[quote]Originally posted by shadow boxer:
[b]ok.. so you cant bend light with an electromagnetic field...
then how does a black hole suck up light ?[/b][/quote]
This little thing called "Gravity". As proven by Allan Einstine, Gravity can bend light.
*Ghost of Albert Einstine*My name is Al[b]bert[/b].*/Ghost of Albert Einstine*
Um, right, thank you.
I worry that a guy like that will go off and build a huge bomb. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Have you ever heard of a gravitational lens? Just wondering, because that's the same effect: using one large mass in space to help focus light to somewhere so you can see what it shows.
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
oookay... so gravity is essentially a magnetic field is it not ?
talking in rough terms two bodies in space will always want to get chiggy with each other right ?
aint they behaving like magnets ? like they have magnetic fields ?
To borrow and mix in from acoustic science.... arent we just talking about a 'bass frequency' of magnetic radiation that we humies cant really 'hear' yet ?
That's possible. It could be that magnitism is really a stronger and more specific form of gravity. I don't exactly have the background to debate the scientific merits of this worldview. All I do is tell jokes and write these stupid posts.
[quote]Originally posted by shadow boxer:
[b]oookay... so gravity is essentially a magnetic field is it not ?[/b][/quote]
Not exactly. Gravity is a function of mass and measured in newtons. Magnetic fields are functions moving electric charges and measured in units of gauss(G) or tesla(T).
Here's a great quote to tell the two apart.
Gravity: the mutual force of attraction between all particles or bodies that have mass.
Magnetism: It was basically a force between electric currents: two parallel currents in the same direction attract, in oposite directions repel.
Correct me if I'm wrong. It's what I remember of HS physics and my own amateur interest.
To get back to topic: once again we can enjoy update from our favorite writer. Quite short this time but it's better than nothing.
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Requires reading[/url]
[This message has been edited by Warlord II (edited 02-18-2002).]
they do. the magnetic field is circular around the wires. the directions are the same for both, but when you bring the two together, the 'sides' interacting are in opposite directions. Thus, they attract. (remember, right hand rule. thumb in the direction of the current. curl fingers, that is the direction of magnetic field)
If you lay the two magnets down facing the same direction, you'll see that the negative pole of the first magnet is alligned with the positive pole of the second.
okay but that doesnt really answer the question...
'telling them apart' is one thing but...
if my theorem is correct... then what you say can be true AND what I say can also be true.
okay... heres a bit of a brain bender.
just for the excersise and throwing out a couple big rules at the same time. If we chucked the earth through the wash a few times and shrunk it to the size of a beachball.
Now lets say that the entire earth survived the shrinking process.
lets lay it on a sheet of paper covered in iron filings like you do in primary school so you can see the fields around a magnet.
now can you tell me the difference between gravity and magnetism ?
I still reckon gravity is still like I said... the infra-red of magnetism, the sub-bass signal that we haven't the capability of really grasping.
So, you're saying something like magnetism is a gross expression, or beat pattern of, or harmonic of, the more subtle gravity, and that magnetism and gravity are connected in a 'reality matrix' or cosmic continuum? In other words, you're theorem is a unified field?
SB: Can you tell them apart? Yes. Gravity fields (and the filings) would extend in expanding hemispheres around the mini earth. The filings would tend to fall inward toward the mini earth due to gravity, because the mass is higher than those of the filings. The filings also exert force upon the earth, but the mass difference makes the exertion relatively insignificent.
Randy: Wouldn't know about the unified field theory (is that the same as the grand unification theory). I'm strictly amateur. My preference is more in theoretical quantum physics than Newtonian. But if it's been created here, we should probably publish, since that's kinda like the holy grail of physics.
They are not the same. In fact, they all have very different properties. Gravity is by far the weakest of the four forces, but acts over the greatest range (thousands of lightyears). The strong nuclear force, which holds atomic nucleii together against the electromagnetic repulsion of like charged protons is by far the strongest, but acts over the shortest range (a few angstroms).
Each of the forces is mediated by a different gauge boson - a fundamental particle that transmits the force over distance. Electromagnetic force is mediated by photons. The strong nuclear force is mediated by gluons. There is a theoretical boson for gravity called the graviton, but there is no experimental evidence to support its existence.
