Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

[querious]

I like to think of energy's ability to curve spacetime not so much as a cause-effect relation, but more like a reciprocal relationship. Think of curved spacetime as concentrated energy.

I thought mass was concentrated energy??

And I agree.

In other words, curvature is as much a concentration of energy, as energy is a concentration (curvature) of spacetime.

Then shouldn't we observe gravitational and temporal distortions in the vicinity of high energy concentrations, such as lightening and power plants?

Well, IF we could measure such minute changes, yes. However, neither of those things possess nearly as much mass-energy as the air molecules (in the case of electrons traveling, i.e. lightning) or the buildings/machinery those processes are already proximate to.

[Pi sees]

I like to think of energy's ability to curve spacetime not so much as a cause-effect relation, but more like a reciprocal relationship. Think of curved spacetime as concentrated energy.

I thought mass was concentrated energy??

And I agree.

So you're saying that mass and (empty) spacetime are really the same thing?

In other words, curvature is as much a concentration of energy, as energy is a concentration (curvature) of spacetime.

Then shouldn't we observe gravitational and temporal distortions in the vicinity of high energy concentrations, such as lightening and power plants?

Well, IF we could measure such minute changes, yes. However, neither of those things possess nearly as much mass-energy as the air molecules (in the case of electrons traveling, i.e. lightning) or the buildings/machinery those processes are already proximate to.

No, but they do possess a high concentration of energy relative to the surrounding environment. We should therefore be able to notice temporal and gravitational distortion effects in the close vicinity of things like high voltage power lines and large generators, particularly over the long term. I have never heard of anomalous deviations in gravity measurements or clock rates being recorded at such locations.

[querious]

I like to think of energy's ability to curve spacetime not so much as a cause-effect relation, but more like a reciprocal relationship. Think of curved spacetime as concentrated energy.

I thought mass was concentrated energy??

And I agree.

So you're saying that mass and (empty) spacetime are really the same thing?

Yes, since mass is just a byproduct of all trapped energy, in whatever form. But, since MATTER (defined here as quarks & leptons) is fundamentally massless, it may or may not be "made" of spacetime. I don't know. The Higgs field is what confers mass onto matter, and it takes energy to do so, as an add-on.

No, but they do possess a high concentration of energy relative to the surrounding environment. We should therefore be able to notice temporal and gravitational distortion effects in the close vicinity of things like high voltage power lines and large generators, particularly over the long term. I have never heard of anomalous deviations in gravity measurements or clock rates being recorded at such locations.

All those things are way too small compared to the mass-energy of the Earth, which masks our ability to measure them separately.

[willendure]

Another argument that disproves that electrical dipoles can be responsible for gravity: the path of light is bent by massive objects, such as stars. Unlike the hydrogen atoms used as examples to illustrate dipole gravity, light has no such regions of positive and negative charge separated by some small distance to give it a dipole characteristic, yet gravity still influences it.

It is not so much that matter attracts matter, but that concentrations of energy attract, and the two are related by E=Mc^2.

This also explains why things like high voltage lines do not create gravity effects, since their gravity equivalent mass is given by M = E / c^2. This M compared with the mass of the earth is tiny, because c is a biggish number. So compared with earths gravity, we do not notice these tiny effects.

[Bengt Nyman]

... light has no such regions of positive and negative charge separated by some small distance to give it a dipole characteristic, yet gravity still influences it.

If you know the exact structure of a photon, please tell the rest of us.

[antosarai]

If you know the exact structure of a photon, please tell the rest of us.

Shouldn't you be honest in your arguments?

[willendure]

... light has no such regions of positive and negative charge separated by some small distance to give it a dipole characteristic, yet gravity still influences it.

If you know the exact structure of a photon, please tell the rest of us.

We know it doesn't have a dipole, otherwise they could be made to move or oscillate in such a way that they caused more photons to be released - perhaps in some kind of runaway chain reaction even! - and this has never been observed. Its check-mate for your daft hypothesis Bengt.

