = time rate of change of momentum.

 

But Newton's first Law also considers the situation where there is motion, but no force.

 

Where there is motion, but no force, there is still momentum.

There is just no change of momentum.

Where there is motion, but no force, there is still momentum.

There is just no change of momentum.

This is true !~ but it is not the case with my post I'm talking about an object obstructing a laser light being displaced

[studiot]

 

Where there is motion, but no force, there is still momentum.

There is just no change of momentum.

This is true !~ but it is not the case with my post I'm talking about an object obstructing a laser light being displaced

 

 

 

Maybe it is your English, but you made a statement about Newtonian mechanics that was only partly true.

 

Perhaps you should try to improve your English, then your Newtonian Mechanics before doing any more relativity?

 

I thjought you might like to try the Newtonian puzzle I posted in the puzzles section (about Alice)

The result is quite suprising.

Edited May 14, 2017 by studiot

[humility]

It was my understanding that space/time both existing and existing as a single entity we simply percieve as two different things, is a fundemental premise of everything we know on the subject. And that without this premise assumed true then everything else just doesnt work.

 

Is this understanding of mine false?