Many physicists feel (as did Einstein) that four forces is three forces too many. They believe that in a properly ordered universe, one fundamental particle and one fundamental force really should be enough for everybody and everything. So, for the past hundred years or so, physicists have been trying to establish the "grand unified field theory" that describes how all of the known forces are simply different aspects of a single fundamental force. So far, no one has succeeded in unifying the known forces, although some physicists believe that they are getting close to doing so.
In any case, it is not accurate to think of the electromagnetic force and gravity as being related in any simple manner such as different wavelengths of light or sound. If these two forces actually are someday found to be in some way related, it will be in a profound and subtle way that can only be described using mathematics that make your head hurt.
ShadowBoxer: I believe the filings would be lining up to the electromagnetic forces of the Iron Core and the Upper Atmosphere that protects our planet from radiation and particles from the Sun, not Gravity.
Anyone: Judging by the fact that there are known visible gravitational lenses in existence in the universe, it strikes me that Gravity must be working at some wavelength as well. I mean it has to have a focal point and all that stuff for a lens to work yes?
Or am I mistaking the the energy being focused as being part of the make up of the lens?
I read somewhere a few years back that suggested Gravity has a wavelength that has been supposedly identified at some god-awfully long wavelength. Anyone seen that too?
I'm curious as to the difference between gravitational tidal forces and magnetic/electro-magnetic lines of force.
Getting back to Gravity having a Wavelength, it implies that it is an active form of energy, and if so could it not be canceled out by a synced, equal amplitude, inversed wave running at the same frequency?
We need to learn how to make polarized "Gravity Amplifiers" (ala Bob Lazar).
good point Jack... for a Arty you do come up with some good ideas... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img] ( nudge nudge wink wink ).
I'll freely admit I'm way out of my league but it is my lot in life to question everything... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
Ok lets dodge into radio waves....
you measure the frequency of some radion bands in metres they are so big.... and boy do they travel....
whilst the other end of the scale... the FM stuff you listen to is foiled by a few measly hills....
so...
What if Gravity is measured in say....a wavelength of half a light year.... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
that would account for gravity being able to influence stuff fifty googillion miles away wouldnt it ? Gravity being like the radio frequencies you can pick up in New Mexico that came from New Zealand...
to my feeble physics mind that would also account for why we have trouble blocking or downshifting gravity ( to put it mildly).
and yeah I dont accept anything... including reality.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img] its all relative.
WHOOPS... I should read a little more closely... WHAT JACK SAID.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img] ( I was thinking along the same wavelength ( I crack myself up with my puns...), as Jack and I didnt even realise it.
Allright... if we continue along with the "Bennett-Nichols Theorem" one question really remains... if gravity does have a stupendously long wavelength...
A. How would one define it/measure it ?
B. What would determine what that wavelength is ? Mass ?
I don't even know what determines wavelength in radiowaves...
Hey Jack you do want to share credit for this discovery don't you ?
[This message has been edited by shadow boxer (edited 02-19-2002).]
hey now theres a thought... ( please remember this folks, I did Year Nine physics... poorly)
Is there a rule of thumb concerning wavelength (in any force) in proportion to its 'rate of decay' ie the point at which it has 'fallen off the scale'.
like acoustics. bass signals travel for miles, high pitched stuff is very short ranged in comparison... so am I right in thinking... that... (plucked straight from my bottom)
for hypothetical example a bass sound signal of 1 hertz travels 1 kilometre before it is no longer detectable.
Could we perhaps determine gravity's wavelength in such a fashion ?
If I may be so bold might I suggest a 'working' name for this new unit of gravataic frequency... Bennicols.
(that ok with you Jack ? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img])
Lets set a baseline "a freezing point" a zero for this new unit of gravitaic frequency...
one Bennicols is = to the earth's gravataic force
What is the object farthest away from Earth that could be affected by it's gravitational force ?
If we can determine that, then couldn't we apply the equation and get the answer to just how 'big' a Bennicol is ?
Can't that sort of thinking be chucked into the latest version of Deep Blue and crunched till we get 42 ? I know that gravity is as you say a very subtle and weak but pervasive force but cant we atleast theoretcially isolate the Earth and work out how far away an object has to be before it no longer feels the 'tug' ?
maybe a linear measurment of 0.5 light years is far too much...perhaps its as small as a few hundred kilometres. ( small... yeah... relatively speaking )
Gravity, as well as all fields (that I know of) follows the inverse square law in regards to intensity. It's as follows:
Any point source which spreads its influence equally in all directions without a limit to its range will obey the inverse square law. This comes from strictly geometrical considerations. The intensity of the influence at any given radius r is the source strength divided by the area of the sphere. Being strictly geometric in its origin, the inverse square law applies to diverse phenomena. Point sources of gravitational force, electric field, light, sound or radiation obey the inverse square law. It is a subject of continuing debate with a source such as a skunk on top of a flag pole; will it's smell drop off according to the inverse square law?
