water trampoline orbit image
.
I don't mean like hydro electric damns where gravity pulls water down the river and into the damn creating electricity.
I'm just talking about gravity in general.
I think, everything has gravity.
Meaning that is must be some sort of force, meaning energy.
And most things "probably anything and everything through some way or another" you can transfer it into electrical energy.
#1 What causes gravity?
#2 Can't we use it in some way to directly, maybe through some machine to create electricity?
Also, If energy can not created or destroyed, then where is the gravitational force coming from?
Like what is the force pulling us down to the earth?
Where is it coming from?
Law of attraction? Well still, what is creating that energy?
Or what is holding that energy?
If is exists then it should be able to be used or transformed into energy.
I'm sure if they have water powered cars, "Yes they exist, they are nothing new, A small Japanese company is going to try to mass produce them soon, go look it up for yourself if you have doubts" eventually we might be ably to have air powered cars.
If we have all that eventually why can't we have gravity powered something?
Again, that is not energy.
Then what is it?
Answer
"#1 What causes gravity?"
Per Einstein's General Relativity, the currently most comprehensive description of gravity that Humanity has, Gravity is actually NOT a force at all. That was Newton's view. Albert said that what we perceive as an attractive force between massive bodies is actually a process of one body trying to move in a straight line within the vicinity of another body who's mass has induced a curvature on space(-time) in that region. The old analogy is a bowling ball on a trampoline with a golfball rolled past it. The golf ball will "orbit" the bowling ball that is sitting at the bottom of a depression in the rubber of the trampoline. The trampoline rubber is the fabric of space-time, the bowling ball is the sun, and the golf ball is earth. You can apply this to Earth-Moon system too. Now you zoom in on the golf ball so you can perceive its distortions to the trampoline rubber (very slight compared to the bowling ball-sun), and roll a copper BB past the golf ball....Same process occuring, just at different scales.
Einstein's GR (relatively enormous distances, massive gravity fields) can be reduced to Newton's Mechanics (relatively short distances and small gravity fields), which is what I tried to illustrate with the trampoline, bowling ball, golf ball, copper BB.
---------------------------------------------------
"Like what is the force pulling us down to the earth? ...[Gravity, damn it.]
Where is it coming from? [Newton's answer, or Einstein's?]
Law of attraction? Well still, what is creating that energy? [Ah, Newton then]
Or what is holding that energy?
If is exists then it should be able to be used or transformed into energy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Newton said Gravity is a Force. What did he say caused that Force? He didn't. In fact he explicitly wrote that he was leaving that up to others to determine; he was comfortable to let the Force be "caused" by God's simple willing it to be.
Einstein said Gravity is not Force, it is a particular geometry of space-time (he used Reimmann Geometry) that for us APPEARS as forces acting between bodies at a distance.
Neither viewed Gravity as Energy, and only one thought of it as a force. But Newton understood that Forces are not Energy, and Energy is not a Force. Indeed the concept or term "Force" was introduced by Newton as that "mysterious causative agent" of attraction. We've gotten used to it since then.
I like to believe Humans could devise a device that could induce gravitational fields, which give rise to gravitational force, which could be used to move objects....sure, why not? But you should see immediately that this is quite some ways off. If we go purely by Einstein's GR, we need HUGE gravitational fields that would be our doom. But if we can develop a physically accurate synthesis of the Quantum and GR, so that we can induce and control microscale process related to gravity (hahaha, i said microscale...quite a bit smaller than that actually) maybe we could get something small enough to put in a cupboard but able to generate fields high enough to get some real work done. Think: It takes the whole earth to get our grav field (the downward acceleration we experience). How big a bowling ball would you have to pop out of thin air so that nearby objects "think" they are too high off the "ground" and fall toward the object? How close would the bowling ball have to be to exert this accelerating attraction? Pop the bowling ball up in the corner of the kitchen, and it would be cool to have it drag your garbage from all around the house then (after deactivating) drop it into the waste basket...!!!!!! Only the future will tell.
"#1 What causes gravity?"
