The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: jdoe on November 09, 2007, 05:51:13 PM
-
How do you explain the Foucault Pendulum? Its period of precession is 24 hours at the poles and increases as latitude decreases. There is no precession at the equator.
-
it's clearly human error. Did you run your error factors?
Do you know what they are?
-
Have you ever seen one in person? They are in museums and observatories all over the world. As a very large pendulum swings back and forth, its plane of oscillation appears to rotate. How long it takes to rotate depends on latitude. At the north pole, it takes 24 hours for the plane of oscillation to make complete revolution. This amount of time for a complete revolution increases as one approaches the equator, where the pendulum has no rotation at all. The Griffith Observatory in California has one. Its period is 42 hours, way beyond measurement errors.
-
ASU has one. I've watched it for about 3 minutes at a time, waiting for the damn pendulum to knock over a golf tee. Then I wanted to kill myself.
-
Have you ever seen one in person? They are in museums and observatories all over the world. As a very large pendulum swings back and forth, its plane of oscillation appears to rotate. How long it takes to rotate depends on latitude. At the north pole, it takes 24 hours for the plane of oscillation to make complete revolution. This amount of time for a complete revolution increases as one approaches the equator, where the pendulum has no rotation at all. The Griffith Observatory in California has one. Its period is 42 hours, way beyond measurement errors.
Obviously the wobble of the Earth's plane accounts for such matters.
-
It has been brought to my attention that some may find my post offensive. That is not my intent, I am simply a man of science and enjoy these theories and ideas. I do not discount the possibilities and I don't mean to sound as if I do, I am only stating my findings and would enjoy discussing what the other possibilities are - especially since I have learned some things on this forum I would never have thought to speculate about before.
I've edited this up a bit to do my best to be cordial. Thanks for reading and I hope someone would still like to share some more detailed theories or just ideas on this.
Obviously the wobble of the Earth's plane accounts for such matters.
Actually... I'm not so sure. I had never thought of this approach before, but no amount of wobble on a flat plane would account for the pendulums behavioral similarities at the poles (or even near them, as one cannot get beyond the Ice Wall in reference to the Flat Earth).
If you consider it... the errors would increase the further "south" you got past the equator if there were any actual "wobble" as you say to the flat planed earth (even if it were slightly domed - which would make the result even more dramatic)
Basically, on a flat model, with a pendulum set up on it, and you tried a nice even 'wobble' or some sort of 'lilted rotation' - the further from center you got, the wilder it would get.
OR - if the Earth was just ever so slightly domed and you had a smooth, horizontal rotation, then the pendulum would work exactly as on a Round Earth, but simply keep slowing down as you went towards the edges.
No matter how you slice it - the pendulum does not work on a flat / domed plane according to basic theory.
I found it interesting enough to bring a couple of my colleagues in on it, and please feel free to counter because I would be very interested to hear your input - I've already seen some very good explanations to things I thought otherwise here that hold out in some areas.
I have found no law of physics; standard, quantum, theoretical, or arbitrary, that would allow for any other conclusion.
In earnest exploration for both sides, one of my colleagues did suggest that according to quantum theory, it's possible the pendulum could be responding to another of it's exact mirror in a parallel or mirror "Earth" or plane as it were, therefore causing a reversal once beyond the equator. Although this cannot be tested for or proven, it would require that all pendulums ever made or that ever will be made would have these properties, and since gyroscopes working on the same principle also have the same end results anywhere on the globe (entirely different animal yes, but same principle) it is highly improbable. Impossible? No, but I personally don't think so - that's just my opinion.
Please, I would love to hear more peoples thoughts about this idea!!! Fantastic point and worth the debate! :)
-
It has been brought to my attention that some may find my post offensive. That is not my intent, I am simply a man of science and enjoy these theories and ideas. I do not discount the possibilities and I don't mean to sound as if I do, I am only stating my findings and would enjoy discussing what the other possibilities are - especially since I have learned some things on this forum I would never have thought to speculate about before.