Basically, the intensity loss will be the square of it's distance.
Jack: You can try this site. They have gravity wave detectors. [url="http://pw1.netcom.com/~heathr/"]http://pw1.netcom.com/~heathr/[/url]
RE: Gravitational lenses. The light is bent due the the force of gravity of an object (called a deflector) between the source and the image. It's not really a lens per se, but a distortion of the image. Here's a nice site about it: [url="http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/research.html"]http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/research.html[/url]
[This message has been edited by TheKnave (edited 02-19-2002).]
[quote]Originally posted by TheKnave:
[b]Gravity, as well as all fields (that I know of) follows the inverse square law in regards to intensity.[/b][/quote]
The strong nuclear force that holds atomic nucleii together does not fall off according to the inverse square of distance. The strong force falls off exponentially with distance, much faster than the square of the distance. Furthermore, the strong force attraction is not governed solely by distance, but also by the spin and type of particles in the nucleus.
The strong force is only effective when particles are closer together than a femtometer (1.0e-15 meters). This is one reason why most elements larger and heavier than Uranium are unstable. There are so many protons and neutrons in the trans-Uranic nucleus that the strong force can't "reach" from one side to the other to hold the nucleus together (speaking very loosely and metaphorically).
[quote]Originally posted by milod:
[b] The strong nuclear force that holds atomic nucleii together does not fall off according to the inverse square of distance. The strong force falls off exponentially with distance, much faster than the square of the distance. Furthermore, the strong force attraction is not governed solely by distance, but also by the spin and type of particles in the nucleus.
The strong force is only effective when particles are closer together than a femtometer (1.0e-15 meters). This is one reason why most elements larger and heavier than Uranium are unstable. There are so many protons and neutrons in the trans-Uranic nucleus that the strong force can't "reach" from one side to the other to hold the nucleus together (speaking very loosely and metaphorically).
[/b][/quote]
Thank you, sir. I stand corrected. BTW been to your site and can't wait for the latest release of SS. Looks great.
Well, yeah, I kind of think of gravity as a constant field that extends to infinity, getting weaker and weaker the further it goes, and not possessing the qualities of a wave (peak, trough, frequency, etc.), but I try to keep an open mind. I feel that what we observe as waves are the fluctuations of the fields as they interact with other fields, but I'm not a physicists.
RE: G-lensing. There's this really cool site where you can actually increase the theoretical mass of an interposing object and watch it distort the image: [url="http://theory2.phys.cwru.edu/~pete/GravitationalLens/GravitationalLens.html"]http://theory2.phys.cwru.edu/~pete/GravitationalLens/GravitationalLens.html[/url]
I can't really speak to magnetic lines of force, but if you think of gravitational tidal forces, you have to think of the moon's orbit (the reason for tides). It's pulling the liquid as it orbits. But we can get into all kinds of cool cosmological discussions, like the earth really wobbles on it's axis (not the same one Bush was talking about) by as much as 5 degrees, I believe... but I digress
There's this cool experiment that I remember from chemistry. Did you know that you can pull water with a magnet?
If you have a slow moving stream of water (like out of a tap) moving faster than a drip but slower than a flow, you can cause it to deviate by using a magnet (I find the classic horshoe shaped ones work best). It has to do with the shape of the water molocule (instead of linear, its "L" shaped). Don't know what this has to do with the conversation, but it's a fun thing to try.
One of my professors once said: "A theory can never be proved. Only disproved."
Jack, why go with Nicholbenns? Why not Nicholjacks? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
SB: No problem about the links. If they're posted, they're for everyone.
[This message has been edited by TheKnave (edited 02-20-2002).]
>>>One of my professors once said: "A theory can never be proved. Only disproved."<<<
Well thats standard scientific practise isn't it ?
One proves a null hypothesis...
Can anyone tell me just where Occams razor sits on a percentage scale... I've forgotten. Occams razor being the dividing line between true and false...
