A question for the physicists.

[Karl]

That's the point -- an elevator is pure old-school Newtonian motion, it is indistinguishable from "real" gravity, and it helps to illustrate the concept which bridges from classical mechanics to general relativity. There isn't some artificial wall between classical natural philosophy and modern natural philosophy but instead a gradual maturation of our philosophical understanding of the behavior of nature. Karl introduced the ideas of massless gravity and gravityless objects, thereby moving the discussion, albeit briefly, beyond the supposedly mundane starting point of a falling apple.

I'm OK with it. Keep going.

[Karl]

ah, but what is vibrating?

 

its only interacts if it resonates with certain fields....if it does not...*cough*neutrino*cough*

 

or in this case of gravity,

 

http://www.livescience.com/51584-weyl-fermions-created-lab.html

http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-finally-discovered-massless-particles-and-they-could-radically-speed-up-electronics

Going too far now. I don't understand how a particle can have no mass, or substitute attractive/repulsive action.

[joeblast]

Logical error in  too concrete of an attachment to the term "particle"...

 

Fine structure

 

 

with over 473 million different ways the manifold may vibrate, some may see that as a problem, but I see it as versatility.

[Brian]

I know some things, but my conclusions aren't fixed at this point. I can grasp the idea that we have all these particles with forces.

 

What are these forces exactly ? Presumably they exert there own fields, but they bond is far stronger than the Apple and the Earth. Why is that ? Why doesn't the apple just squash up into a homogenous conglomerate ?

 

I'm struggling to understand the last paragraph. Do you mean the particles above its decent are now working to pull the apple back up. Why wouldn't the apple go sideways and stick to the wall ?

 

A hollow planet ? I don't think I can get my head around something hollow which....Oh wait, I see, the apple would get attracted by all sides of the shell and rest at the null point inside the shell ? Have I got that right ?

 

LOL that's quite funny, I was wondering how the hell the shell would stop itself being attracted to itself and thefore just collapse, but it wouldn't if it was of the same thickness and density, presumably it would have to be perfectly spherical in every sense, but that's not possible in reality with a massive sphere - or is it ?

Well....

 

The model of an object, or even of an object composed of particles, is flawed because the model of extant particles is a model. A very convenient and powerful model when used appropriately and within its area of applicability (as with any model) but it is itself an approximation or simplification or generalization.

 

According to the current model, the nuclear forces have an inherent distance-keeping quality to them such that they keep particles at arm's length unless the gravitational force becomes overwhelming. You've expressed (and I've encouraged) a wish to keep this discussion simplistic (Earth and apple) so let's pass on the quantum electrodynamics for now.

 

Yes, you've got the idea of the particles outside the apple's instantaneous distance from the center of the Earth pulling the apple outward. And, yes, they do "pull it to the side" -- to all sides, in all directions of the three-dimensional spherical coordinate system we might imagine centered on the center of the apple. The very notion of "down" is simply the resultant vector sum of all the individual component gravitational forces of all the particles around us pulling on all of our particles. "Down" is entirely a matter of perspective.

 

Someone else mentioned the idea that the planet is hollow so I was just pointing out that the result would be the similar. I was a little too hasty and cavalier in saying that the result would be the same but let me try to explain. One way of modelling the problem is to imagine the Earth constructed of a series of concentric spherical shells. Each of these shells is composed of a massive material of uniform density. The shells on the inside of the position of the object in question (the apple) can effectively be treated as point masses located at the center. As the object moves inside a shell, however, the small amount of material "close behind" the falling apple exerts a proportionally greater force (proportional to the inverse-square of the distance) than the greater mass in a corresponding solid angle "far ahead" of the falling apple. The net result is cancellation -- the shells outside the apple's current position effectively contribute no gravitational force on the apple. As the apple falls toward the geometric center of the concentric spheres, more and more spheres get eliminated from the scenario and the mass involved -- the effective mass at the Earth's "center of gravity" -- becomes less and less. At the center point, there are no shells "inside" so the mass is zero and the force is zero (and the acceleration is zero, too). As soon as it moves beyond the center (and we'll ignore for the moment that the apple is not really a point-mass, either), the direction of "down has changed and the number of spheres inside ("below" the apple) starts to increase.

