Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

dryson · 2007-11-19 15:52:46

I'm not an expert on magnetic fields but it seems to me that the spotty magnetic fields on mars are probably caused by iron ore deposits. Each iron molecule has it's own north and south pole but when connected to another molecule they combine. Put more and more iron molecules together and your magnet grows. Each deposit would have it's own north and south pole so that's why the instruments detected so much flipping.
I'm not sure if the iron ore has to be formed (cooling magma high in iron content) in the presence of a magnetic field. If so maybe mars had one long ago and now we are only seeing what remains of it, large and small magnets across the planet.

-Dook-

Now in order for gravity or electromagnetic fields to be present throughout the Universe, the above stated fact would imply that only planets and suns or gas giants generate a field large enough to keep a solar system together. When this is applied to a galaxy the same can be said to be true.

But what about outside of a galaxy?

Put more and more iron or other molecules together and your magnetic field grows.

With most matter being contained within a galaxy can it be safe to say that between galaxies there would hardly be any gravity if any at all, Given the stated fact made by Dook above? Another question to ask, are there areas of space between solar systems where the spacial bodies contained within each solar system produce just enough gravity to keep the system held together? Are there areas outside of these types of systems or between neighboring solar systems where gravity may not create a pull to the center of the largest mass that is producing the gravitational pull?

Meaning that gravity does not encompass all of the Universe because in order for the gravitional field to effect the given area the largest spacial object in that solar system must be at least the mass of our sun. A smaller massed sun would not be able to keep the solar system held together.Meaning that there are areas of space void of any gravity based on the relative mass of the sun in each system.

How this relates to FTL travel. We know that gravity exerts a pull on a body which on a planet is called weight but in space is called mass. The larger a sun's mass is the more pull it will create on an vessel meaning that the vessel will have to use more thrust to escape the gravitational pull of the sun in question. But in an area outside of a sun's gravitational pull the mass of the vessel would be considerably less then if trying to goto FTL in system. This means that the vessel could attain higher flight velocities once outside a solar system. even a conventional rocket motor would reach new levels of velocity given the gravity of the solar system would diminish the farther the vessel got away from the sun.

Terraformer · 2007-11-24 06:21:09

You still have to go sub-light speed to get outside the system.

If only we could produce Tachyons. Expell them out the back and use some to cancel out the gain in mass as the craft accelerates to light speed.

If the Heim drive works that could be used to cancel out the gain in mass. The electromagnetic fields could be used to shield the craft.

How does FTL throw you back in time anyway. A craft accelerates to FTL, stops, looks back and sees their craft tak off. If they had gone back in time they could radio themselves. If they couldn't they are just seeing an illusion.

dryson · 2007-11-24 19:56:41

Time travel is not possible. In order to the past all of the atoms in the Universe would have to regain their lost biological properties of memory.
Since all matter is energy and once you use a certain amount of energy that amount cannot be re-gained.

Terraformer · 2007-11-25 07:16:49

I didn't say time travel was possible. I'm just saying Einstien may have been wrong about time travel.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-11-25 08:33:45

You can't go into the past, but you can possibly recreate it. With nanotechnology, it may be possible to create a duplicate Earth of some past era, or create a virtual world that does the same. If you were to step into such a world, it is hard to tell that you are not in the past. Nanotechnology would be able to create a very good facsimile of the past, and the gaps in our knowlege about the past can be filled in creatively and consistently with all the known facts of our historical database.

Terraformer · 2007-11-25 08:38:04

But you wouldn't actually be in the past. You could do that today with a load of *willing* actors.

New thread about time travel.

dryson · 2007-11-26 15:36:39

You can't go into the past, but you can possibly recreate it. With nanotechnology, it may be possible to create a duplicate Earth of some past era, or create a virtual world that does the same. If you were to step into such a world, it is hard to tell that you are not in the past. Nanotechnology would be able to create a very good facsimile of the past, and the gaps in our knowlege about the past can be filled in creatively and consistently with all the known facts of our historical database.

Time travel is not possible. All energetic matter in the Unvierse is non-biochemical energy, Atoms, quarks,protons,ect., all interact with one another through a certain type of order which can be re-positioned to create new elements and gases, chemicals ect.

