Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
algore

How fast is gravity?

Recommended Posts

I thought coins at 1`st, but the Zinc part made me rethink, as most are Nickel alloy.

unless it`s the new Copper coinage that is only plated on Zinc and Nickel(cheapskates!).

 

(that`s why some "Copper coins" will stick to a Magnet!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thankyou Aeschylus for your first paragraph reply."why didnt someone just say that in the first place".

your not here to discuss breakthroughs or new conceptions in science just to accept the orthadox opinion at the time.from now on i will just ask questions for information' date='however i dont sit comfortably with presumptions,probability,virtual as solid science it seems to be "our best guess is its this"and everyone just goes along with it kind of like sheep.Well thank goodness for scientists who question and say this is silly theirs got to be a better explanation,otherwise you lot would indeed believe the earth was flat." blackholes"...[/quote']

 

NO I did not say that, science is certainly open to new ideas, however it is firmly shut to metaphysical crackpottery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought coins at 1`st' date=' but the Zinc part made me rethink, as most are Nickel alloy.

unless it`s the new Copper coinage that is only plated on Zinc and Nickel(cheapskates!).

 

(that`s why some "Copper coins" will stick to a Magnet!)[/quote']

 

US pennies are 97.5% zinc with a copper cladding. I was indeed referring to the fact that some pennies on a table aren't falling, and are held up by electrostatic repulsion. Conceptually no different than a magnet being held up by a frictional force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

got ya :))

 

here`s something that HAS bugged me though, and I`m sure you`re the one to ask as Phsics isn`t my area.

 

the coins on the table have Potential energy, it required energy to lift them there, but if one were to fall off that potential would become kinetic and then there would be a transfer, in way of heat on impact with the floor and sound "Chink" as it hit the floor.

 

now ignoring the "speed" of gravity, if the earth were to vanish, what would happen to that potential energy?

 

 

I have my answer and did provide that to my mate, but I`m sure it wasn`t detailed enough for his likeing :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the coin would be caught by the suns gravity and orbit it for ever....until an alien happened on your coin and said "oh look £2 coin ive got enough for a happy meal now"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
got ya :))

 

here`s something that HAS bugged me though' date=' and I`m sure you`re the one to ask as Phsics isn`t my area.

 

the coins on the table have Potential energy, it required energy to lift them there, but if one were to fall off that potential would become kinetic and then there would be a transfer, in way of heat on impact with the floor and sound "Chink" as it hit the floor.

 

now ignoring the "speed" of gravity, if the earth were to vanish, what would happen to that potential energy?

 

 

I have my answer and did provide that to my mate, but I`m sure it wasn`t detailed enough for his likeing :([/quote']

 

It would vanish with the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

omg yes your right....the earth could like totally vanish...it could be absorbed by dark matter and dissapear but its ok like a photon it could reappear right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a "what-if" question.

 

Nobody was actually proposing that it could happen.

 

Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I know, I think its a valid question as well, just a question that I have no idea how to answer. I was just responding to philbo1965uk's comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

got ya :))

 

here`s something that HAS bugged me though' date=' and I`m sure you`re the one to ask as Phsics isn`t my area.

 

the coins on the table have Potential energy, it required energy to lift them there, but if one were to fall off that potential would become kinetic and then there would be a transfer, in way of heat on impact with the floor and sound "Chink" as it hit the floor.

 

now ignoring the "speed" of gravity, if the earth were to vanish, what would happen to that potential energy?

 

 

I have my answer and did provide that to my mate, but I`m sure it wasn`t detailed enough for his likeing :([/quote']

It would vanish with the earth.

 

[math]U=mgh[/math]

 

if the earth were to vanish, g and h would both be zero, so the potential energy would in turn become zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[math]U=mgh[/math]

 

if the earth were to vanish' date=' g and h would both be zero, so the potential energy would in turn become zero.[/quote']

 

Actually, if you are talking about potential energy of a body within a gravity field such as the Earth's, then the proper expression is:

 

U= -GMm/r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that`s similar to how I figured it, the energy to make the Earth "Vanish" would have to be strong enough to compensate for the potential energy as well or at least "Undo" it.

and yes it was hypothetical and not at all possible :)

 

Thanks for the conformation(s) and the Formula, I`ll show him that when I get chance :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started reading this thread, and I read I don't know maybe the first 30 posts.

