15 Jan 06
Originally posted by Suziannehehe, thats right. Like here is the final exam for your physics
Quite right. An expanding universe implies that the change in redshift is even more important than the redshift itself.
As for Mr. Bowmann, well, you know, "flat-earthers" still exist too, and you also have to restrict your words to single syllables with them, too.
test:
Describe the magnetic processes in our galaxy in 25 words or less.
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell in the larger context, you can get free energy from the expansion
No it doesn't. Where do you get this idea?
of the universe:
Theoretically anyway, if you had a rope 20 million light years long and
the center was run around a spindle, say a few light years of rope
on this solar system sized spindle and on each end of the rope you
have a planet attached, the universe would drive the two planets
apart, pulling the rope and the spindle which could be hooked to
a generator which would then generate electricity with no input
of energy, its coming from the expansion itself. That could be
construed as breaking the law of conservation of energy.
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by BowmannDefine this concept of gravity 'expending energy'.
What do you suppose is the power source for gravity? Or is it "energy for free"?
No theory I know states that the force of gravity weakens as it expends energy.
Gravity enables energy, gives the attribute of potential energy
such as carrying a rock to a higher altitude, it gains potential
energy, which remains only potential till its let go, then the rock
gains kinetic energy as a direct result of falling down the gravity
gradient.
However, it takes energy to get the potential energy in the first place
so if it takes 10 joules of energy to get to a higher altitude, you will
release exactly 10 joules of energy converted to kinetic energy when
the rock is let go so you haven't gotten something for nothing there.
As far as I know, the force of gravity as a space time curve is
depedent on the mass of the object immersed in space.
and the steepness of the resulting curve as a direct result of the
density of the mass.
If you take a mass with X number of molecules in STP environment,
you get X curvature of space and time. An object in space going by
said mass will deflect at X amount of degrees from its path that would
have happened had the mass not been there.
The object goes by at Y Km 'above' the mass X gets deflected by
S amount of degrees. Now take the case of the same amount of mass
but instead of STP, we compress the mass hundreds of times and
now its like the density of a neutron star. Now another object goes
by at Y Km 'above' the mass X but now the distance from the
respective surfaces is much greater than in the first case but
the mass is the same. The density is a lot higher but at the same
distance of flyby, the gravitational deflection would be exactly the
same as the original mass but the steepness of the curve goes
up as you approach the center of the higher density object.
So orbital mechanics would be uneffected during flybys if the central
mass was dense or not.
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by BowmannThe only way for the 'force' of gravity to weaken is if the mass
What do you suppose is the power source for gravity? Or is it "energy for free"?
No theory I know states that the force of gravity weakens as it expends energy.
associated with that 'force' is removed or lessened.
Gravity, according to Big AL, is not a force but simply a curvature
in spacetime resulting from the presence of a local mass.
So its a reaction to mass and not an energy source to gain or
lose. The simple presence or absence of mass is what makes
gravity stronger or weaker, not an energy balance.
19 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIf gravity indeed holds down all objects on our planet, keeps the moon from flying away and even helps hold our planet together, then a tremendous amount of seemingly unlimited energy is at work. Yet there is no identifiable source of this energy.
Define this concept of gravity 'expending energy'.
Of course, no such energy is required when we view gravity as Einstein saw it rather than Newton. But then there are the so-called Electromagnetic, Strong and Weak "forces" to deal with.
19 Jan 06
Originally posted by BowmannUnlike gravity which can only 'store' energy as potential energy as in
If gravity indeed holds down all objects on our planet, keeps the moon from flying away and even helps hold our planet together, then a tremendous amount of seemingly unlimited energy is at work. Yet there is no identifiable source of this energy.
Of course, no such energy is required when we view gravity as Einstein saw it rather than Newton. But then there are the so-called Electromagnetic, Strong and Weak "forces" to deal with.
putting a mass up higher, you can store energy directly in magnetic
and electric fields. If you couldn't, resonators for RF would not work.
For instance, if you have a ring superconductor and induce a current in
the ring, since its a superconductor, its also a battery. If something
happens to cause the ring to go to normal conduction there can
be an explosion because of the stored magnetic energy inherent in
the current flowing in the ring. Superconducting magnets have to have
an extra set of ordinary copper conductors in parallel so the energy
can be dissipated without exploding. They are sometimes used as
a battery by power companies to cover peak power consumption.
21 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneSince we have samples of moon rock, we know it isn't. Not only that, we wouldn't have had any reason to suppose it were made of cheese, given there was no evidence to suggest this in the first place.
You can also say the moon is made of green cheese.
Now run out and play, that's a good girl.
22 Jan 06
Originally posted by LanndonKaneThat was a rhetorical question. It was just an illustration of a point
this may be true, but gravitational force has nothing to do with magnetism, and the question was to describe the galaxys magnetism
made by Bowmann where he requires all anwers to be in 25 words
or less. The original post was about a 'new' theory of gravitation
by Heim which postualtes two extra dimensions and produces
real results in that it predicts the mass of all the stadard model
particles with extreme accuracy, something the standard model
does not do, at best its 'only' within one percent, sometimes as much
as 10 % off. Heims model predicts masses knowing only its
spin and angular momentum. It has regular phyicists thinking a lot
about it. It also predicts the possiblity of a space drive.