This means that once the matter has used a certain amount of energy that is not biochemical it cannot regain the enrgy lost. Matter is not a sentient lifeform like we are. Lighting doesn't strike in places because it wanted to strike there, lighting struck in that area because that's where the process of lighting (see the process of how lightning works) struck as defined by how the ions and electrons function in the environment.

Matter from 5000 years ago cannot be re-gained, it is not sitting in limbo waiting to be re-born. If time travel were possible, then eversingle atom in the Universe would have to revert to that phase of energy from that time, but since energy and matter does not work like that time travel is not possible.

What is possible though is the whole world could collapse, with around 1000 surivivors that agree that the time that they began rebuilding was the time when everything began. They would have to get rid of eversingle
piece of history and every single piece of everything on the planet. Cars, homes, buildings, ect. This would be impossible to do as there would be people that would came after them and discover the remnants of a past that was not supposed to have been thus contradicting there story.

Time trime is impossible, an infinite impossiblity that is more impossible then FTL travel.

dryson · 2007-11-26 15:44:00

You still have to go sub-light speed to get outside the system.
If only we could produce Tachyons. Expell them out the back and use some to cancel out the gain in mass as the craft accelerates to light speed.
If the Heim drive works that could be used to cancel out the gain in mass. The electromagnetic fields could be used to shield the craft.
How does FTL throw you back in time anyway. A craft accelerates to FTL, stops, looks back and sees their craft tak off. If they had gone back in time they could radio themselves. If they couldn't they are just seeing an illusion.

Back on topic

What about stripping a nucleus of all it's protons and electrons then injecting the free nucleus (free of it's protons and electrons) into a vacuumed cavity. The atoms I would try to use are Hydrogen, Helium, ect
The elements that have thrust potential's when a flash point has been reached. Once the free nuclei have been injected into the cavity, they would then be combined with other either free nuclei or atoms of a energy producing nature. Hopefully in theory the free nucleui and atoms would combine to create a larger amount of energetic release to power a vessel. Perhaps this could be an early form of sublight drive.

"In order to break out of conventional theory, one must be unconventional in their thinking"

dryson · 2007-11-26 15:56:42

How does the stripping of an atom of all its protons and electrons relate to the topic? We know that gravity is energy. If light which is a form or energy cannot escape the gravity of a blackhole, then it can assumed that gravity is much more energetic then light. Because if gravity were not energy then gravity would be space, or the absence of any matteriec properties (matteriec pronounced (m a t t- e r- i c ) having the properties of an energetic material).

So since gravity is an energy that cannot be seen but can be measured then perhaps gravity is the nucleui of various elements that ahve been stripped of their electrons and protons but retain the interiro properties.

And with all types of energy, the one constant to be remembered is that the larger the area the energy covers,the larger the central energetic source emittinating the energy is relative to the mass of the core being either solid,gaseous, or liquid is.

Gravity is an energy and will diminsh the farther away one moves from the eminatting source.

maxie · 2007-11-27 04:33:15

How does the stripping of an atom of all its protons and electrons relate to the topic? We know that gravity is energy.

Gravity is energy ?! Since when ?! I thought gravitation is just a "geometric" measure for the spacetime curvature. You can approximate this most of the time by using Newton's theory as a force, but gravitation is much more then just a force/energy.

Terraformer · 2007-11-27 09:08:59

Einstien was wrong! Amazing! Now there's only one limitation on FTL!

JoshNH4H · 2007-11-28 15:33:16

huh?

Terraformer · 2007-11-29 06:31:19

Just because time slows down as you approach light speed, it doesn't automatically mean time goes backwards if you go FTL.

Say a ship went at 4c to alpha Centauri. When it reached Alpha Centauri the light would only be one quarter of the way there. If the craft turned round and came back at 2c, at the halfway point it would intercept any radio messages it had sent. It would be recieving info from the past. But, as those messages and the ship they'd see were only electromagnetic radiation, they wouldn't be able to communicate. As the craft approached Earth it would get an influx of Information that had been building up while they were gone.They'd land on Earth to find it was millions of yeas in the future whereas they had only experienced probably a few seconds.

If they were carrying a wormhole, then time travel would be possible. But you have that problem at sublight speeds as well.

dryson · 2007-11-30 20:00:57

Yes you are correct, but we have to remember that light is an energy. If one goes faster then light then that's all that would happen. It would be the same if two racers started aa race in city A and ran too city B 25 miles away. Racer a starts out very fast but is unable to go any faster then 10 mph, racer b starts out at the same speed as racer a, but half way through racer b gets an energy boost and finishes the race 10 miles ahead. Although racer b would have won, if racer b were to go back to where racer a was at when racer b finished the race time as you suggest would still be the same. Time is a measureable distance of how far an energetic body travels relative to that bodies produced energy and energy exerted against that body.

Time as you would suggest does not go back but can be portrayed as actors dressed up in costumes of that era.

The only issue about time that is real is that the now is gone, it is the past and cannot be regained, the future is only a planck moment away then it is gone. What we do today for tomorrow will be remembered when the future looks back and with a smile says thanks for keeping the faith, thanks for aspiring and imaging a world without limits, a world that reached into the unknown and brought them closer to where they are now.
They will say thanks to
A world that brought them closer to understanding to knowledge that we had to set out across the unknown. Not for capital, not for fame but because it was a necessary step towards knowing who we are in the Universe.

Keep thinking and do not allow those in the past that live in the now to keep the future from being born.

Up, Out and Beyond

dryson · 2007-11-30 20:05:05

Gravity is energy ?! Since when ?! I thought gravitation is just a "geometric" measure for the spacetime curvature. You can approximate this most of the time by using Newton's theory as a force, but gravitation is much more then just a force/energy

What is energy? Energy is a force that exerts a force on another or can be exerted upon. Space is the only non-energy in the Universe. Space can neither exert a force nor can it be exerted upon.

Since gravity effects light which does not have any mass then gravity has to be an energetic source otherwise the light would be able to escape a blackhole.

Terraformer · 2007-12-01 06:11:44

Where does the idea come that light has no mass? Has it been measured to have no mass? Or could it just be that light has less mass than any other particles? Of course, that is just tossing ideas around seeing as I know light is just electromagnetic waves.

I kne Einstien was wrong! Has anyone published a paper/article on it? Or could I be the first?

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-12-01 10:21:11

Light has no rest mass, because light is never at rest. Light does have mass relative to its energy though. Shorter wavelength light has greater relative mass than longer wavelength light. Light is just an energywave, you could stretch it out to nothing, also changing your velocity changes the mass of the light relative to you. The relationship of Mass to Energy is given by E = Mc^2. If you want the mass of a given amount of light you solve for M: M = E/(c^2). You take the total energy of the light as determined by its wavelength plug in the number for E then divide by the speed of light squared, and you have how much relative mass of the light there is.

samy · 2007-12-01 15:54:29

Light has no rest mass, because light is never at rest.

There are many things that are never at rest, yet do have rest mass. For example, every single atom in your body. Unless they have been chilled to absolute zero, they are not at rest currently, nor is it likely they will be at rest for millions of years to come. Thermal vibrations (temperature) will keep them moving perpetually. Yet, the atoms do have rest mass.

I would rather prove it in the inverse direction:

If light *did* have rest mass, then when light traveled at the speed of light, its mass would be increased to infinity. Since we have observed light traveling at the speed of light, it should have infinite mass when traveling at that speed. Momentum is mass times velocity. Infinite mass times velocity of light is a quite considerable number. By the law of conservation of momentum, when light hits something, it should impart an infinite amount of momentum onto whatever it hits. Since we are not blown apart whenever light hits us, it must be assumed that light has negligible momentum. If its momentum is negligible, either its mass or its velocity must be negligible. Since it is traveling at the speed of light, we know its velocity is not negligible. Therefore, light's mass must be negligible. Negligible = very small or zero. Since very small would have been increased to infinity by the velocity, only the zero option is valid. Therefore, light has zero mass. QED.

dryson · 2007-12-02 20:46:35

There are many things that are never at rest, yet do have rest mass. For example, every single atom in your body. Unless they have been chilled to absolute zero, they are not at rest currently, nor is it likely they will be at rest for millions of years to come. Thermal vibrations (temperature) will keep them moving perpetually. Yet, the atoms do have rest mass.
I would rather prove it in the inverse direction:
If light *did* have rest mass, then when light traveled at the speed of light, its mass would be increased to infinity. Since we have observed light traveling at the speed of light, it should have infinite mass when traveling at that speed. Momentum is mass times velocity. Infinite mass times velocity of light is a quite considerable number. By the law of conservation of momentum, when light hits something, it should impart an infinite amount of momentum onto whatever it hits. Since we are not blown apart whenever light hits us, it must be assumed that light has negligible momentum. If its momentum is negligible, either its mass or its velocity must be negligible. Since it is traveling at the speed of light, we know its velocity is not negligible. Therefore, light's mass must be negligible. Negligible = very small or zero. Since very small would have been increased to infinity by the velocity, only the zero option is valid. Therefore, light has zero mass. QED.