Sorry for dropping the 'h' Jack... and fine but Nicholbenns just doesnt roll off the tougue as well as Bennichols... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
SB: It isn't a percentage in Occam's razor. It just states that when you're presented by several explanations for an observation, and there's no significant evidence to choose one over another, then choose the simplist one. The original latin is: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate." or "Entities should not be multiplied unecessarily." I think Einstein said it best when he said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
It's also an alternative rock band.
Randy: Would that be squeezed by gravity? (ducks before the tomatoes start to fly.)
[This message has been edited by TheKnave (edited 02-21-2002).]
Comments
then how does a black hole suck up light ?
the author is a tease.... two paragraphs.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
he must still be very busy and I expect he'll be asking me why I'm calling the kettle black.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[b]ok.. so you cant bend light with an electromagnetic field...
then how does a black hole suck up light ?[/b][/quote]
This little thing called "Gravity". As proven by Allan Einstine, Gravity can bend light.
*Ghost of Albert Einstine*My name is Al[b]bert[/b].*/Ghost of Albert Einstine*
Um, right, thank you.
I worry that a guy like that will go off and build a huge bomb. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
talking in rough terms two bodies in space will always want to get chiggy with each other right ?
aint they behaving like magnets ? like they have magnetic fields ?
To borrow and mix in from acoustic science.... arent we just talking about a 'bass frequency' of magnetic radiation that we humies cant really 'hear' yet ?
[b]oookay... so gravity is essentially a magnetic field is it not ?[/b][/quote]
Not exactly. Gravity is a function of mass and measured in newtons. Magnetic fields are functions moving electric charges and measured in units of gauss(G) or tesla(T).
Here's a great quote to tell the two apart.
Gravity: the mutual force of attraction between all particles or bodies that have mass.
Magnetism: It was basically a force between electric currents: two parallel currents in the same direction attract, in oposite directions repel.
Correct me if I'm wrong. It's what I remember of HS physics and my own amateur interest.
?
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Requires reading[/url]
[This message has been edited by Warlord II (edited 02-18-2002).]
'telling them apart' is one thing but...
if my theorem is correct... then what you say can be true AND what I say can also be true.
okay... heres a bit of a brain bender.
just for the excersise and throwing out a couple big rules at the same time. If we chucked the earth through the wash a few times and shrunk it to the size of a beachball.
Now lets say that the entire earth survived the shrinking process.
lets lay it on a sheet of paper covered in iron filings like you do in primary school so you can see the fields around a magnet.
now can you tell me the difference between gravity and magnetism ?
I still reckon gravity is still like I said... the infra-red of magnetism, the sub-bass signal that we haven't the capability of really grasping.
they are linked somehow...
Randy: Wouldn't know about the unified field theory (is that the same as the grand unification theory). I'm strictly amateur. My preference is more in theoretical quantum physics than Newtonian. But if it's been created here, we should probably publish, since that's kinda like the holy grail of physics.
1. gravity
2. electromagnetic
3. weak nuclear
4. strong nuclear
They are not the same. In fact, they all have very different properties. Gravity is by far the weakest of the four forces, but acts over the greatest range (thousands of lightyears). The strong nuclear force, which holds atomic nucleii together against the electromagnetic repulsion of like charged protons is by far the strongest, but acts over the shortest range (a few angstroms).
Each of the forces is mediated by a different gauge boson - a fundamental particle that transmits the force over distance. Electromagnetic force is mediated by photons. The strong nuclear force is mediated by gluons. There is a theoretical boson for gravity called the graviton, but there is no experimental evidence to support its existence.
Many physicists feel (as did Einstein) that four forces is three forces too many. They believe that in a properly ordered universe, one fundamental particle and one fundamental force really should be enough for everybody and everything. So, for the past hundred years or so, physicists have been trying to establish the "grand unified field theory" that describes how all of the known forces are simply different aspects of a single fundamental force. So far, no one has succeeded in unifying the known forces, although some physicists believe that they are getting close to doing so.
In any case, it is not accurate to think of the electromagnetic force and gravity as being related in any simple manner such as different wavelengths of light or sound. If these two forces actually are someday found to be in some way related, it will be in a profound and subtle way that can only be described using mathematics that make your head hurt.
------------------
--milo
[url="http://www.starshatter.com"]http://www.starshatter.com[/url]
ShadowBoxer: I believe the filings would be lining up to the electromagnetic forces of the Iron Core and the Upper Atmosphere that protects our planet from radiation and particles from the Sun, not Gravity.
Anyone: Judging by the fact that there are known visible gravitational lenses in existence in the universe, it strikes me that Gravity must be working at some wavelength as well. I mean it has to have a focal point and all that stuff for a lens to work yes?
