Role of gravitational force F=GMm/d^2 b/t two objects?

Quote from: E E K on August 27, 2020, 11:32:27 AM

Quote from: sokarul on August 27, 2020, 06:31:08 AM

So now electrons exist?

May be  or may be not because I don't understand why was the mass of every electron created exactly the same when there were chances of more than one type by the natural selection in random during the early stages of the universe in chaos/ big bang?

Mass of one electron = 9.10938356 × 10^-31 kg
Other type could have = 8.10938356 × 10^-30 kg – this is just an example
it could have zillion types of masses (Ranges in Kg)

The same is applied to all atomic particles, not just electron.

An electron is an elementary particle. It came about due to physics, which would be due to the properties of energy. You are making it out to be more complex than it is.

The properties of energy will answer your problems.

There is evidence.(evidence is the correct word)

Quote from: E E K on August 27, 2020, 11:32:27 AM

Quote from: sokarul on August 27, 2020, 06:31:08 AM

So now electrons exist?

May be  or may be not because I don't understand why was the mass of every electron created exactly the same when there were chances of more than one type by the natural selection in random during the early stages of the universe in chaos/ big bang?

Mass of one electron = 9.10938356 × 10^-31 kg
Other type could have = 8.10938356 × 10^-30 kg – this is just an example
it could have zillion types of masses (Ranges in Kg)

The same is applied to all atomic particles, not just electron.

This one is easy. The standard model doesn't predict electrons with differing masses.

But more importantly, in all the experiments and atom smashing and evidence and data that has been collected... we never found an electron with a different mass.

We do not know WHY that is so, but there is no evidence or data to suggest otherwise.

If the LHC starts spitting out electrons with twice their weight, well that will be exiting and interesting and then you can be right. But until the, there is no proof, nor any hints that they exist.

Quote from: sokarul on August 27, 2020, 09:46:03 PM

There is evidence.(evidence is the correct word)

There is no such instruments which can either see or measure space-time. So what do you mean by evidence?

Quote from: sokarul on August 27, 2020, 09:46:03 PM

There is evidence.(evidence is the correct word)

There is no such instruments which can either see or measure space-time. So what do you mean by evidence?

We have seen that the Sun bends light that passes very close to it.

Quote

We have seen that the Sun bends light that passes very close to it.

All matter is composed of atoms. Nuclei are about 100,000 times smaller than the atoms they’re housed in.  Since Atoms are the building blocks of matter therefore it is said the human body is almost empty spaces (99.99999%). If this is true then aren’t all these celestial bodies are also almost empty spaces as well if yes then how do they bend space-time at such a large scale as quoted when atomic particles don’t have the ability of bend space-time unless in a collection?

You are also wrong that atomic particles can't bend space-time. They can, they just bend it VERY VERY VERY slightly

Quote

You are also wrong that atomic particles can't bend space-time. They can, they just bend it VERY VERY VERY slightly

Then why don t you consider these slight distortion of space-time individually instead of taking a celestial body as a whole. it will limit the bending of space time to the actual size of celestial body.

Here is the correct stress-energy tensor equation:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d92d/7f8b7771e0e3c4df0a25b712d7de2274ed59.pdf

You get the same answer either way.

If he has two phds why did he simplify E=mc2?

Quote

You get the same answer either way.

The bending of the space-time is outward if the whole mass of earth is considered.

The bending of the space-time is inside the whole mass of earth (99% empty as explained) if the mass of the each individual atomic particle is considered.

Quote

If he has two phds why did he simplify E=mc2?

K.E = 0.5 mv^2
P.E= mgh
E =mc^2

Now
E = mgh=mc^2
"m" cancel out; 
We get  gh=c^2 ----- Eq 1

Similarly, 0.5mv^2 = mc^2
"m" cancel out;
we get 0.5v^2=c^2  ….. Eq 2

What is the meaning of Eq 1 and eq 2

Quote from: E E K on August 28, 2020, 09:42:46 PM

Quote

You get the same answer either way.

The bending of the space-time is outward if the whole mass of earth is considered.

The bending of the space-time is inside the whole mass of earth (99% empty as explained) if the mass of the each individual atomic particle is considered.

Quote

If he has two phds why did he simplify E=mc2?

