Bengt E Nyman Posted October 19, 2015 Author Share Posted October 19, 2015 If you're on board of space ship, and hit object with well known force, it'll accelerate object. Object that has large mass, will be accelerated to smaller velocity. Object that has small mass, will be accelerated to bigger velocity. Search google how is measured mass of atoms in mass spectrometry.. Say you have particles all with charge -1e, and masses m1=0.511 MeV/c^2 (electron), m2=105.66 MeV/c^2 (muon-), m3=139 MeV/c^2 (pion-). If you accelerate them using electrodes with well known potential, smaller rest-mass particle will be accelerated to higher velocity. Gravity can be ignored. Elementary, but not an answer to how we establish mass of larger objects on an everyday basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Elementary, but not an answer to how we establish mass of larger objects on an everyday basis. You compare them against the mass of a known object. That may be by subjecting them to the same external acceleration, engineered to balance out when the masses are equal. (e.g. a double-pan balance) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengt E Nyman Posted October 19, 2015 Author Share Posted October 19, 2015 Electrons don't have orbits, they have orbitals. All of this is incorporated in quantum mechanics. All of this here is assertion. You have done nothing to actually demonstrate that this is true; no experiment, no model, nor even a plausible argument that you could get a 1/r^2 relationship from electrostatic forces of composite systems, much less that it would be identical per unit mass. Just lots of hand-waving. Now you are picking on words. I guess we are making some progress. Experiments; No. Models; Many. Calculations; Many. Simulations; Many. Coulombs law with 1/r^2 is always true when you go deep enough into subject in question. Hand-waving; If you are tired of this discussion I can understand it. However, you have shown no proof or argument sufficient to dismiss this on a factual basis. What are your alternatives to gravity and strong force? Particles called Gravitons and Gluons ? Great ! I won't even mention the circular argument involving spacetime. You compare them against the mass of a known object. That may be by subjecting them to the same external acceleration, engineered to balance out when the masses are equal. (e.g. a double-pan balance) If you are referring to the the Einstein idea that gravity is identical to acceleration I disagree. No, you end up establishing their weight due to gravity, even if you are comparing it to the weight of another object with a "known mass", from which you conclude that you know the new mass, even though it is still based on g. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Now you are picking on words. I guess we are making some progress. Experiments; No. Models; Many. Calculations; Many. Simulations; Many. Coulombs law with 1/r^2 is always true when you go deep enough into subject in question. Hand-waving; If you are tired of this discussion I can understand it. However, you have shown no proof or argument sufficient to dismiss this on a factual basis. Let's see the calculations and models. Show that the far field drops off as 1/r^2. Do you really need me to back up that dipoles drop off a 1/r^3? That's standard textbook material. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dipole.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_dipole_moment#Potential_and_field_of_an_electric_dipole What are your alternatives to gravity and strong force? Particles called Gravitons and Gluons ? Great ! I won't even mention the circular argument involving spacetime. So? Why are gravitons and gluons a problem? Or curved spacetime of GR? How do gluons involve spacetime, anyway? If you are referring to the the Einstein idea that gravity is identical to acceleration I disagree. No, you end up establishing their weight due to gravity, even if you are comparing it to the weight of another object with a "known mass", from which you conclude that you know the new mass, even though it is still based on g. g drops out of the measurement, unless it has a different value at the two points. It requires g, but does not depend on a specific value of g. But you have other options. You could use a rotating system with a spring and measure the deflection, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengt E Nyman Posted October 19, 2015 Author Share Posted October 19, 2015 (edited) Let's see the calculations and models. Show that the far field drops off as 1/r^2. Do you really need me to back up that dipoles drop off a 1/r^3? That's standard textbook material. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dipole.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_dipole_moment#Potential_and_field_of_an_electric_dipole So? Why are gravitons and gluons a problem? Or curved spacetime of GR? How do gluons involve spacetime, anyway? g drops out of the measurement, unless it has a different value at the two points. It requires g, but does not depend on a specific value of g. But you have other options. You could use a rotating system with a spring and measure the deflection, for example. Tell me, what is a graviton? How does it work? Does it have a charge? How can it generate gravitation according to 1/r^2? Also, teach me about the gluon. How does it work to produce strong force with a short range and and a reversible force past its range? Explain to me how a pit in spacetime of GR can attract other objects resting in their own spacetime GR pits. Especially when there is no other gravity to pull anything down into a spacetime GR pit in the first place. Spacetime GR gravity is based on a circular argument; requiring gravity to explain gravity. By the way, which gravity theory do you prefer? Gravitons or spacetime GR? You are misunderstanding my comment about g. When you weight things, against a spring or against a known mass, you use g, therefore you are computing gravitational pull = weight. Yes, g drops out but you are still comparing weighs or gravitational pulls. However, I agree with your point about the centrifugal scale, no g required. Edited October 19, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Tell me, what is a graviton? How does it work? Does it have a charge? How can it have a reach of 1/r^2? Hypothetical spin-2 particle with no mass and no charge. It has a 1/r^2 reach by being massless, much like how the Electrostatic force has that behavior because of a massless virtual photon. Also, teach me about the gluon. How does it work to produce strong force with a short range and and a reversible force past its range? Not my field, but you could take a few physics classes, or search the internet for credible web sites. and find out. Or perhaps someone else will come along and give you a short primer. Explain to me how a pit in spacetime of GR can attract other objects resting in their own spacetime GR pits. Especially when there is no other gravity to pull anything down into a spacetime GR pit in the first place. Spacetime GR gravity is based on a circular argument; requiring gravity to explain gravity. The "pulled down into a pit" and "circular argument" claims demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the physics (and of how to read graphs). You are substituting an analogy for actual physics. Related: https://xkcd.com/895/ By the way, which gravity theory do you prefer? Gravitons or spacetime GR? It's a false dichotomy. One is classical the other is quantum. They aren't actually in competition with each other. You're free to ask these questions in the relevant sections of the forums. But not in the context of claiming they're wrong, since if you have limited knowledge of them, how can you make that assessment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengt E Nyman Posted October 19, 2015 Author Share Posted October 19, 2015 Thank you for your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 ! Moderator Note Arguments from Incredulity and Ridicule are a poor substitute for learning what mainstream science holds to be our best current explanations. Perhaps assuming all those people are wrong isn't as effective as it sounds. If you're having trouble with gravity, you need to go back to the basics and keep moving forward. This is not the time to plant your staff on the bridge and scream, "None shall pass!" You have some fundamental misunderstandings that need education, not discussion. No offense, but discussions like this should come after you know your subject better. Thread closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts