A Test to Prove Gravity Has Mass

[quantumtangles]

Avoid mud-wrestling with a pig.

You will both get dirty....but the pig will enjoy it.

[brantc]

It is possible to prove gravity has mass mathematically.

Background

Per Einstein, E = m*c2

Energy = mass x (speed of light squared)

This formula is not dissimilar to Newton's famous equation:

F = m*a

Force = mass x acceleration

Hypothesis

Gravity is a force. All types of force contain energy. Energy and mass are different forms of the same thing (note the all important equal sign in einstein's equation) which is to say they cannot exist independently of one another.

Consider for example a wave on the ocean. The wave is comprised of two essential components. Mass and energy. If one were to remove either one of these components, the wave would cease to be a wave.

On an atomic level, all atoms have mass. However, if they lacked energy, they would cease to be atoms.

It is not possible to remove all energy from an atom. To do so would require lowering the temperature of the atom to zero degrees kelvin (which is impossible). The closest one may come to this is a Bose-einstein condensate (a few millionths of a degree above absolute zero) when atoms begin to enter a state of non-existence.

They begin to enter a state of non-existence because quantum probability (in terms of quanta) is about to become quantum certainty, and nature does not merely abhor certainty. It forbids its existence (on a quantum level). 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate

Lene Vestergaard Hau led a team from Harvard in 1999 and slowed a beam of light to 17 m/s using a superfluid. So Bose-Einstein condensates are fun to play with (if you can get the funding).

Accordingly there cannot be energy unless there is mass, and there cannot be mass unless there is energy.

Conclusion

As gravity (being a force) has energy, accordingly gravity must also have mass.

I respectfully suggest the test the subject of this thread is unnecessary. It is mathematically impossible for gravity to be massless.

Does the universe agree with you??

[quantumtangles]

Does the universe agree with you??

Good question. This is an answer.

I am comprised of atoms and subatomic particles. I operate electrically (despite there being low voltages within my central nervous system of approximately
-0.04 volts to +0.08 volts).

Accordingly I am comprised of matter and energy just like everything else in the universe. Whether I prefer to consider myself a warrior poet, a bag of skin or a tube with a ganglion and teeth makes no difference. I am still comprised of matter and energy. My thoughts are miniature electrical storms which are of little consequence in the grand scheme of things.

Some of my thoughts spring from boolean algebraic logic (binary...true or false logic), one of two basic topoi I have at my disposal.

Other thoughts or algorithms are emotional (emotions are the assignment of value).

So I can say 'true or false' and I can say 'like love hate indifferent'.

Splendid.

This melange of logic and emotion generate all the algorithms contained in the miniature electrical storms of my primitive ganglion.

Electrical storms or not. On any reasonable view I do not constitute all matter and energy in the universe. Merely some of it. Indeed a very small part of it.

Accordingly, I am a subset of the totality of all matter and energy.

This perfectly defines me as it perfectly defines any other artefact or organism.

Now we must define the universe. Much easier.

The universe is the totality or sum of all matter and energy. All of it.

This subset (me) does not exist outside the universe. Plainly I exist inside it. There has only ever been one event (the expansion of the universe) and it is still happening and I am part of it. Not outside it.

Accordingly, a subset of the universe agrees with me because that subset is me.

So in answer to your question, part of the universe agrees with me because part of the universe is me.

Admittedly other subsets may not agree.

If however these other subsets properly use mathematics to calculate the correct answer, then they would, if reasonable, agree with this subset.

Whether or not they are reasonable is entirely a matter for the subsets in question, which is to say, it is entirely a matter for other parts of the universe.

I pray in aid the central fact that there has never been a single occasion in the history of mathematics when it has ever been shown to be incorrect. Experimental data does not compare nearly so favourably.

[mdlarouche]

There are some really daum over educated people that think the mass of a object changes when the object is moving.
This is the proposed test to prove gravity has mass.
Accelerate a particle in a particle accelerator and measure the impact force of the particle in different gravitational fields.
If gravity does not have mass than the impact force of the particle will not change in different gravitational field.
But if gravity does have mass the impact force of the particle will change in different gravitational fields.

When a particle moves thru something that has mass, some of whatever the particle is moving thru is moving with the particle. When said particle makes a impact the force of the impact will be a combination of the mass and the momentum of both the particle and whatever it is moving thru.
So if gravity does not have mass than the impact force of the particle will not change in different gravitational fields. But if the impact force of the particle does change in different gravitational fields than gravity must have mass.
brian334
6/1/2011

I think what you are talking about is known as an "inelastic collision"... with regard to the collision side of things. I made a post on this thread http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1763.msg292419#msg292419 to describe what I think is happening in regard to it's particular topic so I won't bother to go off on this thread. I will say though that inelastic collisions can occur at the mechanical as well as the atomic level so there is some common ground!

With regard to wether or not gravity has mass or not? My personal opinion is that it does not. It is a force. Otherwise any other known mass would be no different and would simply have energy all the time.

Mass has energy within it's bonds and when we break those bonds there is a release of energy... we call that fission. Mass is in what we call a state of assembly. Held together by nuclear bonds. It is not a gravity, nor is gravity a mass.

Again... just my personal opinion.

[brian334]

Anyone want to talk about the proposed test, or can you only post gibberish?

I will ask the question again. Why do you believe something so daum as the mass of a particle changes when it moves?

Show me one thing that changes in mass because it is moving.