I've edited this up a bit to do my best to be cordial.
..
..
This is where FE theory keels over and dies. They (theEngineer, username, etc) seem to ignore it or deny this observation is happening.
I cannot think of any known physical phenomenon that would account for the pendulum's behavior, other than a curved earth.
Username / theEngineer: Please respond.
-
Conspiracy, obviously.
-
I cannot think of any known physical phenomenon that would account for the pendulum's behavior, other than a curved earth.
As stated, nothing is known. Without personal observation of different results around the world, it's harder to speculate as to a reason.
-
Conspiracy, obviously.
While I can respect your idea of a massive conspiracy, as I also believe in a few myself (namely technology pasts, etc.) I find conspiracy rather difficult on this subject since it can be personally observed by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Including yourself if you so choose. You can even build a simple model of your own if you had the ambition to do so - even several renditions to make sure if you liked.
So I was just proposing if anyone had any other ideas as to how it might work according to a flat earth rather than just a conspiracy theory.
In this instance - I have to say I find conspiracy theory unsupported since it is such a simple experiment reproducible by anyone with even a basic ability of constructing a simple apparatus.
Do you have any other postulations though? I have seen you post many other in depth ideas on other subjects.
-
Well, the ones in museums, etc like you state are all powered by electromagnets. I'm not 100% convinced they are not there to produce results that are not actual.
-
I think Engineer's just fucking with you...
In any case, the point is that the foucault pendulum hardly proves anything. It's just a pendulum. Any number of things could cause it to change its path slightly. The results, therefore, are bogus.
~D-Draw
-
Hmmm... well I'm not sure about the data itself being bogus. Pendulums are very simple devices that have been used by people for various purposes for - well - hundreds if not thousands of years. Mainly measurements of time, space, and geometry (like old fashioned protractors used to build buildings, survey properties, etc.). Heck even think about gyroscopic compasses used at sea and in the air to this day that do not use magnets. They use the same basic principles.
Although I can readily agree with you that museums and large public displays COULD be setup ... I find it unlikely that if you setup 3 of these of different, yet similar design next to one another (say 10 ft. apart), and got the same results, it would be difficult to claim random similarity. Not to mention being able to consistently reproduce these results time and again.
I've been trying out the three I built here in the last couple of days and am fascinated how similar the results are. If you compensate for the differences in size and weight of the pendulums, length of suspension string, therefore length of swing or 'sway' they all work out identical. It's really interesting! Well - to a science goob anyway, overall it's like watching paint dry, but the results in the end are fascinating. :)
-
I tried creating one once, but my results were less than satisfactory. I probably screwed something up.
-
Foucault pendulums are indeed difficult to make. The trick is to reduce friction and air resistance as much as possible so the pendulum can make thousands of swings per day. That is why such large pendulums bobs are used. With such large inertias, they are hard to slow down. Also, the joint connecting the pendulum to the ceiling must be well-lubricated and free to rotate. It is necessary to give the pendulum a push every few days or so. Some museums use electromagnets to accomplish this, but keep in mind that Foucault pendulums have been around since 1851, way before such electromagnetic technology was available, and the pendulum had to be pushed by hand.
It is hard to denounce the Foucault Pendulum as a mere conspiracy. Anyone with a large building and sufficient machining skills could create one and observe the results in various locations across the world.
Nor can the precession of the pendulum be described as being caused by aberrations caused by a number of effects. As long as the construction of the pendulum is sound, the observations are far too regular to be ignored. In fact, here is a mathematical formula relating the the time it takes for the the pendulum to make one complete revolution, T(in hours), and the latitude where the pendulum is located, L(in degrees).
T = 24/sin(L)
Observations fit this equation very well, and as one can calculate, the period of revolution is 24 hours at the poles and increases steadily as one approaches the equator, where the period is infinite i.e. the pendulum does not rotate at all.
