Doppler effects on gravity
william chan
Posts: 1,326
Assuming 2 planetary bodies are moving away from each other at close to the speed of light.
Since the gravitons which travels at the speed of light are having a hard time being exchanged by these two bodies,
wouldn't it be safe to assume that the gravitational pull between these two bodies would be greatly diminished?
Relativity mechanics should be able to calculate the new gravitational forces between the 2 moving bodies, which will reduce to zero pull when
the relative velocity of both bodies reach the speed of light.
Now in the exceptional case where both bodies are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light,
relativity mechanics calculations will result in repulsive gravitational forces.
Of course Einstein's theories don't allow anything to go faster than light, but........
The accelerating, expanding universe observations is an indisputable and repeatable experimental proof of repulsive gravity and proof of SuperC velocities.
Any comments?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
www.fd.com.my
www.mercedes.com.my
Post Edited (william chan) : 3/4/2008 6:55:09 PM GMT
Since the gravitons which travels at the speed of light are having a hard time being exchanged by these two bodies,
wouldn't it be safe to assume that the gravitational pull between these two bodies would be greatly diminished?
Relativity mechanics should be able to calculate the new gravitational forces between the 2 moving bodies, which will reduce to zero pull when
the relative velocity of both bodies reach the speed of light.
Now in the exceptional case where both bodies are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light,
relativity mechanics calculations will result in repulsive gravitational forces.
Of course Einstein's theories don't allow anything to go faster than light, but........
The accelerating, expanding universe observations is an indisputable and repeatable experimental proof of repulsive gravity and proof of SuperC velocities.
Any comments?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
www.fd.com.my
www.mercedes.com.my
Post Edited (william chan) : 3/4/2008 6:55:09 PM GMT
Comments
Don't forget that the relativistic mass of an object depends on its velocity relative to the observer.
You have to use the relativistic mass in your calculations of the attraction between two objects.
There are some good articles on relativity in the Wikipedia. Search for "wiki relativity".
I'm not sure that a planetary body would be capable of anything near the speed of light without 'becoming' light or some other part of the equation... E = mc^2
...however on a much smaller scale if you assume gravity is what creates a static friction between two objects, then by applying an external force to one or both objects,
you can break the static friction barrier and the effect of gravity between the two objects would be greatly diminished. Expanding that to a much larger scale, I would also
think "...that the gravitational pull between these two bodies would be greatly diminished" , but long before the speed of light was ever approached.
As a reference, the Earth travels at approximately 67 thousand miles per hour around the Sun... based on the distance we are from the Sun, and the gravitational influences
between the Earth and Sun, 67 thousand mph is just the right speed that reaches a gravitational equilibrium. Any faster and we would slowly drift away from the Sun, any
slower, and we would gradually drift towards the sun, ....and well you know, that would be that. [noparse]:o[/noparse])
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Beau Schwabe
IC Layout Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
Static friction between 2 objects are caused by cold welds between their surfaces and not gravity.
Velocities between 2 galaxies in the universe are sometimes known to be close to the speed of light.
Perhaps they have sometimes exceeded c but we couldn't measure the velocities properly?
Sure when bodies move away from each other, their gravitational pulls would be diminished by square of their distance, F = G (m1 * m2)/r square.
But what I am saying is that because of previously unknown Doppler effects on gravity, the F would be even lower than provided in this newtonian equation.
Bruce,
Gravitons are hypothetical elementary particles that are exchanged between bodies, creating gravity in the process.
Mike,
This is an interesting point, because at near c, the masses increase toward infinite, creating a very infinitely strong pull of gravity between them.
On the other hand, because of their near c velocities, gravitons cannot be exchanged, creating close to zero pull of gravity.