 

Make sense?

 

As to why wouldn't a hollow planet collapse under its own gravity, it would if it weren't sufficiently rigid and strong. Same holds true for a soap bubble or a Christmas ornament.

[Brian]

I'd like to point out, by the way, that we are using no heavy and cryptic mathematical equations here or obtuse scientific mumbo-jumbo. This is a philosophical discussion in pure form (natural philosophy!)

[Karl]

Well....The model of an object, or even of an object composed of particles, is flawed because the model of extant particles is a model. A very convenient and powerful model when used appropriately and within its area of applicability (as with any model) but it is itself an approximation or simplification or generalization.According to the current model, the nuclear forces have an inherent distance-keeping quality to them such that they keep particles at arm's length unless the gravitational force becomes overwhelming. You've expressed (and I've encouraged) a wish to keep this discussion simplistic (Earth and apple) so let's pass on the quantum electrodynamics for now.Yes, you've got the idea of the particles outside the apple's instantaneous distance from the center of the Earth pulling the apple outward. And, yes, they do "pull it to the side" -- to all sides, in all directions of the three-dimensional spherical coordinate system we might imagine centered on the center of the apple. The very notion of "down" is simply the resultant vector sum of all the individual component gravitational forces of all the particles around us pulling on all of our particles. "Down" is entirely a matter of perspective.Someone else mentioned the idea that the planet is hollow so I was just pointing out that the result would be the similar. I was a little too hasty and cavalier in saying that the result would be the same but let me try to explain. One way of modelling the problem is to imagine the Earth constructed of a series of concentric spherical shells. Each of these shells is composed of a massive material of uniform density. The shells on the inside of the position of the object in question (the apple) can effectively be treated as point masses located at the center. As the object moves inside a shell, however, the small amount of material "close behind" the falling apple exerts a proportionally greater force (proportional to the inverse-square of the distance) than the greater mass in a corresponding solid angle "far ahead" of the falling apple. The net result is cancellation -- the shells outside the apple's current position effectively contribute no gravitational force on the apple. As the apple falls toward the geometric center of the concentric spheres, more and more spheres get eliminated from the scenario and the mass involved -- the effective mass at the Earth's "center of gravity" -- becomes less and less. At the center point, there are no shells "inside" so the mass is zero and the force is zero (and the acceleration is zero, too). As soon as it moves beyond the center (and we'll ignore for the moment that the apple is not really a point-mass, either), the direction of "down has changed and the number of spheres inside ("below" the apple) starts to increase.Make sense?As to why wouldn't a hollow planet collapse under its own gravity, it would if it weren't sufficiently rigid and strong. Same holds true for a soap bubble or a Christmas ornament.

That suggests, if I'm following correctly that the apple would slow down as it approached the centre ? if it was, hypothetically speaking, a thing which contracted and expanded as it fell, then would it be contracting as it fell deeper, then stretch at the null point ?

 

I was thinking soap bubbles are blown from the inside and surface tension holds them together, whereas a larger planetary mass is formed presumably from a hot gas that gradually cools into a solid. Which makes me wonder about hot gas giants but I don't want to get side tracked. I look at the planets, stars, but never really thought much beyond their form and position. Saturn is a beautiful thing to see through a telescope. Stunning.

[Karl]

I'd like to point out, by the way, that we are using no heavy and cryptic mathematical equations here or obtuse scientific mumbo-jumbo. This is a philosophical discussion in pure form (natural philosophy!)

I wouldn't know if it was mumbo jumbo, I simply wouldn't understand it if it was a mass of equations, anymore than I know what a Chinese guy is telling me. Unfortunately equations don't come with arm movements and facial expressions.

[Karl]

Logical error in  too concrete of an attachment to the term "particle"...

 

Fine structure

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIb5rViQ-6k

 

with over 473 million different ways the manifold may vibrate, some may see that as a problem, but I see it as versatility.

I'm only going on the definition. It's a physical thing right ? It interacts and has a specific nature ? It is existent as a concrete thing composed of some thing ?