A good theory is one that can explain experiments as simply and cleanly as possible without exception, and this is an experiment that deserves a full explanation in Flat-Earth Theory.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Foucault_pendulum_animated.gif)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Foucault-anim.gif)
-
Also, you can make one relatively easy by using a nice flat weight like a small lifting wieght (say 1-5lb) suspended with a large flange via piano wire and hang it from a ceiling or rafter in home or shop. (Thus keeping wind and elements from the equation). Then being careful to release it and mark it's center points, you would have to check it every 10 min or so and make sure it keeps momentum up. Pain in the butt, but for cheap and practical it works fine.
The largest one I made yesterday is in an old grain silo, and it will swing on it's own for nearly 30 min. I used a ball bearing pulley with rotator cuff at the top, and arc-welded a tap-screw pot to hold the wire on the pulley so it free swings, and rotates freely without any outside influence. A lot of fun to make and try out. Took me a few tries to get a nice even swing... That's when I tried the flat-weight for the pendulum ball via suggestion from a south-pole pendulum site. Definitely works wonders for alleviating any lateral sway or twisting upon release. I used a 10-lb disc weight for the bob.
Again, not for everyone - but I enjoyed making it and seeing it work. And thanks for the equation - I've yet to have my pendulum make a full revolution. Too many things pulling me away from it to watch it for more than a few hours at the most, but I still have visible and viable data which is just downright amazing when you get to see the fruit of your efforts!
Take care,
John
-
I'd imagine the foucalt pendulum is easily explained by the new antimoon which circles under the flat earth.
-
I'd imagine the foucalt pendulum is easily explained by the new antimoon which circles under the flat earth.
Interesting point
-
I agree, that is an interesting point (in jest or no I realize). Although I hadn't seen it mentioned other than a few places in the forum, a secondary gravitational force is a possibility. I'll bring it up Sunday afternoon with my friends and see what we come up with! Great!
-
the maths governing a pendulum swing are immensely complicated. I did a project on it in 3rd year.
-
No, I guess that would only explain paraconical pendulum.
However, it is possible that the earth does spin, which explains the behavior of Foucault Pendulum in the inner disk. It is possible that the outer disk is swayed, as I said by magnets, human error or some other effect we don't know of yet.
-
and what weird name would you call this NEW mysterious force? darker energy?
-
One of my friends suggested a magnetic break at the flat earths equatorial boundary. I'm trying to find equations that will help me to figure out this possibility... perhaps someone on here is already well versed in magnetic fields? I'm more of the radio man and although I readily understand the concepts - I'm not an expert with sheer magnetics at this level.
Dealing with the earth as a flat or mostly flat disc, with some measure of depth, consider that the "inner disc" (which I am referring from the equator to the center) has it's own magnetic field caused by various reasons... layers of iron and magma withing the earths core layers.
Once beyond the equator the "outer disc" might have it's own inverse magnetic field caused by any number of geological differences in the core layers.
Now then, if this worked out correctly - you actually could have a gravitational effect of magnitude in opposing direction. This would also help explain reversal of draining water, etc.
In closing, as I said, I am no expert in raw magnetic fields so I'd be interested to know what anyone else thinks of this theory or might be able to put any stock into it. It was presented to me and sounded like an interesting idea.
In my own extrapolation... what if the flat earth were laid out like a magnet engine? (opposing N-S fields surrounding a N inner disc) The field would end up being somewhat unified on such a large scale and therefore other than the already present "oddity" magnetic areas of the earth, it might actually fit the bill.
C-me!
John
-
Of course using the earth's magnetic field to explain the Foucault Pendulum is a difficulty. Anyone with a compass can see that the magnetic field of the earth is uniform, terminating at the magnetic north pole. Secondly, magnetism only acts on objects that are made of magnetic materials, carrying an electric current, or electrically charged. It cannot produce gravitational effects. Gravitation and electromagnetism are distinct fundamental forces in nature that have no known relation to each other. And if one still tried to explain the motions of the Foucault Pendulum using magnetism, one could just make a bob out of wood!