 

There is a way to prove that the speed of gravity is c, depending on your frame of reference, starting with electrodynamic field theory, and turning it into gravitational field theory by relating electric charge to inertial mass. So that a graviton is nothing more than a different name for a photon.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I started reading this thread' date=' and I read I don't know maybe the first 30 posts.

 

There is a way to prove that the speed of gravity is c, depending on your frame of reference, starting with electrodynamic field theory, and turning it into gravitational field theory by relating electric charge to inertial mass. So that a graviton is nothing more than a different name for a photon.

 

Regards[/quote']

 

You still need data to confirm that the theory is correct. Gravitons have never been detected, and are also not part of GR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You still need data to confirm that the theory is correct. Gravitons have never been detected, and are also not part of GR.

 

If photons have been detected, and gravitons are photons, then gravitons have already been detected.

 

The photoelectric effect establishes that light behaves like a particle. Isn't that what Einstein won his nobel prize for?

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you saying gravitons are photons doesn't make it true. btw, gravtons have a different spin than photons.

 

Regards

 

edit:

Actually' date=' if you are talking about potential energy of a body within a gravity field such as the Earth's, then the proper expression is:

 

[b']U= -GMm/r[/b]

it is the same thing as mgh. f=ma=mg r=h [math]f=\frac{-GMm}{r^2}[/math]

[math]mg=\frac{-GMm}{r^2)[/math] now multiply both sides by r [math]mgh=\frac{-GMm}{r}[/math]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If photons have been detected' date=' and gravitons are photons, then gravitons have already been detected.

 

The photoelectric effect establishes that light behaves like a particle. Isn't that what Einstein won his nobel prize for?

 

Regards[/quote']

 

It's a huge leap from proposing to develop a model that is analogous to photons to saying that gravitons are photons. They aren't the same thing.

 

Yes, Albert won "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
edit:

it is the same thing as mgh. f=ma=mg r=h [math]f=\frac{-GMm}{r^2}[/math]

[math]mg=\frac{-GMm}{r^2)[/math] now multiply both sides by r [math]mgh=\frac{-GMm}{r}[/math]

 

mgh is an approximation valid when g can be considered constant. IOW for small changes in r' date=' near the surface of the earth, if you are using 9.8 m/s[sup']2[/sup]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a huge leap from proposing to develop a model that is analogous to photons to saying that gravitons are photons. They aren't the same thing.

 

Yes' date=' Albert won "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"[/quote']

 

What I am proposing, is that they are the same thing. What is so terrible with thinking this? By all means show me.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I am proposing' date=' is that they are the same thing. What is so terrible with thinking this? By all means show me.

 

Regards[/quote']

 

I propose that light is made up of elephants.

 

Why would they be the same thing? Photons are made up of light. Gravitons are supposedly made up of gravitational waves. There is currently no basis on which you can say they are the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'']There is currently no basis on which you can say they (gravitons and photons) are the same thing.

 

Well yes there is, they have the same special fundamental speed, with respect to the source.

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well yes there is' date=' they have the same special fundamental speed, with respect to the source.

 

Regards[/quote']

 

Which means that they have one property in common (zero rest mass). One shared property is no evidence of being the same thing.

 

The proton and positron share the same property of charge, that doesn't make them the same thing. The electron and muon share three common properties, even that does not make them the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which means that they have one property in common (zero rest mass). One shared property is no evidence of being the same thing.

 

The proton and positron share the same property of charge' date=' that doesn't make them the same thing. The electron and muon share three common properties, even that does not make them the same thing.[/quote']

 

Agreed, but something is still telling me that grand unification lies in some kind of simplification. Just wondering if its here. I would think that particles should be classified according to their mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.