Or am I mistaking the the energy being focused as being part of the make up of the lens?
I read somewhere a few years back that suggested Gravity has a wavelength that has been supposedly identified at some god-awfully long wavelength. Anyone seen that too?
I'm curious as to the difference between gravitational tidal forces and magnetic/electro-magnetic lines of force.
Getting back to Gravity having a Wavelength, it implies that it is an active form of energy, and if so could it not be canceled out by a synced, equal amplitude, inversed wave running at the same frequency?
We need to learn how to make polarized "Gravity Amplifiers" (ala Bob Lazar).
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by JackN (edited 02-19-2002).]
I'll freely admit I'm way out of my league but it is my lot in life to question everything... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
Ok lets dodge into radio waves....
you measure the frequency of some radion bands in metres they are so big.... and boy do they travel....
whilst the other end of the scale... the FM stuff you listen to is foiled by a few measly hills....
so...
What if Gravity is measured in say....a wavelength of half a light year.... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
that would account for gravity being able to influence stuff fifty googillion miles away wouldnt it ? Gravity being like the radio frequencies you can pick up in New Mexico that came from New Zealand...
to my feeble physics mind that would also account for why we have trouble blocking or downshifting gravity ( to put it mildly).
and yeah I dont accept anything... including reality.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img] its all relative.
WHOOPS... I should read a little more closely... WHAT JACK SAID.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img] ( I was thinking along the same wavelength ( I crack myself up with my puns...), as Jack and I didnt even realise it.
Allright... if we continue along with the "Bennett-Nichols Theorem" one question really remains... if gravity does have a stupendously long wavelength...
A. How would one define it/measure it ?
B. What would determine what that wavelength is ? Mass ?
I don't even know what determines wavelength in radiowaves...
Hey Jack you do want to share credit for this discovery don't you ?
[This message has been edited by shadow boxer (edited 02-19-2002).]
Is there a rule of thumb concerning wavelength (in any force) in proportion to its 'rate of decay' ie the point at which it has 'fallen off the scale'.
like acoustics. bass signals travel for miles, high pitched stuff is very short ranged in comparison... so am I right in thinking... that... (plucked straight from my bottom)
for hypothetical example a bass sound signal of 1 hertz travels 1 kilometre before it is no longer detectable.
Could we perhaps determine gravity's wavelength in such a fashion ?
If I may be so bold might I suggest a 'working' name for this new unit of gravataic frequency... Bennicols.
(that ok with you Jack ? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img])
Lets set a baseline "a freezing point" a zero for this new unit of gravitaic frequency...
one Bennicols is = to the earth's gravataic force
What is the object farthest away from Earth that could be affected by it's gravitational force ?
If we can determine that, then couldn't we apply the equation and get the answer to just how 'big' a Bennicol is ?
Can't that sort of thinking be chucked into the latest version of Deep Blue and crunched till we get 42 ? I know that gravity is as you say a very subtle and weak but pervasive force but cant we atleast theoretcially isolate the Earth and work out how far away an object has to be before it no longer feels the 'tug' ?
maybe a linear measurment of 0.5 light years is far too much...perhaps its as small as a few hundred kilometres. ( small... yeah... relatively speaking )
Any point source which spreads its influence equally in all directions without a limit to its range will obey the inverse square law. This comes from strictly geometrical considerations. The intensity of the influence at any given radius r is the source strength divided by the area of the sphere. Being strictly geometric in its origin, the inverse square law applies to diverse phenomena. Point sources of gravitational force, electric field, light, sound or radiation obey the inverse square law. It is a subject of continuing debate with a source such as a skunk on top of a flag pole; will it's smell drop off according to the inverse square law?
Basically, the intensity loss will be the square of it's distance.
Jack: You can try this site. They have gravity wave detectors. [url="http://pw1.netcom.com/~heathr/"]http://pw1.netcom.com/~heathr/[/url]
RE: Gravitational lenses. The light is bent due the the force of gravity of an object (called a deflector) between the source and the image. It's not really a lens per se, but a distortion of the image. Here's a nice site about it: [url="http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/research.html"]http://www.iam.ubc.ca/~newbury/lenses/research.html[/url]
[This message has been edited by TheKnave (edited 02-19-2002).]