 

The video was pretty, but I didn't get anything from it.

[joeblast]

That suggests, if I'm following correctly that the apple would slow down as it approached the centre ? if it was, hypothetically speaking, a thing which contracted and expanded as it fell, then would it be contracting as it fell deeper, then stretch at the null point ?

 

I was thinking soap bubbles are blown from the inside and surface tension holds them together, whereas a larger planetary mass is formed presumably from a hot gas that gradually cools into a solid. Which makes me wonder about hot gas giants but I don't want to get side tracked. I look at the planets, stars, but never really thought much beyond their form and position. Saturn is a beautiful thing to see through a telescope. Stunning.

"accelerate less quickly"

 

contraction and expansion only appreciably happens at relativistic speeds, so is not applicable in the case here.

 

hot gas giants = enough mass to keep it hot but not ignite stellar fusion

 

I'll never forget the brilliance of Saturn's rings, or the sheer blackness of space in between the rings and the planet, from 9 years ago when the rings were at their max tilt with respect to the earth.

[Brian]

That suggests, if I'm following correctly that the apple would slow down as it approached the centre ? if it was, hypothetically speaking, a thing which contracted and expanded as it fell, then would it be contracting as it fell deeper, then stretch at the null point ?

 

I was thinking soap bubbles are blown from the inside and surface tension holds them together, whereas a larger planetary mass is formed presumably from a hot gas that gradually cools into a solid. Which makes me wonder about hot gas giants but I don't want to get side tracked. I look at the planets, stars, but never really thought much beyond their form and position. Saturn is a beautiful thing to see through a telescope. Stunning.

Still accelerating but the rate of acceleration steadily drops to zero as it approaches the center, then the direction of the acceleration reverses (pointing "down" the whole time.

[Karl]

"accelerate less quickly"

 

contraction and expansion only appreciably happens at relativistic speeds, so is not applicable in the case here.

 

hot gas giants = enough mass to keep it hot but not ignite stellar fusion

 

I'll never forget the brilliance of Saturn's rings, or the sheer blackness of space in between the rings and the planet, from 9 years ago when the rings were at their max tilt with respect to the earth.

I only have an 8" Dob so the major ring spaces can be seen, but it's difficult.

 

Do gas giants eventually solidify ?

 

Yes, accelerating less quickly got you. Of course it's not losing velocity, just not increasing it quite as fast as at the beginning. Like debt and defecit, the debt is increasing even if the defecit is relatively small, but it doesn't decrease.

[Brian]

That suggests, if I'm following correctly that the apple would slow down as it approached the centre ? if it was, hypothetically speaking, a thing which contracted and expanded as it fell, then would it be contracting as it fell deeper, then stretch at the null point ?

 

I was thinking soap bubbles are blown from the inside and surface tension holds them together, whereas a larger planetary mass is formed presumably from a hot gas that gradually cools into a solid. Which makes me wonder about hot gas giants but I don't want to get side tracked. I look at the planets, stars, but never really thought much beyond their form and position. Saturn is a beautiful thing to see through a telescope. Stunning.

Strictly speaking, the side of the apple farther from the center of the Earth experiences slightly greater gravitational pull and is accelerating more so the apple would be squished except at the inflection point, yes. Note, by the way, that this is consistent with relativity...

[Karl]

Still accelerating but the rate of acceleration steadily drops to zero as it approaches the center, then the direction of the acceleration reverses (pointing "down" the whole time.

LOL yes I got that from Joe's explanation. Then going in the same direction is just what we observe on the surface when we fire off a rocket. As it gains height from the surface gravity is reducing but that must be pretty marginal.

[Brian]

LOL yes I got that from Joe's explanation. Then going in the same direction is just what we observe on the surface when we fire off a rocket. As it gains height from the surface gravity is reducing but that must be pretty marginal.

Exactly.

[Karl]

Strictly speaking, the side of the apple farther from the center of the Earth experiences slightly greater gravitational pull and is accelerating more so the apple would be squished except at the inflection point, yes. Note, by the way, that this is consistent with relativity...

