Leaderboard

There is a difference between the 'fossil' field and 'changes' to the gravitational field. Changes propagate at the speed of information, c , while the fossil field is pre-existing, and no new information needs to be transferred. IOW changes have to obey causality, and have a limited range of observability that is time variant, because of the limited speed of light, while the pre-existing fossil field is simply the existing space-time curvature, and if our measurements could be made accurate enough, we could know the 'overall' curvature of the universe at large ( not just the observable part ). Our current best measurements indicate the Universe is essentially flat ( to a very high degree ), indicating that it is extremely large compared to the observable part we see, such that curvature is trivial ( analogous to the Earth appearing flat at short ranges ), or, it was extremely 'fine-tuned' at the beginning, such that even after 13+ billion years of expansion, it is still essentially flat.

As to the question of range of gravity... Lets consider again QFT, the 'marriage' of Quantum concepts with Special relativity. All forces are thought to be mediated by virtual bosons, such as photons, W and Z particles, gluons, and gravitons. Photons and gravitons are massless, and must travel at c. They can also be extremely low energy/long wavelength such that when we apply the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to them, as their energy approaches zero ( wavelength approaches infinity ), the HUP says they can exist for a time approaching infinite. IOW they can approach infinite distance when their strength approaches zero because there is no time constraint; and this is evident in the inverse square law which the obey. Now consider the weak force, mediated by massive virtual W and Z particles. The fact that they have to have a minimum amount of mass-energy to exist means that their time is limited by the HUP. Since their mass-energy cannot approach zero, they can't have an amount of time approaching infinite to travel to infinite ranges. The distance they can reach is limited by the HUP and SR ( as they are subluminal ). The same analysis can be done for the strong force when it is modelled as a Yukawa potential with massive Pion exchange. But I'm incapable ( without doing some research ) of doing this analysis with massless gluons mediating the color interaction and residual strong force between protons and neutrons.

Yes, the concept of 'free will' is a bit fuzzy. Therefore philosophers have given different concepts of it different names, to make them more precise. I think this is one of the tasks of philosophers to reconstruct the meaning of concepts, as they are used in daily life, science, or any subculture. Often, even if the words are the same ('free will') the concepts behind them are not. The concept of free will that you and I deny is libertarian free will: the idea that for a will to be free it cannot be caused by previous conditions. However, this is not the kind of free will we use in daily life: in daily life we use the idea that free will means, simply formulated, that we can do what we want. In judicial terms, for a defendant to be 'guilt-capable', he must have done his crime as a free acting person, which means that a few conditions should apply: the defendant can reflect his reasons for acting the defendant had the knowledge what the consequences of his crime would be, or at least he should have known the defendant was not coerced to his actions by somebody else the defendant had other options than the action he in fact did None of these conflicts with the fact that we are a determined system. Therefore a defendant cannot defend himself by saying he has no libertarian free will. Compatibilist free will, the kind of free will I am defending here, is enough, and that is what we normally really have. It is so to speak a condition to be treated as a full and responsible member of our society.

Sorry for the nitpicking, I just feel that for Fredreload it may be important to be as clear as possible;p I'm pretty sure you know what you are talking about, but I could already see how things are going to fuel more speculation.

What you claimed was "When an object moves , it tries to displace space in front of it " and "space will resist its motion" There is no mention of acceleration, only motion. But then, you have not presented a model, or any tests of your idea. Just hand-waving, and that's not enough. ! Moderator Note Do not bring up any other models of gravity. You've demonstrated that you are not willing/able to discuss science with enough rigor to make it worthwhile.

As there is mass-energy everywhere, there must be gravity everywhere. No mathematical equation works for infinity. Because infinity is not a number you can put in the equation. We can only describe what happens as you approach infinity. What do you mean by "infinite gravity"? If you mean gravity having infinite range, then yes, that is part of GR (because in the limit, it is the same as Newtonian gravity). There isn't really "proof" of anything in physics. What we do is create models and test them. The two models of gravity we have (Newtonian and GR) are both supported by evidence. That is all we can say.

