Jump to content

geordief

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    1615
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

geordief last won the day on August 31 2018

geordief had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

85 Excellent

About geordief

  • Rank
    Primate

Recent Profile Visitors

9585 profile views
  1. Below the radar ,but with reassurances that steps are being taken to protact the democratic process. To date this reassurance seems to be missing .Can you reassure me?
  2. I would ask what is this administration doing to prevent that ? Some proactive campaign against any such interference should be obvious to all at this stage (it isn't ,just the opposite from where I am sitting)
  3. So are there no theories at all as to how matter creates curvature? Might gravitons have any role to play at all? If I am following the em analogy at all, might we be looking for something like a "gravitational charge"? A gravitational counterpart to the electron?
  4. How might the graviton allow matter to curve spacetime? Are there rival theories?
  5. I think I should have said "And there is no understanding yet of the actual mechanism of the gravitational field actually telling matter how to move matter telling how spacetime curves" That's the case isn't it?
  6. So a gravitational wave passes through (and combines with?)the pre existing gravitational field.....is it correct to say that a graviton is theorized to represent an "excitation" in the gravitational field? And there is no understanding yet of the actual mechanism of the gravitational field actually telling matter how to move (as per "matter tells space how to bend, while space tells matter how to move") ? Might there be a signal involved?
  7. Is it possible to tweak Newtonian gravity by addressing the problem of it's speed of propagation? I don't think Newton's msbu1*msub2/r^2 law took into account the idea that if the Sun's mass was to somehow disappear in an instant it would take 8 minutes for us to notice the effect. What if Newton's Law of Gravity had this delay built into it? Would its predictions be any better? I don't think I am confusing the speed of a gravitational wave with the speed of the creation of a gravitational field....or am I? (Hope I am allowed to necro my own thread )
  8. Yes,I am completely OK with all that.I have also come across the term affine and ,whilst it is apparently a very simple mathematical concept (far simpler than the name suggests) I have not yet come across any circumstances where it is important (well not circumstances that I understood ,perhaps it was in connection with the dual space/tensors that I was trying to understand a few months ago iirc) . I have also looked at your previous post but I still need to go over it once or twice again (I have to do this when I learn something new) Actually I find it a little hard to understand "The equations now depend upon the origin of the coordinate system loosing homogenity along the x axis." Perhaps ,you might say the same thing with a different form of words?
  9. I can think of the frame of msub1 ,the frame of msub2 and the frame of any x. Is that where I should be thinking about?
  10. Should I set the observer at the CoG point?(where the sum of F's =0) So there x=0 and the acceleration times the mass of the object with mass m1 and the acceleration times the mass of the object with mass m2 are equal and opposite. Which leads to the accelerations of the two objects being inversely proportional to their respective masses. a sub1/a sub2 =m subscr2/m subscr1 Is that it?
  11. What might be the state of motion within a black hole? Are all objects there identical? Is there no separation between any objects? Just one object? Any gravitons? Is it essential to have a decent understanding of what happens there before we can hope to start to talk about anything fundamental in the world we can observe? All I have heard is that only (pure) spacetime exists there (which makes little sense to me) Maybe some of his genius rubbed off? They might run a tourist line in Aladdin like souvenir trinkets. I had in mind the relationship we are trying to model.It reminds me of the philosophical idea where it was once believed that "redness" was an actual thing that red things so to speak dipped their nibs in(forget what school of philosophy that was,maybe Aristotle?) Anyway ,the relationship may not be a physical thing but we treat it as if it was .Like a mirage in the desert ,the better we understand it the further away it gets....
  12. That will be too hard for me ,but are you talking Newtonian mechanics? You place the two bodies at negative x and positive x respectively? (observer at zero) So the "negative"body moves according to d(¦x1¦ +¦x2¦ )/dt =m1/[m1+m2] all multiplied by m1*m2 over ¦x1¦ +¦x2¦ squared and the "positive" body is the same but replacing the first m1 on the RHS by m2 Anything like that???
  13. Just "quickly" 1) I was only considering a line drawn between the two observers and the experiment (like 2 rockets leaving the Earth in directly opposite directions at the same speed and with the Earth as the site of the experiment) So one dimensional (plus time ) in my head 2) a v means just "a vee" ,ie one quantity is "v" and the other is "-v" I didn't intend "a" to stand for anything mathematical (also my English was sloppy although it would have been understood as part of a spoken delivery) 3)Won't it the work in flat space? (the first link I was looking at doesn't use mass does it? Wrt your clarification re the First Postulate I am just claiming that both observers will measure the same physical experiment identically (maybe I was wrong** to even bring up the First Postulate as my main interest is to ask if this is a scenario with potential for showing something along the lines of what is proved (apparently) in the first link I posted **and ,looking back seemingly air headed ps :I have seen the IG series once or twice but not really enough form an opinion
  14. EDIT:On reflection I can see that v will be the separation speed of the 2 observers wrt to the FOR of the physical experiment and not the speed that either observer will observe the other as moving at. Still that doesn't change my claim that both observers measure the physical experiment identically since they are moving at the same speed wrt it.(just not v/2 ) Either that or ,if I say the 2 observers are moving at v wrt each other ,then they won't move at v/2 wrt the physical experiment But the purpose of the scenario is to attempt to prove the velocity addition formula in the first place and so that may be of no consequence.
  15. Are you saying that the two measurements of the physical experiment in the third FOR will be different ? (they are moving at the same speed wrt the FOR of experiment ) I am not using Bufofrog's scenario ,but the one in my OP. Is my scenario of 3 FOR'a a valid one?
×
×
  • 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.