K.E = 0.5 mv^2
P.E= mgh
E =mc^2

Now
E = mgh=mc^2
"m" cancel out; 
We get  gh=c^2 ----- Eq 1

Similarly, 0.5mv^2 = mc^2
"m" cancel out;
we get 0.5v^2=c^2  ….. Eq 2

What is the meaning of Eq 1 and eq 2

No meaning at all.

The E in E=mc^2 is the energy that would be released if you  completely annihilate a mass.

It has nothing to do with gravitational potential energy or kinetic energy for a given situation.

You’ve just slapped some equations together randomly and got total nonsense.

Quote

You get the same answer either way.

The bending of the space-time is outward if the whole mass of earth is considered.

The bending of the space-time is inside the whole mass of earth (99% empty as explained) if the mass of the each individual atomic particle is considered.

Quote from: E E K on August 28, 2020, 09:42:46 PM

Quote

You get the same answer either way.

The bending of the space-time is outward if the whole mass of earth is considered.

The bending of the space-time is inside the whole mass of earth (99% empty as explained) if the mass of the each individual atomic particle is considered.

What do you mean space-time is bending outward?

Again, consider a one pound piece of lead and a one pound piece of foam. Which is heavier? One is mostly empty space, the other is very dense.

Quote from: JJA on August 29, 2020, 05:01:52 AM

Quote from: E E K on August 28, 2020, 09:42:46 PM

Quote

You get the same answer either way.

The bending of the space-time is outward if the whole mass of earth is considered.

The bending of the space-time is inside the whole mass of earth (99% empty as explained) if the mass of the each individual atomic particle is considered.

What do you mean space-time is bending outward?

Again, consider a one pound piece of lead and a one pound piece of foam. Which is heavier? One is mostly empty space, the other is very dense.

If you consider the mass as a whole then the bending of the space time happens outside the whole mass.
if you consider the masses of all atomic particles individually of the whole mass as then the bending of the space time happens within the wholw mass not outside the whole mass

Do you know what energy is?

All (above) three are ENERGY equations.

Quote from: Unconvinced on August 29, 2020, 03:22:51 AM

Quote from: E E K on August 28, 2020, 09:42:46 PM

Quote

You get the same answer either way.

The bending of the space-time is outward if the whole mass of earth is considered.

The bending of the space-time is inside the whole mass of earth (99% empty as explained) if the mass of the each individual atomic particle is considered.

Quote

If he has two phds why did he simplify E=mc2?

K.E = 0.5 mv^2
P.E= mgh
E =mc^2

Now
E = mgh=mc^2
"m" cancel out; 
We get  gh=c^2 ----- Eq 1

Similarly, 0.5mv^2 = mc^2
"m" cancel out;
we get 0.5v^2=c^2  ….. Eq 2

What is the meaning of Eq 1 and eq 2

No meaning at all.

The E in E=mc^2 is the energy that would be released if you  completely annihilate a mass.

It has nothing to do with gravitational potential energy or kinetic energy for a given situation.

You’ve just slapped some equations together randomly and got total nonsense.

Do you know what energy is?

All (above) three are ENERGY equations.

Quote from: E E K on August 29, 2020, 04:27:32 AM

Do you know what energy is?

All (above) three are ENERGY equations.

No shit, Sherlock.

That doesn’t change the fact that you are using them wrong.

Your equations would only be valid, if you were converting one type of energy into another.  You can do this with kinetic energy and potential energy for example when you drop something.  You can work out the potential energy difference between two heights and that gives you the kinetic energy gained over that distance.  Although if you drop through a medium like air, there will also be some energy loss from drag.

But when you drop something, you don’t convert any of the mass into energy, do you?  So why do you think Einstein’s equation is relevant? 

That’s twice in this thread where you’ve lashed out at my attempts to explain by patronising me.  Well, allow me to respond in kind.

BAD NEWS, SUNSHINE.  The ability to look up equations on Google does not equal knowing how to apply them in any meaningful way.    You apparently think your TINY and completely INADEQUATE level of knowledge on the subject is superior to all the physicists and engineers who bothered to actually study this, because of course you do.

I don’t suppose it’s ever occurred to you that you could have spent the time it takes writing your LAUGHABLE NONSENSE doing some basic mechanics tutorials, and you’d probably understand where you’re going wrong by now?

But no, I expect you’ll carry on declaring you’ve found a fatal flaw in ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL  mechanics that has somehow been missed by everyone who has used these equations to build all the technology you take for granted over the last few hundred years.

LOL

B3