Why does it have to be a liquid? A thick lead box would do the job.

Mercury fumes are toxic, you can submerge your arms into a bucket of mercury and you’ll be fine if you don’t do it for a prolonged time enough do your skin will start absorbing significant amounts of it...you should be much „finer” than a mobile phone submerged into a a bucket of mercury for a period of seconds which would surely short circuit it right away unless its completely water proof. Its the ingestion or inhaling of metals which is toxic, you have to get them inside your system somehow in fairly large quantities to be in trouble. If you have a good mask on you should be fine coming into short term contact with mercury, any piece of electronics exposed to a good electrical conductor like a metal while powered - I dont think so. Remember youre getting loads of stuff into your system every day through breathing if you live in the city and your body is capable of getting rid of most of it in a matter of days unless its a large concentration and it gets a chance to get into your bones where it stays. Anyhow, a powered, non hermetic mobile phone would be much more in trouble having a bath in mercury than a healthy human who does not ingest/breathe in the metal.

My mobile has a plastic case, which is not wetted by mercury. I think it sufficiently mercury liquid tight that the liquid would not enter the case. How much mercury vapour is there in liquid mercury? My answer is as serious as the question. If the OP wants to shield a phone why not use an ordinary solid metal box of thick enough gauge? There will be no mobile signal inside such a box. Why put it into contact with a liquid?

If you want a liquid to block off the mobile phone immerse it in mercury. Note this liquid is toxic to humans but not mobile phones.

I read a book a long time ago about light and electromagnetic energy, and it said that if you consider the velocity in the equations for particles like that and it is zero, then every property of the particle becomes zero due to the nature of the equations. I don't believe an electron could be found to be at rest or be involved with other properties if it had a zero related to it in an equation for its velocity. The more exact you consider the position of the electron the less exact the speed will be. You can never know the exact speed and position of an electron. The laws of quantum physics that actual physicist are working on besides you. If they can, then they could never be proven to exist via experiment according to Max Planck. Such things would purely be hypothetical and abstract in any case and never be able to be proven to exist. It is the definition of the Planck Units. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck "Planck made many contributions to theoretical physics, but his fame as a physicist rests primarily on his role as the originator of quantum theory,[5] which revolutionized human understanding of atomic and subatomic processes." I believe it goes beyond the idea that it could just escape, and by preventing it's escape through quantum jumping, it would then have to break out of the container. Yes, I believe that you have already explained to everyone here many times over that you are a pin head, already. I don't think we need further examples of this.

It is a miracle that he is even on US currency with that being the case. It use to be a well known fact that right was only reserved for POTUS. Also, Nicola Tesla was a total loser that was never really recognized or respected by the scientific community.

You would have to find the scientific papers they used to make the discovery. Brian Green wrote an entire book about it. My information is second had information from him.

You said it yourself, "it is simply where our laws of physics and GR break down". The point of where they break down is when they produce infinity in the equations. I believe that lack of evidence is definitely proof of nonexistence when it has been sufficiently sought after. If anti-matter bodies existed in the universe, then there would be huge anti-matter/matter explosions of energy, which simply don't exist. Even if they were separated into different galaxies by some unusual happenstance, galaxy on galaxy collisions have never been observed to be violent enough to show that. I believe it is still a problem in quantum physics where antimatter is shown to be equally stable as normal matter. Then real anti-matter which has been observed and researched on is not nearly as stable as normal matter. Then it decays quickly in the lab, and it is difficult to sustain. Quantum Mechanics may just be unfit to be able to properly describe the difference between normal matter and anti-matter.

is the matter wave phase speed(c^2/v) and the speed to calculate the relativity of simultaneity in SR(t-x/(c^2/v) ) same one? if not, stop here. if yes, then we could talk about the frequency of matter wave.