-
I mean, every museum and professionally set up foucalt pendulum that i know of uses magnets to "push" the pendulum
-
As was explained earlier, some modern Foucault Pendulums have magnetic devices to give them a little push to counteract slowing down due to friction. However, it is entirely possible to to create a simple Foucault Pendulum that does not use a magnetic device and still observe the same results with amazing regularity. This has been done for hundreds of years ever since the first Foucault Pendulum was displayed in 1851.
-
Yes, I had thought of the wooden / plastic bob problem beforehand... what is interesting to note in this instance though is that there are several places on our planet where a magnetic compass goes berserk (aside from the poles). Therefore there ARE anomalies in the magnetic field, thus there could be a correlation to the FE theory. Magnetism can cancel itself out with varying amounts of localized forces. Again you possibly have a start of a theory.
Since even non-metallic objects are still affected by the earths magnetic field as a force (even in our RE model - rotation isn't the only thing keeping our atmosphere from dissipating, nor radiation from turning us into crispy critters. :) ) then it is still something to take a look at. If nothing else, just for the fun of it. I'm not saying I buy it, but hey... anything is possible until proven otherwise right?
Just a fun idea to throw around. And where did you get the idea that Gravitation and Magnetism are unrelated?
If you'd like some reference materials on relationships between gravitation, magnetism, and even electricity, I have some links here somewhere. Or you can just google it I'm sure.
Take care,
John
-
Oh, please call it the antimoon! Please!!
-
Electricity and magnetism are well known to be intimately related, hence the term electromagnetism. James Clerk Maxwell unified the two in the late 1800s. What was meant when it was said that gravity and electromagnetism are distinct is that they depend on separate physical quantities, mass and charge. An object only feels an electromagnetic force if it has an electric charge, and an object only feels a gravitational force if it has mass. The converse is true as well, only a mass can produce a gravitational force, and only an electric charge can produce a electromagnetic force. Thus, gravity and electromagnetism are fundamentally different.
-
Oh, please call it the antimoon! Please!!
Therefore it must be... the ANTIMOON!!! ;D
Actually there is a ton of evidence that gravitational magnetism is a reality and that the two are actually quite intertwined. There is a high likelihood that some magnetic fields are created by gravitational forces and angles of motion alone.
Although the debate on the flat earth's gravitational force is unclear to me at this point as it has been so heavily debated (some say the earth has no gravitaional force at all. Some say it has no gravity. Others say it does have a weak gravitational force that binds the planet together as a whole... I'm not sure which is the mainstream. The FAQ says that the earth does NOT have a gravitational field. This being the case... my theory is already dead! :)
-
Actually there is a ton of evidence that gravitational magnetism is a reality and that the two are actually quite intertwined. There is a high likelihood that some magnetic fields are created by gravitational forces and angles of motion alone.
Perhaps you are referring to gravitomagnetism. In the same way a moving electric charge produces a magnetic field, a moving mass produces what is known as a gravitomagnetism, a field that only acts on other masses. Notice that gravitomagnetism depends only on mass and the velocity of the mass and is thus independent of electromagnetism. Gravitomagnetism is a very slight effect that only has begun to be observed recently. However, finding a relationship between electromagnetism and gravity is an area of great research in physics today, but little success has been found. Any resource that claims to have done so is not likely to be reliable.
Anyway, the Antimoon seems to be the best candidate for explaining the Foucault Pendulum in Flat-Earth Theory, but there are many difficulties in this explanation as well.
-
Perhaps you are referring to gravitomagnetism. In the same way a moving electric charge produces a magnetic field, a moving mass produces what is known as a gravitomagnetism, a field that only acts on other masses. Notice that gravitomagnetism depends only on mass and the velocity of the mass and is thus independent of electromagnetism. Gravitomagnetism is a very slight effect that only has begun to be observed recently. However, finding a relationship between electromagnetism and gravity is an area of great research in physics today, but little success has been found. Any resource that claims to have done so is not likely to be reliable.
