"Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"

[lancaIV]

the corrections applied are all electromagnetic effects.  Gravity does NOT bend light.
But magnetism does all the time - in crystal lenses for instance.  and hence the dark 'matter' isn't matter at all, but magnetic fields...

"light (wind)shadow" ?
How great is a "Komet"-core and how long his "Schweif/wing" ? (Material ? Movement direction !)

Sincerely
               OCL

[Khwartz]

Dear Verpies, thanks for sharing the link to this very relevant page, i.m.o.:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-suconv.asp

Here a "short" excerpt of I would like to react on:

"Unfortunately, the term 'dimension', has two completely different meanings, both of which are going to be used in this paper, so the reader should be aware of both meanings in order to apply the correct meaning of the word according to the context in which it is being used. In mathematics the 'dimension' of a space is roughly defined as the mimimum number of coordinates needed to specify every point within it. For example the square has two dimensions since two coordinates, say x and y, can be used to specify any point within it. A cube has three dimensions since three coordinates, say x,y, and z, are enough to specify any point in space within it. In engineering and physics terminology, the term 'dimension' relates to the nature of a measurable quantity. In general, physical measurements that must be expressed in units of measurement, and quantities obtained by such measurements are dimensionful. Quantities like ratios and multiplying factors, with no physical units assigned to them are dimensionless. An example of a dimension is length, expressed in units of length, the meters, and an example of a dimensionless unit is Pi. An engineering dimension can thus be a measure of a corresponding mathematical dimension, for example, the dimension of length is a measure of a collection of small linked lines of unit length, which have a single dimension, and the dimension of area is a measure of a collection or grid of squares, which have two dimensions. Similarly the mathematical dimension of volume is three. The prefix 'hyper-' is usually used to refer to the four (and higher) dimensional analogs of three-dimensional objects, e.g. hypercube, hypersphere..."

You point out a important mistake here oftenly made, a little but significant and fundamental about "dimensions" in maths:

There is only a like "spaces" as the "physical space" in maths, and there are only ideal ABSTRACTS.

Since 3 MATHEMATICAL DIMENSION VECTORIAL SPACE can be used to express the 3 PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS, we tends to confuse them.

This is indeed the very reason many badly informed about maths, think that "relativist vortex" could exist as "a tonel" in "an other dimension" or "a door to an other universe".

This mistake comes from said "scientific journalism" which has shown an abstraction which has no physical space reality: the picture of a "gravitational vortex" in 3 physical dimensions.

Indeed, in these pic where the vortex is shown as a tunel, a hole without end in a 2 physical dimensions grid, we foget that 1 physical dimension has been suppressed to represent a MATHEMATICAL dimension, an ABSTRACT dimension (which represent the quantities that you call "PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS" and which I call "PHYSICAL MAGNITUDES" to not confuse with the 3 "PHYSICAL MAGNITUDES OF THE PHYSICAL SPACE" I call "PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS", but this may be discussed further).

This ABSTRACT/MATHEMATICAL 3rd dimension in these pictures stands for the INTENSITY of the gravitational force field.

I.m.o., the guy who first publish these graphs would have much better done to keep the MATHEMATICAL REPRESENTATION of the third PHYSICAL DIMENSION, and TO REPRESENT THE FIELD INTENSITY by colours going from light to dark, we would have not have so much confusion then in the mind of uninformed people about physics and maths.

In maths we can have "n-DIMENTIONAL SPACES", but these "SPACES" are pure "ABSTRACT SPACES", like as I said before "VECTORIAL SPACES", which are indeed AN ABSTRACTIVE GENERALISATION of  the MATHEMATICALLY (NEAR) EQUIVALENT 3 physical dimensions space.

In an "VECTORIAL SPACE", a "VECTOR" is just anything which has "n" number of ORDERRED "COMPONENTS", which can REPRESENTS each anything real or subjective QUALITY able to be expressed in terms QUANITITY. E.g.:

• 1rst component: the price of an object ;

• 2sd component: the cost of this object ;

• 3rd component: the number of buyers of this object ;

• 4th component: the delay this object to be sold ;

• 5th component: the degree of appreciation of this object by the customers, expressed as a grading/notation system.

This can by written like this:

• Vi(Ai, Bi, Ci, Di, Ei)

Where Vi is a one example of an ABSTRACTIVE VECTOR, and Ai, Bi, ..., the VALUES of each ORDERED QUANTITY exprissing this specific vector.


This is where the confusion takes place too in the "STRING THEORIES" speaking about 10 or more "dimensions". THESE DIMENSIONS ARE NOT///// PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS BUT MATEMATICAL DIMENSIONS REPRESENTING (PHYSICAL) MAGNITUDES! . But as for the counter-productive 3d representation of a gravitational wortex: more something looks crazy more it attracts interest from the large uninformed public and makes people talks and sells books... so it just continues and is nourish to be be continued! :/ (Which has nothing to do with the validity of the strings theories themselves which are absolutly relevant, at least mathematically.)

But true that MATHEMATICAL DIMENSIONS is very productively used as a TOOL to express any kind of "MAGNITUDE" in physics. Just we would all progress a few if we could realise more the very difference between the two concepts.

Note 1: In my terminology "MAGNITUDE" is hyperonyme of "PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS". Means that:

• "PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS" =>  "MAGNITUDE"

but it is not reversal ("PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS" are a case, an example of "MAGNITUDE" but there are other kind of "MAGNITUDES" in physics).

Note 2: We could label too the "PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS": "GEOMETRICAL DIMENSIONS", but as maths are concerned, it woul be a mistake cause "n-DIMENSIONS SETS" in maths, can have any imaginable "n-GEOMETRIES" inside while having nothing to do at all with THE 3 PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS but are pure ABSTRACTS.