So, what is zero multiplied by infinite? Any guesses?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
www.fd.com.my
www.mercedes.com.my
Post Edited (william chan) : 3/4/2008 7:15:59 PM GMT
Also it is very rare in the current universe for anything comprised of matter to approach the speed of light, the major exception is matter being drawn in by a black hole. As an atom is drawn to the event horizon it's velocity approaches the speed of light. But the only way this could be measured present day is by detecting a frequency shift of energy emitted by the matter. This is more difficult than it sounds because the photon itself undergoes a frequency shift as it passes through the gravitational field of the black hole. In short there are alot of variables in the system and most of the "noise" of the system (variables not related to the effects of near-C gravitation) would be so many orders of magnitude greater than the signal of interest that it would be imperceptible (IOW the error in measuring the variables not related to near-C gravitation is greater than the near-C gravitational effect itself).
As for the Super-C hypothesis, I won't conjecture since it's never been proven that anything with mass can exceed the speed of light. But an interesting aside, every time you travel on a highway you travel faster than the speed of light (as it travels through a Bose-Einstein Condensate) which is 38 mph. In quantum physics, everything is relative.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
Post Edited (Paul Baker (Parallax)) : 3/4/2008 7:27:10 PM GMT
The duality of particles and waves is now accepted for all elementary particles and waves,
including electrons, protons and photons, so why not the graviton as well?
So far, no elementary particle does not exhibit this duality behaviour.
Why do you say that gravity is difficult to measure? Gravity is easily measured and calculated between the earth and any object that has some weight.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
www.fd.com.my
www.mercedes.com.my
Einstein' theories do not actually prevent anything travelling faster than light. It just can't travel AT the speed of light. If you can get an object to go from 0.9c to 1.1c than there wouldn't be a problem.
@steven, thats a nice theory, but when have you ever known something with mass to achieve a speed without it going through intervening speeds? Also the way the equations work out, the energy required to pump a particle going from .99c to c is infinite, therefore the amount of energy required to push it beyond c would somehow require more energy than the entire universe has contained since it's existance, but how is that possible?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
The duality of waves and particles allows us the calculate and experiment on either face and still get some result without understanding the other face.
For example, Maxwell was able to calculate the speed of light by wave equations alone.
He need not understand the concept of photons to arrive at the c value.
The Photoelectric Effect can be explained by photons alone, if we try to explain photoelectric effect with waves, we will get nowhere.
So, just by collecting experimental data about the doppler effect on gravity, we can safely assume that gravitons are also wavelike, without the need to calculate the quanta of one graviton.
In my current hypothesis, the galaxies accelerating away from each other is an experimental proof of doppler effect on gravity, which ties to repulsive gravity (why else would the galaxies be accelerating away from each other?)
which ties to super-c velocities.
So, back to the paradox of zero multiplied by infinite.
This paradox can be solved if we consider the zero to be one order of magnitude larger than the infinite.
This is because the doppler effect reducing the gravity pull is linear with velocity wheres
the increase in gravitational pull due to increases in relativistic masses is only increasing by inverse square of distance,
which is one magnitude smaller.
In this assumption, zero multiplied by infinite will result in a very small number.
This allows gravity to change to repulsive when c is reached.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
www.fd.com.my
www.mercedes.com.my
Post Edited (william chan) : 3/5/2008 3:37:56 AM GMT
It doesn't do any good to pretend that the paradox can be resolved. When you introduce assumptions, you change the system. You're describing a universe that may bear little resemblance to what we see around us.
On the contrary, the assumptions are made to fit to confirmed experimental data on the Accelerating Universe, discovered in 1997.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
www.fd.com.my
www.mercedes.com.my
It's fun to do thought experiments, but if the equations give answers which make no sense it's not likely to be possible.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
Post Edited (Paul Baker (Parallax)) : 3/5/2008 4:10:16 AM GMT
@william, infinity isn't a number. It is a concept that basically says take a number as big as you can think of and then make it bigger. If you try to limit infinity to some order of magnitude less than another number than you no longer have infinity.
Your observation about galaxies being not invisible is correct.
So, in order to fit with your observations, we have to assume that gravitons have an effective velocity of only half the speed of light.
It makes sense because to exchange gravitons, the gravitons would have to make a round trip, i.e. from one body to another, and then back.
This effectively means that gravitational forces would change from attractive to repulsive when the relative velocity of 2 bodies exceed c/2. This explains the supposed "dark matter problem" that has been plaquing physicists.· Anybody has any suggestions to test this c/2 hyphothesis?