Anyway, the Antimoon seems to be the best candidate for explaining the Foucault Pendulum in Flat-Earth Theory, but there are many difficulties in this explanation as well.
Quite right! I never said it was a solid or reliable science as of yet, but there is an increasing rate of study in the field and some solid data on several celestial bodies that are replicating Blackett's gravi-magnetic hypothesis. Since most of these topics deal in theories I'm merely posing another possibility to consider.
These forces combined with the twin moons could somehow form a hypothesis as to how "south" of the equator works. Just interesting. :)
-
By the way, who came up with the idea of an antimoon?
-
The exact origin is unkown, however we can say with utter certainty it exists. I believe I came up with the name.
-
The exact origin is unkown, however we can say with utter certainty it exists. I believe I came up with the name.
He penned the name, and I came up with the idea.
-
and an object only feels a gravitational force if it has mass. The converse is true as well, only a mass can produce a gravitational force
Light?
-
and an object only feels a gravitational force if it has mass. The converse is true as well, only a mass can produce a gravitational force
Light?
Interesting point. It is true that light is bent in large gravitational fields, but the statement that only a mass can produce and be acted on by gravitational forces is still true.
Light has no mass, and it makes no sense for a force to be acting upon a massless object by Newton's Second Law, force equals mass times acceleration.
F = MA
F = (0)A
F = 0
Thus, light cannot experience any net force of any kind, but notice it can have arbitrary acceleration and the equation will still hold true i.e. light can bend. The reason light bends is explained by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. A large object actually warps space-time around it into what looks like a large basin. Light merely follows the bends in space.
-
Conspiracy, obviously.
It's just a pendulum. Any number of things could cause it to change its path slightly. The results, therefore, are bogus.
Without personal observation of different results around the world, it's harder to speculate as to a reason.
He penned the name, and I came up with the idea. {Antimoon}
I think the "antimoon" is a non-starter, for this simple reason. You are inventing complete systems in order to fit the pendulum into FE theory.
You have to begin by saying "X appears to cause Y", then explain (prove) why this is so. You cannot start out with just Y (the pendulum), the explanation (gravity/magnetism), and then invent "X" (the antimoon).
To put it another way, you could never prove the antimoon was the cause, because there are no other observations to compare it against, so the antimoon could be anything/anywhere/anytime.
-
I think the "antimoon" is a non-starter, for this simple reason. You are inventing complete systems in order to fit the pendulum into FE theory.
The effects of the antimoon were discovered when examining diurnal tides. The fact that it is now being used to explain also pendulum phenomenon only strengthens the argument for its existance.
-
Thus, light cannot experience any net force of any kind, but notice it can have arbitrary acceleration and the equation will still hold true i.e. light can bend. The reason light bends is explained by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. A large object actually warps space-time around it into what looks like a large basin. Light merely follows the bends in space.
Yes I know. But, there is no such thing as gravitational force. The two are incompatible.
the statement that only a mass can produce and be acted on by gravitational forces is still true.
No, it's not.
-
Thus, light cannot experience any net force of any kind, but notice it can have arbitrary acceleration and the equation will still hold true i.e. light can bend. The reason light bends is explained by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. A large object actually warps space-time around it into what looks like a large basin. Light merely follows the bends in space.
Yes I know. But, there is no such thing as gravitational force. The two are incompatible.
the statement that only a mass can produce and be acted on by gravitational forces is still true.
No, it's not.
I am sorry, I am not sure I understand what you mean. Can you clarify your views on gravity?
Perhaps when you say that there is no such thing as gravitational force, you are referring to the General Theory of Relativity's assumption that all apparent gravitational forces are due to bends in space-time. This is true, but mass is required to bend space-time and hence create apparent gravitational forces. Can you point out another mechanism other than mass that bends space-time creating gravitational forces?