[b]Gravity, as well as all fields (that I know of) follows the inverse square law in regards to intensity.[/b][/quote]
The strong nuclear force that holds atomic nucleii together does not fall off according to the inverse square of distance. The strong force falls off exponentially with distance, much faster than the square of the distance. Furthermore, the strong force attraction is not governed solely by distance, but also by the spin and type of particles in the nucleus.
The strong force is only effective when particles are closer together than a femtometer (1.0e-15 meters). This is one reason why most elements larger and heavier than Uranium are unstable. There are so many protons and neutrons in the trans-Uranic nucleus that the strong force can't "reach" from one side to the other to hold the nucleus together (speaking very loosely and metaphorically).
------------------
--milo
[url="http://www.starshatter.com"]http://www.starshatter.com[/url]
[b] The strong nuclear force that holds atomic nucleii together does not fall off according to the inverse square of distance. The strong force falls off exponentially with distance, much faster than the square of the distance. Furthermore, the strong force attraction is not governed solely by distance, but also by the spin and type of particles in the nucleus.
The strong force is only effective when particles are closer together than a femtometer (1.0e-15 meters). This is one reason why most elements larger and heavier than Uranium are unstable. There are so many protons and neutrons in the trans-Uranic nucleus that the strong force can't "reach" from one side to the other to hold the nucleus together (speaking very loosely and metaphorically).
[/b][/quote]
Thank you, sir. I stand corrected. BTW been to your site and can't wait for the latest release of SS. Looks great.
So theoretically it is possible to determine if gravity has a wavelength ?
And please fellas... I'm just being a goon in my description... I really am interested in the topic.
Thanks for the links... although the Gravity Wave Detector (his specifically) is of questionable design.
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
That was a great article on Gravity Lensing though! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
ShadowBoxer:
Bennicols? You mean Nicholbenns right?
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by JackN (edited 02-20-2002).]
[b]TheKnave:
Thanks for the links... although the Gravity Wave Detector (his specifically) is of questionable design.
ShadowBoxer:
Bennicols? You mean Nicholbenns right?
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[/b][/quote]
Well, yeah, I kind of think of gravity as a constant field that extends to infinity, getting weaker and weaker the further it goes, and not possessing the qualities of a wave (peak, trough, frequency, etc.), but I try to keep an open mind. I feel that what we observe as waves are the fluctuations of the fields as they interact with other fields, but I'm not a physicists.
RE: G-lensing. There's this really cool site where you can actually increase the theoretical mass of an interposing object and watch it distort the image: [url="http://theory2.phys.cwru.edu/~pete/GravitationalLens/GravitationalLens.html"]http://theory2.phys.cwru.edu/~pete/GravitationalLens/GravitationalLens.html[/url]
I can't really speak to magnetic lines of force, but if you think of gravitational tidal forces, you have to think of the moon's orbit (the reason for tides). It's pulling the liquid as it orbits. But we can get into all kinds of cool cosmological discussions, like the earth really wobbles on it's axis (not the same one Bush was talking about) by as much as 5 degrees, I believe... but I digress
There's this cool experiment that I remember from chemistry. Did you know that you can pull water with a magnet?
If you have a slow moving stream of water (like out of a tap) moving faster than a drip but slower than a flow, you can cause it to deviate by using a magnet (I find the classic horshoe shaped ones work best). It has to do with the shape of the water molocule (instead of linear, its "L" shaped). Don't know what this has to do with the conversation, but it's a fun thing to try.
One of my professors once said: "A theory can never be proved. Only disproved."
Jack, why go with Nicholbenns? Why not Nicholjacks? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
SB: No problem about the links. If they're posted, they're for everyone.
[This message has been edited by TheKnave (edited 02-20-2002).]
Where's my freshly squeezed OJ?
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
Babylon6 in orbit @ [url="http://www.nomad-jedi.com"]http://www.nomad-jedi.com/[/url]
[b]Check out this author: [url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/[/url][/b]
Well thats standard scientific practise isn't it ?
One proves a null hypothesis...
Can anyone tell me just where Occams razor sits on a percentage scale... I've forgotten. Occams razor being the dividing line between true and false...
Sorry for dropping the 'h' Jack... and fine but Nicholbenns just doesnt roll off the tougue as well as Bennichols... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
Babylon6: I hear that your OJ is being squeezed at this very moment.
It's also an alternative rock band.
Randy: Would that be squeezed by gravity? (ducks before the tomatoes start to fly.)
[This message has been edited by TheKnave (edited 02-21-2002).]