Steven,
Interesting thought....
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
www.fd.com.my
www.mercedes.com.my
If you get a chance, you should read Einstein's 1916 paper on General relativity. My earlier comment with regard to static friction was more of an analogy, but without gravity or the resultant force of gravity or function of acceleration, the mechanism would not exist to create 'cold welds between surfaces' or whatever you want to call it. In Einstein's paper, gravity is explained as a product of mass distorting space and time. An eloquent 2D example is that of a bowling ball resting on a rubber sheet. The rubber sheet being space and time, while the bowling ball an obvious mass. If a golf ball is dropped near the bowling ball it will roll near the bowling ball. Keep in mind that this 2D model happens in every single direction at all times, not just on a 2D plane. Einstein theorized that smaller masses travel toward larger masses not because they are "attracted" by a mysterious force, but because the smaller objects travel through space that is warped by the larger object. Gravity itself is more like a disturbance in the field of space and time than an actual wave. What we observe as gravity is actually the result of mass affecting space and time. The “wave” properties capable of propagating at the speed of light would be a component of space and time and not the gravity product. Similar to the electric charge between two parallel capacitor plates, the "charge" or field would be space-time, and any obstruction (mass) within the field would create a charge anomaly analogous to that of gravity in the field of space and time.
In answer to your question... yes, I'm getting there...
"This effectively means that gravitational forces would change from attractive to repulsive when the relative velocity of 2 bodies exceed c/2. This explains the supposed "dark matter problem" that has been plaquing physicists. anybody has any suggestions to test this c/2 hyphothesis?"
If the "field" of space and time can only propagate at the speed of light, then it is impossible for the relative speed of 2 bodies moving away from each other to exceed the speed of light, and I suspect that dark matter is something of a completely different nature. Certainly not the void or dead spot between two bodies traveling away from each other with a combined speed exceeding the speed of light since we can make observations with regard to dark matter voids from here on earth, or a "near" earth orbit.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Beau Schwabe
IC Layout Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
Regarding electron orbitals and other similar quantum effects: Electrons (and other particles) don't "exist here" and "don't exist there". They are expressed in terms of the probability of existing somewhere. That's why electron orbitals are usually represented as clouds of probability. There's a "most likely volume" where the electron is expected to be found, but it could be found in lots of places with some likelihood. When an electron jumps levels, it becomes very likely to be found in the new level rather than the old one. There are certain "forbidden" places where the probability of being found is zero or near zero depending on the situation. It's not that the electron jumps from one place to another. It just becomes more likely to be found in the new location.
I must apologise to you if my "too direct" approach to label your "static friction" analogy as wrong, may hurt your feelings.
Certainly I am not smart enough to be the judge, and I know I am certainly not as smart as you.
I need to improve on my diplomacy.
Back to Einstein's General Relativity, the "distortion of space-time by masses" theory is just a model, that's what it is.
Admittedly, this model has served us well in predicting many things.
But it also created many paradoxes and it cannot go along with quantum mechanics well.
Let's think for a moment, what are the chances that the 1st model that we can think of becomes the final model and the truth?
Back to my repulsive gravity hypothesis,
I think you did not read my post correctly, let me re-phrase,
My current hypothesis is that gravity will change to repulsive then the relative velocity between two bodies exceed half of speed of light in vacuum.
I am looking for a method to test or disprove this hypothesis. Will you help me think of an experiment?
On the subject of electric fields, when we speak of "fields" we are looking at the wave face of a force.
Remember the Principle of Duality...., the other face is the the particle face.
Both faces can lead us to visible results.
If the General Relativity model of space-time distortions cannot easily explain repulsive gravity, we are free to use the Exchange of Graviton model. That's what I am saying.