Good, that makes sense and so does the stretching in a black hole-i presume this is hypothetical stretching ? I also realised that pressure must also be directly related to gravity too. We talk of the crushing depth of water, but it's just the water accelerating that creates the pressure on objects below the surface.

 

In physics we were taught the max pressure point on a dam is at 2/3, I've never understood why that is.

Edited August 26, 2016 by Karl

[joeblast]

I'm only going on the definition. It's a physical thing right ? It interacts and has a specific nature ? It is existent as a concrete thing composed of some thing ?

 

The video was pretty, but I didn't get anything from it.

"concrete?"    when things get boiled down enough, we're left with energetic resonances, and there are no "concrete things."

 

the vid was layering dimensionality, since looking at it with all of them tends to get tough to convey the complexity of the structure.

 

calabi yau spaces are like waves on the ocean - you can have all sorts of differently shaped waves, which affect the things floating on the ocean's surface - CY spaces take up the configuration as a wave sums the forces that "created" it.  so in effect,  a mathematical entity that reflects the ways in which spacetime can vibrate.    so there is some collection of CY spaces that will describe the passing resonance of an electron, for example.  the wave passes by, the oceans surface returns to its previous resonance.  (oversimplified to great extent, of course )

 

 

 

 

 

 

I only have an 8" Dob so the major ring spaces can be seen, but it's difficult.

 

Do gas giants eventually solidify ?

 

Yes, accelerating less quickly got you. Of course it's not losing velocity, just not increasing it quite as fast as at the beginning. Like debt and defecit, the debt is increasing even if the defecit is relatively small, but it doesn't decrease.

I wouldnt even try with my 8", since it has the most crude base ever created, and I dont have powerful lenses for it.  but my 2.5" that I gave to my nieces and nephew, that had some good powerful lenses with which I could see the bands of color on saturn & its rings, bands of color and the red spot on jupiter, mariner valley & ice caps on Mars.

 

as to do gas giants eventually solidify, I would gander a yes, simply due to entropy.  unless the parent star is close enough to keep supplying it with energy...and well, that's finite too... the law of thermodynamics says yes, unequivocally......eventually

 

hehe, yes, accelerating less quickly doesnt necessarily mean losing velocity   it only loses velocity once the acceleration goes in the opposite direction as its inertia.

 

 

 

 

Good, that makes sense and so does the stretching in a black hole-i presume this is hypothetical stretching ? I also realised that pressure must also be directly related to gravity too. We talk of the crushing depth of water, but it's just the water accelerating that creates the pressure on objects below the surface.

it is not a hypothetical stretching, it is the asymptote of c playing itself out in reality Edited August 26, 2016 by joeblast

[Brian]

<snip>

Do gas giants eventually solidify ?

</snip>

 

 

In general terms, yes. Entropy wins. (That's the commonly perceived arrow of time.)

[Brian]

Good, that makes sense and so does the stretching in a black hole-i presume this is hypothetical stretching ? I also realised that pressure must also be directly related to gravity too. We talk of the crushing depth of water, but it's just the water accelerating that creates the pressure on objects below the surface.

 

In physics we were taught the max pressure point on a dam is at 2/3, I've never understood why that is.

joeblast correctly pointed out that it's not hypothetical.

 

Your last sentence highlights the difference between a natural philosopher and a technician.

[Karl]

Energetic resonances, but still things-Peikoffs quantum puffs :-) so where are those things ? In the particles, or are they the particles?

 

I'm still very much at the electron, neutron, proton stage of things. Some understanding of the charge of a particle, but mainly electrons due to the nature of electronics. The proton/neutron were just part of the core. I know there are other particles but I don't understand their interaction, I think I said before 'wake me up when you develop a visor that sheds rainwater perfectly'

[Karl]

joeblast correctly pointed out that it's not hypothetical.

Your last sentence highlights the difference between a natural philosopher and a technician.

Stop with the philosopher (I would say fuck off but that would be a tad uncouth :-) ). It shows the difference between a physicist and a technician.

