Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ghideon last won the day on July 7 2019

Ghideon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

163 Excellent

1 Follower

About Ghideon

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
  • College Major/Degree
    M.Sc. Computer Science and Engineering
  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

3944 profile views
  1. No. Consider the following claim. Do you see that it seems to predict gravity to be negative? Instead of objects falling down on earth they should be ejected into space? Do you understand why? So either your claims are incorrect or very poorly worded. In either case that is not a good alternative to a few pages of physics and/or a good teacher.
  2. Again: Are you discussing the moment a photon is radiated from some point. Or the photon along the path from A to B after it was radiated? It is tricky to try to write good answers since new questions and claims does not match what basic physics (observations and math) says. Again: What is your background knowledge? What concepts of math and physics are you familiar with that could act as a common starting point? It is completely OK to say "none" and then we start from explaining and providing references from there.
  3. That seems to be completely incompatible with observations. Both for massive objects and photons. How many counterexamples can you find in a minute?
  4. Because on the way A-B, why would there ever be a force involved to keep anything moving at constant speed in a straight line? If you have a photon going from a distant galaxy eventually ending up at a telescope on earth, are you suggesting that all along the way there are some force active that guides the photon? There is no such force. The photon does not accelerate. I think all this is already stated in earlier responses. Do you have a reason to believe that anything (light or other) needs a "reason" to traverse from A-B at constant speed? The physics is understood an modelled. As for the possible more philosophical meaning of "reason" I have no answer unless you provide some experiment that could be analysed. Note: If you are asking about the process of emitting light at point A, that is not included in the above.
  5. Plenty of answers have been given. Again: There are so many interesting aspects of light that can be understood using various models depending on the level of details required or how deep one wants to go into a certain subject. But it requires some kind of common staring point. Personally I would not have been able to follow the university professor's explanations in the electromagnetic field theory course unless I had understod the math first. In this case, a starting point for invariant speed of light may be Maxwell. Problem is you are asking us to move back! Should we revisit Aether and Phlogiston as well?
  6. Because light does not behave as water. Light needs other models and theories to be explained. There is no need to look at explanations that have been ruled or replaced by better theories. I have not read through much of the history of attempts at explaining light and electromagnetism but It is possible that Descarte's and Newton's ideas about "corpuscles" in 17th century would have included the forces you are asking about. But science moved on and this early forerunner to the modern understanding of the photon was replaced. Corpuscles theory didn't explain refraction and interference for instance.
  7. That may depend. Are the calculations based on physically correct assumptions? There seems to be things missing from the image (maybe formatting) so it is not easy to tell what the math is describing.
  8. Trying to catch up. And Seems to ask two different questions. First, Why is the light not as bright? You are probably familiar with photons. The list can be modelled as photons radiated away from the light source at the speed of light.The photons, unless they are absorbed (and maybe re-emitted) will continue in a straight line. Each individual photon is unaffected by the distance traveled. So each photon will reach, for instance and observer's eyes, at some distance. An observer closer to the light source will be hit by more photons per second and interpret it as bright light. An observer further away will be hit by fewer photons. This is kind of similar to an explosion, further away there is less risk to be hit by shrapnel. But important, each individual photon is not spread out. It is just that fewer photons will reach the observer that is further away. Second: What propels a photon on its way to the observer? Nothing. Since photons travel at constant speed there is no change in momentum requiring anything to push the photons. Photons are massless (and also not a material body as @studiot said above) they are not modelled using Newton's physics. Explaining further would require some more rigor than my crude attempts at analogies above. So again:
  9. This is pretty far from the question I tried to help you with initially. Have to ask: What is your background knowledge? What concepts of math and physics are you familiar with that could act as a common starting point? Do you have a reference to something you read about light that raised the question? Your question needs more context to be answered. For instance, what is a "physical reality"?
  10. Ok! Then lets try again. Ok, that has nothing to do with density as far as I can see. The volume of water and its mass and hence its density does not change when water is distributed in various locations around earth. Stationary running water on earth (lakes, oceans puddles) is AFAIK held in place by gravity. Same goes for any liquid or fluid on any celestial body. But the question is kind of complex if you want to consider other effects: Earth rotation. Tidal effects. Heat and cold, creating currents, rain, and running water. Water in the form of ice and snow But this was posted in Theoretical physics, so I guess this is not about earth science?
  11. Density is a measurement that compares the amount of matter an object has to its volume. The formula for density given in the reference is a mathematics formula. Hence "divided" means "division, as defined in mathematics"*. Divided does not imply a force splitting some amount of matter into smaller pieces. Does that answer your question? https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_(mathematics)
  12. If light speed is a product of gravitational force, how do your model explain that light speed is invariant and that photons move at speed of light in absence of any gravity? You seem to suggest that in some context lightspeed is "a unique propulsion". What is that? Please also see my earlier questions above. An advice: Instead of trying to change physical models drastically why not try to learn more about the current physical models first? Asking questions in the mainstream sections may be a good start. Regarding speed of light, are you familiar with Maxwell's Equations*? *) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
  13. Personally I think the trampoline mat is a useful analogy when applied correctly so that the limitations are also explained. For instance it is not very complex to build one, letting novices do som hands on experimentation,. Hopefully that triggers curiosity and a drive to learn more. Really understanding GR is not possible using any analogy as far as I know, that requires studying the math of the models. I'm not convinced, some questions: If a novice have some trouble with the sagging mat analogy, it may be tricky to grasp the concept of voxels that vary in size as seen from different frame of reference? If a novice have already grasped special relativity they would maybe know that photons are not a valid frame of reference in relativity. "would appear to be smaller to the photons" seems to suggest the opposite? In the rubber mat analogy analogy objects close enough together will collide and stay together. I do not see from the voxel explanation how that works. Zero relative velocity relative to an object means that all voxels appear to have same size? Does that seem to imply zero gravity?
  14. Sorry, I fail to see an explanation of gravitation. What is the core purpose of the idea? What is the idea supposed to add to current models, theories and available analogies used to describe gravitation? What problems will I be able to solve? Since you have added a third force the above is obviously a false statement in your model for gravitation? I think a lot more scientific rigor is required.
  15. Hello. If there are two different forces, one holding me to the ground and another that curves space, how is that compatible with for instance the following experiment? The clock experiment experimentally show that, for a person firmly footed on the ground, feet and head age at slightly different rates. That does not require two different concepts, time dilation and the person standing firmly is predicted by GR / Einstein. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-clock-experiment-demonstrates-your-head-older-your-feet That said, there are of course different models* for gravity, useful for different applications within their range of applicability. When calculating basic mechanics at low speeds i use Newton (your number 1 I guess). Other replications require General relativity (your no 2). The math presented in this thread so far does not look like useful alternative. *) Einsteins formulations leads to Newtons' at low speed etc. One could choose to always use GR and get the correct result but in my daily applications that precision is not necessary.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.