Per Einstein's General Relativity, the currently most comprehensive description of gravity that Humanity has, Gravity is actually NOT a force at all. That was Newton's view. Albert said that what we perceive as an attractive force between massive bodies is actually a process of one body trying to move in a straight line within the vicinity of another body who's mass has induced a curvature on space(-time) in that region. The old analogy is a bowling ball on a trampoline with a golfball rolled past it. The golf ball will "orbit" the bowling ball that is sitting at the bottom of a depression in the rubber of the trampoline. The trampoline rubber is the fabric of space-time, the bowling ball is the sun, and the golf ball is earth. You can apply this to Earth-Moon system too. Now you zoom in on the golf ball so you can perceive its distortions to the trampoline rubber (very slight compared to the bowling ball-sun), and roll a copper BB past the golf ball....Same process occuring, just at different scales.
Einstein's GR (relatively enormous distances, massive gravity fields) can be reduced to Newton's Mechanics (relatively short distances and small gravity fields), which is what I tried to illustrate with the trampoline, bowling ball, golf ball, copper BB.
---------------------------------------------------
"Like what is the force pulling us down to the earth? ...[Gravity, damn it.]
Where is it coming from? [Newton's answer, or Einstein's?]
Law of attraction? Well still, what is creating that energy? [Ah, Newton then]
Or what is holding that energy?
If is exists then it should be able to be used or transformed into energy."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So Newton said Gravity is a Force. What did he say caused that Force? He didn't. In fact he explicitly wrote that he was leaving that up to others to determine; he was comfortable to let the Force be "caused" by God's simple willing it to be.
Einstein said Gravity is not Force, it is a particular geometry of space-time (he used Reimmann Geometry) that for us APPEARS as forces acting between bodies at a distance.
Neither viewed Gravity as Energy, and only one thought of it as a force. But Newton understood that Forces are not Energy, and Energy is not a Force. Indeed the concept or term "Force" was introduced by Newton as that "mysterious causative agent" of attraction. We've gotten used to it since then.
I like to believe Humans could devise a device that could induce gravitational fields, which give rise to gravitational force, which could be used to move objects....sure, why not? But you should see immediately that this is quite some ways off. If we go purely by Einstein's GR, we need HUGE gravitational fields that would be our doom. But if we can develop a physically accurate synthesis of the Quantum and GR, so that we can induce and control microscale process related to gravity (hahaha, i said microscale...quite a bit smaller than that actually) maybe we could get something small enough to put in a cupboard but able to generate fields high enough to get some real work done. Think: It takes the whole earth to get our grav field (the downward acceleration we experience). How big a bowling ball would you have to pop out of thin air so that nearby objects "think" they are too high off the "ground" and fall toward the object? How close would the bowling ball have to be to exert this accelerating attraction? Pop the bowling ball up in the corner of the kitchen, and it would be cool to have it drag your garbage from all around the house then (after deactivating) drop it into the waste basket...!!!!!! Only the future will tell.
Hypothetical question about Special Relativity and Newton's Law of Gravity...?
Corruptor
Albert Einstein published his paper on the Special Theory of Relativity. One consequence of this theory was that nothing could travel THROUGH space faster than the speed of light. This extended beyond material things: information and the effects of force fi elds were included too. Einstein realised that this was not compatible with Newtonâs Law of Gravitation which implied âinstantaneous action at a distanceâ. I have stressed the word âthroughâ. It IS INDEED possible for the expansion of space to carry objects apart faster than the speed of light â indeed we believe that this happened during a period called âinfl ationâ close to the origin of the universe. Imagine making a currant bun: currants are packed tightly into the dough which is then placed into an oven. When cooked, one hopes that the dough will have expanded, increasing the separation of the currants. They have not moved THROUGH the dough, but have been carried apart by the EXPANSION of the dough.
Perhaps a thought experiment will help to make the incompatibility of Newtonâs theory with special relativity clear. Suppose that the Sun could suddenly cease to exist. Under Newtonâs gravity, where the effect of a change in mass would be instantly felt throughout the universe, the Earth would immediately fl y off at a tangent. Einstein realised that this could not be the case. Not only would we not be aware of the demise of the Sun for 8.31 min â the time that light takes to travel from the Sun to the Earth â but the Earth must continue to feel the gravitational effects of the Sun for just the same time, and would only fl y off at a tangent at the moment we ceased to see the Sun. This assumes, of course, that whatever carries the information about the gravitational fi eld of the
No comments:
Post a Comment