In explaining why light bends, I was pointing out the logical fallacy of having a force act on a massless object. Light bends because it follows the curves of space-time. Mass is a necessary requirement for a force to be acting on an object, even a gravitational force.
-
Thus, light cannot experience any net force of any kind, but notice it can have arbitrary acceleration and the equation will still hold true i.e. light can bend. The reason light bends is explained by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. A large object actually warps space-time around it into what looks like a large basin. Light merely follows the bends in space.
Yes I know. But, there is no such thing as gravitational force. The two are incompatible.
the statement that only a mass can produce and be acted on by gravitational forces is still true.
No, it's not.
I am sorry, I am not sure I understand what you mean. Can you clarify your views on gravity?
Perhaps when you say that there is no such thing as gravitational force, you are referring to the General Theory of Relativity's assumption that all apparent gravitational forces are due to bends in space-time. This is true, but mass is required to bend space-time and hence create apparent gravitational forces. Can you point out another mechanism other than mass that bends space-time creating gravitational forces?
In explaining why light bends, I was pointing out the logical fallacy of having a force act on a massless object. Light bends because it follows the curves of space-time. Mass is a necessary requirement for a force to be acting on an object, even a gravitational force.
Yeah, you've basically got it in a nutshell. But the movement of light around bends in space-time disqualifies gravity as a force.
-
I think the "antimoon" is a non-starter, for this simple reason. You are inventing complete systems in order to fit the pendulum into FE theory.
The effects of the antimoon were discovered when examining diurnal tides. The fact that it is now being used to explain also pendulum phenomenon only strengthens the argument for its existance.
OK yes, I've looked into these forums and the "antimoon", albeit something of a different name, has been discussed before.
Again though, it looks like it was invented to explain the cause of tides throughout the world. This "antimoon" does seem (to me) to be a "god" object, in that you cannot prove or disprove its existence in the flat earth universe, although you can build up a case "for" or "against" it.
-
Perhaps when you say that there is no such thing as gravitational force, you are referring to the General Theory of Relativity's assumption that all apparent gravitational forces are due to bends in space-time. This is true, but mass is required to bend space-time and hence create apparent gravitational forces. Can you point out another mechanism other than mass that bends space-time creating gravitational forces?
In explaining why light bends, I was pointing out the logical fallacy of having a force act on a massless object. Light bends because it follows the curves of space-time. Mass is a necessary requirement for a force to be acting on an object, even a gravitational force.
You're actually right on this. Yes, gravity is the result of curved space-time. Yes, light bends as it moves through the curved fabric of space-time. Matter causes space-time to curve.
-
I am sorry, I am not sure I understand what you mean. Can you clarify your views on gravity?
Gravity is used to explain an observation based on a faulty assumption. That assumption being that we are in an inertial frame of reference. We are not. Newton's laws of inertia, namely the first two laws of motion, do not apply in non inertial FoRs. We are undergoing constant acceleration while we are in contact with the earth, or in the case of an airplane, when it is maintaining constant altitude and we are in contact with it. Thus, no force is required for the phenomenon we observe to happen. Gravity only exists as a concept.
This is true, but mass is required to bend space-time
Light bends spacetime.
-
Well, that being the case - that would somewhat destroy most theories, and quantum physics in general because you are taking the graviton out of existence. Yet to be seen (although I haven't seen the latest results from the labs) it would destroy virtually all the accepted notions of a unified theory of physics. Included we are talking about the individual concepts of String theory, Superstring theory, and Quantum Gravity, just to name the more common knowledge ones.
Light itself, alone, cannot bend space time. It would violate every known precept. Sorry, but I double checked myself before posting and I can't find even simple sites to state the contrary, much less scientific publications on the matter.
take care,
John
-
Gravity is used to explain an observation based on a faulty assumption. That assumption being that we are in an inertial frame of reference. We are not. Newton's laws of inertia, namely the first two laws of motion, do not apply in non inertial FoRs. We are undergoing constant acceleration while we are in contact with the earth, or in the case of an airplane, when it is maintaining constant altitude and we are in contact with it. Thus, no force is required for the phenomenon we observe to happen. Gravity only exists as a concept.