Mike and Steven,
Experiments have proven that photon's can be made to disappear from one location and re-appear in another location, much like Star Trek.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleportation
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
www.fd.com.my
www.mercedes.com.my
Post Edited (william chan) : 3/6/2008 5:00:26 AM GMT
No feelings hurt over here.· I certainly don't know the answers as well as I'm sure most everyone else doesn't have the answers.· "But it also created many paradoxes and it cannot go along with quantum mechanics well." - Hmmm I don't know.· It took 75 years for us to·figure out what Einstein was talking about in 1916.· As far as quantum mechanics and what we currently "think" we understand, Einstein's writings may prove that we aren't giving him enough credit as it is.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Beau Schwabe
IC Layout Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
The recent experiments in so-called "teleportation" don't involve particles actually disappearing from one location to reappear elsewhere, but rather their quantum state being communicated via "entanglement" from a particle at one location to a different particle at another. On a macro scale, this would imply that the Capt. Kirk, who suddenly becomes manifest on the surface of an alien planet is made from different stuff than the good captain who dematerialized on board the Enterprise. 'Still the Right Stuff, to be sure (assuaging the worst fears of Trekkies everywhere), only different.
As to gravity, there are numerous anomalies that have, so far, defied explanation. The Pioneer space probes, for example are being retarded in their journey to escape the solar system by a force greater than classical mechanics predicts. Also, recent observations of probes using a planet's gravitation to slingshot them to further reaches have revealed small discrepancies that appear mainly when their trajectories cross the planet's equator asymmetrically.
Now regarding the "c/2" transition from attracitve to repulsive gravity, that means that, at c/2 exactly, there's no gravitational force at all between two bodies with that relative speed (assuming a continuous transition), right? My only suggestion is to do the math and see where it takes you. As a start, think about the case where body B is receding from body A at 0.49c, and body C is further receding from body B, in the same direction, at 0.49c. (Under Special Relativity, this means that C is receding from A at 0.79c.) What is the gravitational force between A and B, B and C, A and C? How do these forces affect their relative velocites? Does this lead to any contradictions? What happens when two bodies approach each other at speeds greater than c/2? Do they still repel each other? It's important for any hypothesis to pass these kinds of gedanken experiments before it can be taken seriously and before the expense of a physical experiment can be undertaken.
-Phil
Mike, I understand that but there is still a region where the electron can not exist. So somehow the electron must either cross over this region or cease to exist on one side and start existing on the other. Also, just because we can't tell 100% where it exists does not mean that it doesn't exist at just one point in time (well since I haven't done any quantum mechanics if someone knows otherwise than please say so
Since most planet velocities don't come close to c/2, it is difficult to test this hypothesis.
But the expanding universe may give us clues.
The motion of spiral galactic arms also point towards this hypothesis.
Have you have found any contradictions with this hypothesis? I can't find any.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
www.fd.com.my
www.mercedes.com.my
The fog of knowledge regarding a particle like an electron concerns what are known as "conjugate variables", such as position and momentum, or energy and time. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that the error in determining the product of two conjugate variables is greater than Planck's constant (written in equations as h, and equal to 6.6 x 10-34 Joule seconds), divided by two. This means that if we know precisely an electron's position, for example, we can say nothing about its momentum, and vice versa.
There are two main schools of thought on how this can be interpreted in real-world terms. In one, the uncertainty reflects only our lack of knowledge about the elecron's state. In other words, it actually has a precise position and momentum, but we just aren't able to determine both at the same time experimentally. Moreover, the particle's seemingly probabilistic behavior holds only for an ensemble of measurements over different but identically-prepared particles and is not an inherent property of any one particle. This was the interpretation favored by Einstein. The other main point of view, the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation, posits that a particle's probabilistic distribution, or wave function, is an inherent property of the individual particle itself, and that a particle's physical state is really a superposition of its many possible states, which superposition is subject to "collapse" when a measurement is performed.
It's easy to get one's mind tied up in knots over this stuff, especially in light of recent developments with entangled photons, quantum computing, and "stopping" light. It's as if the mind is subject to its own uncertainty principle: as soon as one idea begins to make sense, another related concept becomes completely foggy. (Some crackpots are rude enough to suggest that this is merely a consequence of age. I beg to differ!)
-Phil
Post Edited (Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)) : 3/6/2008 8:42:42 AM GMT
Phil, thanks for the link. Looks like I have more reading...