Any way, for me your (?) paragraph, as subject and question to run through, is MOSTLY RELEVANT and is i.m.o. ONE OF THE MOST BASIC PROBLEM TO SOLVE TO GO ANY FURTHER IN PHYSICS.

Cheers.

[tinman]

Hi, tinman.

You stated that "the reason that a feather will fall at the same speed as a marble(in a vacume ofcourse),has nothing to do with the amount of mass" but here the trivial demonstration it has all to do with masses:

Indead, the equation:

• F [N] = g [m.s^-2] * M [kg]   (1)


is very known but we forget often that "g" depends on:

• M [kg]    (2)


where "M" is the Earth-mass ("m" will be here the mass of the object CONSIDERED as "falling down" on the surface of the Earth).

The truth as you could know is that both masses (object and Earth) are attracted with the same intensity and "fall on each other".

The complete equation is:

• F [N] = k [(m.s^-2)kg^-1] * (M [kg] * m [kg]) / d^2 [m^2]   (3)


Where " k [(m.s^-2)kg^-1]" is what I call personally (because of a generalisation I try to clear-up for any kind of energy): "SPECIFIC (ENERGETICAL) SENSIBILITY" OF THE "(ENERGETICAL) CHARGE" (here the MASS).

So, from (1) & (3) we can express "g" as A DIRECT FUNCTION of the  "CHARGES" involved:

• g [m.s^-2]  = k [(m.s^-2)kg^-1] * M [kg]  / d^2 [m^2]   (4)


So, you can see that ACCELERATION here is depending on the Earth-mass and of the "SPECIFIC SENSIBILITY" of the MASS (MASS = "GRAVITATIONAL CHARGE").

Correct me, anyone, if I have made any error in my maths

Cheers.

Hi Khwartz

Complicated mathmatics is wonderful stuff,is it not lol.
But the fact remains that a feather has less mass than that of the marble,and yet are effected by the acceleration of G the same???.
If we break it down to the atom,then gravity must have the same pull(if we will call it that)force on each of those atoms. So the more atoms(mass) you have,the heavier something will feel,but the acelleration of G will act on each atom with the same amount of force.
Maybe we should say(relative to earth)that the acelleration of G on the atom is 9.8m/s squared at sea level?.
If we exchange the feather for the moon,the acceleration of G will be the same.Only this time the earth will move more toward the moon than the earth moved toward the feather.
This is ofcourse as i stated,in a vacume where air resistance plays no part.This also dose not take into concideration magnetic fields of the two masses,which are secondary forces.

[Khwartz]

There is an experiment to measure gravity between two similarly sized, uncharged, non-magnetic objects. 
When the difference between the two is great, then the smaller is neglegable in effect of accelerating the other.  It does not additionally accelerate itself, only the other.

I does accelerate too, relatively to the center of gravity of the system. But true, and it was what I told you, we can neglige it, but "negliging" does means it does exist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#History_of_measurement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation


I've misremembered the equations  


F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2  in m-s^-2

No, it is kg.m-s^-2, so Netowns of course.

where:
F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant, (arbitrary scale conversion factor)
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.




newton did propose a correction factor for gravity...
F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2 + B * m1 * m2 / r^3;  // look a B field
kepler had something to do with that....


... I don't remember... the forces exerpted are not symetrical, and the gravitational acceleration of the object never accelerates itself.
It's not equal and opposite halves added together.


Under a constant of a different cosmic scale of object vs another insignificant object simplifies to just


F = g m d^-2


g = gravity constant for the gravity field reference
m = is mass
d = is distance of the mass from (the center of mass)
...


okay so if I approach this as a limit...


as m2 approaches 0 compared to m1....


F = G * m1 * 0 ; no that doesn't work...


I should sleep on it maybe


-------------
re notes on relativity being better than newton for explaining things...
Ug nevermind, I can't even bear to read that.
Yes it just a bunch of mislabled words, but it's the same thing the dyslexic russian alphabet does to me.  P is R and H is N and there's like 12 B's


the corrections applied are all electromagnetic effects.  Gravity does NOT bend light.
But magnetism does all the time - in crystal lenses for instance.  and hence the dark 'matter' isn't matter at all, but magnetic fields... measuring distance star light bend around the sun, or bend around jupiter is equally pointless not having seperated the extreme magnetic fields both of these have.

Could you prouve or deminstrate gravity doesn't bend light please?

[Khwartz]

Hi Khwartz

Complicated mathmatics is wonderful stuff,is it not lol.
But the fact remains that a feather has less mass than that of the marble,and yet are effected by the acceleration of G the same???.
If we break it down to the atom,then gravity must have the same pull(if we will call it that)force on each of those atoms. So the more atoms(mass) you have,the heavier something will feel,but the acelleration of G will act on each atom with the same amount of force.
Maybe we should say(relative to earth)that the acelleration of G on the atom is 9.8m/s squared at sea level?.
If we exchange the feather for the moon,the acceleration of G will be the same.Only this time the earth will move more toward the moon than the earth moved toward the feather.
This is ofcourse as i stated,in a vacume where air resistance plays no part.This also dose not take into concideration magnetic fields of the two masses,which are secondary forces.

Sorry tinman, but indeed the acceleration of moon will be higher, respect to the formulas. An astronef for example (respect to the same distance), will "fall" faster towards Sun surface than Earth and less again towards Moon surface.

For your other considerations, need to recharge my mobile battery to answer you futher! Lol (or to go on a comp somewhere ).