But you are forgetting something very important, If there wasn't an Ozone layer protecting the Earth from the UV rays of the sun which is light, then we would most likely instantly be burnt, or the process of atoms releasing their energy at a faster rate then the body can keep them cooled. So yes light can burst items into flames, it matters what intensity the light is or is focused upon an item and the items flashpoint.

maxie · 2007-12-03 05:27:56

Since gravity effects light which does not have any mass then gravity has to be an energetic source otherwise the light would be able to escape a blackhole.

Light doesn't escape a black hole not because is "drawn" toward the "gravitational source" by some form of "energy", but because the space itself around a black hole is curved up to the point where it is *closed*.

If you were a photon in a light beam inside a black hole's horizon of events, you will "believe" that you are actually traveling in straight line (at least in your frame of reference). For an observer outside, you are "travelling in circles" inside the black hole's event horizon.

Picture this: you are a little tiny car, remote controlled, and you have been placed *inside* a big empty sphere, but with solid walls and no openings. No matter how much you drive in a straight line, you'll always remain in the sphere. You can never get out. I hope this is a understandable analogy for the event horizon around a black hole and a light beam inside it.

There is no "energy" implied at all in this scenario. Just the spacetime which is closed onto itself.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-12-03 12:16:48

Light has no rest mass, because light is never at rest.
There are many things that are never at rest, yet do have rest mass. For example, every single atom in your body. Unless they have been chilled to absolute zero, they are not at rest currently, nor is it likely they will be at rest for millions of years to come. Thermal vibrations (temperature) will keep them moving perpetually. Yet, the atoms do have rest mass.
I would rather prove it in the inverse direction:
If light *did* have rest mass, then when light traveled at the speed of light, its mass would be increased to infinity. Since we have observed light traveling at the speed of light, it should have infinite mass when traveling at that speed. Momentum is mass times velocity. Infinite mass times velocity of light is a quite considerable number. By the law of conservation of momentum, when light hits something, it should impart an infinite amount of momentum onto whatever it hits. Since we are not blown apart whenever light hits us, it must be assumed that light has negligible momentum. If its momentum is negligible, either its mass or its velocity must be negligible. Since it is traveling at the speed of light, we know its velocity is not negligible. Therefore, light's mass must be negligible. Negligible = very small or zero. Since very small would have been increased to infinity by the velocity, only the zero option is valid. Therefore, light has zero mass. QED.

By "at rest" I mean any object that is moving at a velocity that is not at the speed of light. An electron is at rest relative to its own frame of reference if it is travelling all by itself and not interacting with any forces or other particles, so if you match velocities with a lone electron then relative to you, that particle is at rest and you can measure its rest mass. So I guess this means that any object or particle that you can match velocities with has a rest mass, those that you cannot match velocities with, because it is traveling at the speed of light, have no rest mass, they only have a relative mass to your current velocity. People moving at different velocities will measure different relative masses for the same photon for instance.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-11-19 15:52:46

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#2 2007-11-24 06:21:09

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#3 2007-11-24 19:56:41

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#4 2007-11-25 07:16:49

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#5 2007-11-25 08:33:45

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#6 2007-11-25 08:38:04

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#7 2007-11-26 15:36:39

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#8 2007-11-26 15:44:00

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#9 2007-11-26 15:56:42

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#10 2007-11-27 04:33:15

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#11 2007-11-27 09:08:59

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#12 2007-11-28 15:33:16

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#13 2007-11-29 06:31:19

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#14 2007-11-30 20:00:57

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#15 2007-11-30 20:05:05

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#16 2007-12-01 06:11:44

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#17 2007-12-01 10:21:11

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#18 2007-12-01 15:54:29

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#19 2007-12-02 20:46:35

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#20 2007-12-03 05:27:56

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

#21 2007-12-03 12:16:48

Re: Gravtity not present throughout the Universe

Board footer