This is correct. According to the Equivalece Principle of General Relativity, all objects follow inertial motion in curved space-time. To us observing in our noninertial reference frame, a pseudoforce appears to be acting, which we call gravity. I suppose in this explanation gravity is not a "real" force. A better definition for gravity would be the bending of space-time by matter.
Reconciling General Relativity and quantum mechanics is perhaps the greatest unsolved problem in physics. Various ideas such as gravitons and string theory have been proposed with limited success.
Light bends spacetime.
I must agree with Mystified on this issue. If it is so, can you elaborate on how this works and provide references?
-
Well, that being the case - that would somewhat destroy most theories, and quantum physics in general because you are taking the graviton out of existence. Yet to be seen (although I haven't seen the latest results from the labs) it would destroy virtually all the accepted notions of a unified theory of physics. Included we are talking about the individual concepts of String theory, Superstring theory, and Quantum Gravity, just to name the more common knowledge ones.
You do realize what I just described was General Relativity, right?
Light itself, alone, cannot bend space time. It would violate every known precept.
What are the three 'causes' of space time curvature?
Mass
Energy
Momentum
What does light have?
Energy
Momentum
Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity. The energy-momentum 4-vector of a particle, rather than its mass, is the gravitational analogue of electric charge. (The corresponding analogue of electric current is the energy-momentum stress tensor which appears in the gravitational field equations of general relativity.) A massless particle can have energy E and momentum p because mass is related to these by the equation m2 = E2/c4 - p2/c2, which is zero for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation. The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of spacetime, so general relativity predicts that light will attract objects gravitationally. This effect is far too weak to have yet been measured.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html)
-
Ah, that was an excellent explanation. Light can produce very small bends in space-time.
So for the issue at hand, what does this have to do with FE theory?
-
Ah, that was an excellent explanation. Light can produce very small bends in space-time.
So for the issue at hand, what does this have to do with FE theory?
And how can it explain the Foucault Pendulum?
I also find it ironic that we are using General Relativity, a theory that has been at least partially verified using the assumptions of RE theory.
-
Ah, that was an excellent explanation. Light can produce very small bends in space-time.
So for the issue at hand, what does this have to do with FE theory?
And how can it explain the Foucault Pendulum?
I also find it ironic that we are using General Relativity, a theory that has been at least partially verified using the assumptions of RE theory.
Special relativity's gravitational time dilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation)has been experimentally verified with atomic clocks.
This result disproves universal acceleration, unless you believe:
The stars have a slight gravitational pull.
But that is a lot to ask of small, undefined specks of light, 3100 miles way!
I'm really beginning to loose interest in this whole forum. It appears to be maintained by people who:
- Pick and choose established scientific theories.
- Deny other observations happen at all.
- Explain anything else as a conspiracy.
I really don't know what I'm doing on here. Life's too short.
-
If it appears to be maintained that way, you've probably missed something very important.
I also enjoyed your star notion.
-
Well, that being the case - that would somewhat destroy most theories, and quantum physics in general because you are taking the graviton out of existence. Yet to be seen (although I haven't seen the latest results from the labs) it would destroy virtually all the accepted notions of a unified theory of physics. Included we are talking about the individual concepts of String theory, Superstring theory, and Quantum Gravity, just to name the more common knowledge ones.
You do realize what I just described was General Relativity, right?
-- Probably more than you realize
Light itself, alone, cannot bend space time. It would violate every known precept.
What are the three 'causes' of space time curvature?
Mass
Energy
Momentum
What does light have?