 

So an apple would actually stretch ? That's beyond my comprehension, I can see that certain parts would be moving at different accelerations, but I can only imagine that the apple would get torn apart and go hurtling down the gravity well in ever more torn up parts, or is that what you are implying ? That it wouldn't be in effect a rubber stretchy apple, but a longer and longer string of - I suppose stuff- how far does it go ? If it approaches light speed does it spit out particles ?

Edited August 26, 2016 by Karl

[joeblast]

"Particles" are described by the relations of their interactions

 

Time dilation only happens at relativistic speeds - getting close to the speed of light.  Funky things happen to conglomerations of "particles" that have to obey c, as their speeds approaches c.  Its merely an enforcing of the "speed limit."

[Karl]

"Particles" are described by the relations of their interactions

 

Time dilation only happens at relativistic speeds - getting close to the speed of light.  Funky things happen to conglomerations of "particles" that have to obey c, as their speeds approaches c.  Its merely an enforcing of the "speed limit."

We do that with forces like gravity, but how does that determine the precise nature of the particles ?

I can see if you smash a known quantity X into an unknown quantity Y at such and such velocity, then the resultant collision will produce some result which will be different to the known particle and that infers a new particle ? Is that how it works ?

[Brian]

Stop with the philosopher (I would say fuck off but that would be a tad uncouth :-) ). It shows the difference between a physicist and a technician.

 

So an apple would actually stretch ? That's beyond my comprehension, I can see that certain parts would be moving at different accelerations, but I can only imagine that the apple would get torn apart and go hurtling down the gravity well in ever more torn up parts, or is that what you are implying ? That it wouldn't be in effect a rubber stretchy apple, but a longer and longer string of - I suppose stuff- how far does it go ? If it approaches light speed does it spit out particles ?

Real compression but smaller than you'd be able to see.

 

Don't conflate the effect of a pressure gradient with relativistic spatial compression but do note the consistency between them.

 

Also, you might want to Google the term "natural philosophy..."

[Karl]

Real compression but smaller than you'd be able to see.

Don't conflate the effect of a pressure gradient with relativistic spatial compression but do note the consistency between them.

Also, you might want to Google the term "natural philosophy..."

I know what it is I just don't think it applies to you. If it did I doubt you would be here, mind you I'm here too, but then I went through a whole array of irrational madness and you are a physicist which means you have less reasons to be here. It's all relative, but here from the NPA website:

 

“Natural Philosophy” is the name by which “physics” was known in the time of Isaac Newton, and well into the 19th century. We return to it mainly in order to emphasize that the more profound and circumspect approach to nature during those years is needed once again. We seek renewed respect for philosophy, especially for logic; and also for the everyday application of reason and of respect for evidence known as common sense — which should be considered a foundation for, rather than a contrast to, genuine science."

 

Respect for logic, application of reason, evidence and common sense. Does that apply to the Tao ? Any evidence ? ;-)

[joeblast]

We do that with forces like gravity, but how does that determine the precise nature of the particles ?

I can see if you smash a known quantity X into an unknown quantity Y at such and such velocity, then the resultant collision will produce some result which will be different to the known particle and that infers a new particle ? Is that how it works ?

Let's start with the most fundamental concept of energy: to transform - its the only way conservation of energy happens.

 

Classifications of resonances and their behaviors helps us say something about how they all fit together...

 

And smashing them together has shown us that new things pop out, you may or may not have some of the same particle-resonances you started with - and it all obeys some set of rules.  Often, you smash A into B and it produces C and D.

 

This points to there being some base "substance" of which everything is comprised of, that can transform itself into the various resonances - but follows rules in doing so.  Hierarchies are established and ways in which transmutations happen are noted.

 

A "particle" is a dynamic equilibrium that has the ability to interact and change its resonance.  For protons & neutrons, its a set of resonances, for something like an electron (think leptons) they appear to be irreducible resonances.

 

We've got rules like conservation of electric charge, conservation of lepton number, conservation of baryon number...all from figuring out this mess of data.

 

But does any of it point at a base "substance"- to the extent that it does, it points at something which is able to assume virtually any particle-form, given the right "interaction."

 

As to what precisely this "base energy" is...ya got me there   We just know it follows rules, and our rule book, extensive as it is thus far, is still incomplete.