The laws of Thermodynamics are an example of a classical and empirical law that only holds true for low energy situations like everyday life.
Just like Newton's laws of gravity, it cannot hold for high energy or high velocity situations like in particle accelerators, so we have no qualms about this law being broken in our high velocity experiments.
Having Repulsive Gravity actually solves some problems with regards to the principle of Conservation of Energy and Matter.
For example, the biggest question against the Big Bang theory is "Where did all these energy come from?"
If Repulsive Gravity can exist, then it can help reduce or eliminate the energy problem by balancing the energy from Attractive Gravity.
Beau,
I forgot to tell you that "fields" that we previously thought are domains of waves can also be seen as a stream of particles.
For example, the electric field you mentioned between two charged plates are actually streams of "virtual photons".
If two protons move past each other in high velocity, photons ( real light ) are actually created, and light is given off.
In the same way, could gravitons actually be "virtual neutrinos" or virtual some other particles?
General Theory of Relativity cannot explain black holes and other atomic level behaviors.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
www.fd.com.my
www.mercedes.com.my
To my knowledge there are no known violations of the laws of thermodynamics. They have been extensively tested in high velocity situations in many particle accelerators around the world and have not produced any inconsistencies. If you have evidence otherwise than please present it.
I am a Biblical creationist and therefore don't believe in the Big Bang theory. One of the problems I see with it is where did the energy/mass come from? Repulsive Gravity is not going to help this as you still need matter (a form of energy) to start with and then a lot of energy to accelerate that matter to 1/2 of the speed of light. (I hesitated to post this as I am afraid it will start a flame war. If you want to comment on this than I suggest that we move somewhere else.)
Here is a paper that considers what initially seems to be a violation of the laws of thermodynamics and a solution. arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0310025 I couldn't find any other references to violations of the laws of thermodynamics.
And for the link about the Pioneer space probes space.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html some interesting reading that may give us more understanding in the future.
Don't be afraid to share your views.
From what I heard, this forum never had a flame war before.
A simple example of how the Law of Thermodynamics cannot hold at the atomic level.
Take a China Vase and ready your video camera that can resolve to every molecule.
Drop the vase to the ground while taking a video of the action.
Then playback the video in reverse.
What you will see is the molecules joining back together to form the perfect vase.
The laws of thermodynamics will not allow entropy to be reversed, yet by examining every molecule joining with other molecules, no physics laws are broken.
This shows that at the microscopic level, a disordered state can change into a more ordered state without using up any additional entropy, a clear violation of the Law of Thermodynamics.
In Physics, we had so many laws being broken all the time, we are getting used to it.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
www.fd.com.my
www.mercedes.com.my
I don't think that this forum has ever had a flame war but I think it has come close a couple of times and I don't want to be the guilty party in starting one
To violate the laws of thermodynamics the molecules would have to reform into a vase without any additional energy. Playing back the video in reverse is not recreating the vase, it is only viewing what happened in reverse order.
I think that you are trying to say that it takes exactly the same amount of energy to disassembly a molecule as it does to assembly a molecule. Whether this is correct or not I don't know. I do know that in mechanical engineering we assume that a lot of things behave like this to make calculations easy when they do not behave like this at all. Examples of this are spring constants and stress/strain.
We also need to be careful to define exactly what the ordered states are. It is the position with the least potential energy. This may produce very ordered arrangements of molecules but once the atoms/molecules are in this arrangement then you will need to add energy to make them change to a different arrangement.
As to laws being broken, often they are not really broken. They just become special or limiting cases. For example, Newton's laws still hold exactly if you aren't moving.
Did you read the paper that I posted the link to? It has some interesting ideas that may be relevant here.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
Here is a bit more info, just in. Frankly, I have trouble with following photons and gravitons. Seems to me that they are just ideas of what packets of energy contain rather than real particles [noparse][[/noparse]like electrons, neutrons, and protons]. But I guess that is why I became a carpenter rather than scientist.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PLEASE CONSIDER the following:
Do you want a quickly operational black box solution or the knowledge included therein?······