Energy
Momentum
Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity. The energy-momentum 4-vector of a particle, rather than its mass, is the gravitational analogue of electric charge. (The corresponding analogue of electric current is the energy-momentum stress tensor which appears in the gravitational field equations of general relativity.) A massless particle can have energy E and momentum p because mass is related to these by the equation m2 = E2/c4 - p2/c2, which is zero for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation. The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of spacetime, so general relativity predicts that light will attract objects gravitationally. This effect is far too weak to have yet been measured.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html)
Agreed. I stand corrected in my limited statement. Light can bend spacetime - as a weak force -
I understand your statement - the above is dealing with massless particles in it's most basic theories. It's actually along the lines of the graviton, albeit not a transmitter particle, the premise is the same.
The problem is the comparison you are using with light alone is a non sequitir. I've seen this come up a few times now and what you are referring to is a weak-force such that cannot make any conceivable impact in the discussion at hand.
Let's assume that you are trying to use the sun and stars as your base. There is not enough light in the 'star particle field' and the one individual sun to cause an enormous bend in space time that would allow for the physical movements and distortions that we are discussing.
Thanks for the redirect on light and gravitation as massless particles.
C-me!
John
-
Conspiracy, obviously.
It's just a pendulum. Any number of things could cause it to change its path slightly. The results, therefore, are bogus.
Without personal observation of different results around the world, it's harder to speculate as to a reason.
He penned the name, and I came up with the idea. {Antimoon}
I think the "antimoon" is a non-starter, for this simple reason. You are inventing complete systems in order to fit the pendulum into FE theory.
You have to begin by saying "X appears to cause Y", then explain (prove) why this is so. You cannot start out with just Y (the pendulum), the explanation (gravity/magnetism), and then invent "X" (the antimoon).
To put it another way, you could never prove the antimoon was the cause, because there are no other observations to compare it against, so the antimoon could be anything/anywhere/anytime.
Err... that is the very point of this site, using the zetetic method to develop theories behind known evidence. The antimoon exists.
-
Without personal observation of different results around the world, it's harder to speculate as to a reason.
-
I've not heard of massless objects bending spacetime. Is there an example of this happening that I can look up?
-
What are the three 'causes' of space time curvature?
Mass
Energy
Momentum
What does light have?
Energy
Momentum
Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity. The energy-momentum 4-vector of a particle, rather than its mass, is the gravitational analogue of electric charge. (The corresponding analogue of electric current is the energy-momentum stress tensor which appears in the gravitational field equations of general relativity.) A massless particle can have energy E and momentum p because mass is related to these by the equation m2 = E2/c4 - p2/c2, which is zero for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation. The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of spacetime, so general relativity predicts that light will attract objects gravitationally. This effect is far too weak to have yet been measured.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html)
-
I've not heard of massless objects bending spacetime. Is there an example of this happening that I can look up?
Light has energy and momentum.
To bend space-time you need:
Energy
Momentum
Mass
However, I'm quite questioned why light has momentum when momentum is the "amount of motion", meaning p = mv. Or is there an Einstein's own concept of momentum?
-
Momentum is related by
p=E/c
where E is the energy of the particle and c is the speed of light.
-
Ah, I see. I guess I was only talking in Classical Mechanics.
-
I hadn't heard of it because General Relativity predicts it will happen but the effect it will have is too small to be measured.
Thanks, that means I've learned a completely useless piece of information today.
-
Errr... FES.
-
the FAQ's answer to why the coriolus effect makes water flow in the opposite direction in toilets south of the equator:
"you are mistaken."
in other words, total denial of an obvious fact!
-
the FAQ's answer to why the coriolus effect makes water flow in the opposite direction in toilets south of the equator:
"you are mistaken."
in other words, total denial of an obvious fact!
*Tears*
-
the FAQ's answer to why the coriolus effect makes water flow in the opposite direction in toilets south of the equator:
"you are mistaken."
in other words, total denial of an obvious fact!
You make me sad.
-
um.. you are mistaken. Look up the Coriolis effect in wiki and under title misconceptions I believe..