[nick c]

the path of light is bent by massive objects, such as stars

Sorry willendure, we are not buying such statements. We have seen the expression "confirmation bias" used recently in this forum, and I think that it applies here.
See this paper:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/eclipse/index.html

This paper shows how all the experiments claiming the deflection of light and radio waves by the Sun are subjected to very large systematic errors, which render the results highly unreliable and proving nothing.

also:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... ylens1.htm

Einstein's supporters, which encompass most of the present mainstream science, have a disturbing tendency to make unsupported claims or claims of verification when there are alternative and sometimes better explanations.

[Bengt Nyman]

Thank You Nick !
I don't know that it is established that all forms of optical refraction, diffraction and lensing are caused by the same mechanism. We certainly do not blame the optical effects of lenses or prisms on gravity.

[willendure]

the path of light is bent by massive objects, such as stars

Sorry willendure, we are not buying such statements.

Well, fair enough, I am not totally convinced that light is bent by gravity either. I stand by the assertion that photons are not dipoles though.

[seasmith]

willendure wrote: I stand by the assertion that photons are not dipoles though.

To echo Bengt's question, what is it being termed "photons"?

Light itself is not dipolar because it is essentially charge, and charge is primary.
Photons, as a consequence of light, may have opposite spins, just like electrons.

Google "Spin Hall effect fundamental property of light", or see Science (doi: 10.1126/science.aaa9519) .
Evanescent waves/surface plasmons (which decay exponentially) are the electrical analogs of so-called photons, and may be observed empirically in a laboratory.

[Pi sees]

I like to think of energy's ability to curve spacetime not so much as a cause-effect relation, but more like a reciprocal relationship. Think of curved spacetime as concentrated energy.

I thought mass was concentrated energy??

And I agree.

So you're saying that mass and (empty) spacetime are really the same thing?

Yes, since mass is just a byproduct of all trapped energy, in whatever form. But, since MATTER (defined here as quarks & leptons) is fundamentally massless, it may or may not be "made" of spacetime. I don't know. The Higgs field is what confers mass onto matter, and it takes energy to do so, as an add-on.

Mass is trapped energy, not merely a byproduct of it. The alleged Higgs field seems like shaky grounds upon which to claim that all matter is fundamentally massless (and at any rate, I thought matter had mass by definition). I could see how the presence of mass might distort EM fields and rarefied plasmas in its vicinity, but that is not the same thing as distorting "spacetime" itself.

No, but they do possess a high concentration of energy relative to the surrounding environment. We should therefore be able to notice temporal and gravitational distortion effects in the close vicinity of things like high voltage power lines and large generators, particularly over the long term. I have never heard of anomalous deviations in gravity measurements or clock rates being recorded at such locations.

All those things are way too small compared to the mass-energy of the Earth, which masks our ability to measure them separately.

So we can measure the ridiculously tiny "gravitational" attraction between two lead spheres on the Earth's surface, but not the curvature of spacetime that would supposedly occur in close proximity to high-level energy concentrations such as those in transmission lines and large generators (even over a period of months or years)?

[willendure]

willendure wrote: I stand by the assertion that photons are not dipoles though.

To echo Bengt's question, what is it being termed "photons"?

Light itself is not dipolar because it is essentially charge, and charge is primary.
Photons, as a consequence of light, may have opposite spins, just like electrons.

Google "Spin Hall effect fundamental property of light", or see Science (doi: 10.1126/science.aaa9519) .
Evanescent waves/surface plasmons (which decay exponentially) are the electrical analogs of so-called photons, and may be observed empirically in a laboratory.

Photons have spin, but no charge.

[willendure]

So we can measure the ridiculously tiny "gravitational" attraction between two lead spheres on the Earth's surface, but not the curvature of spacetime that would supposedly occur in close proximity to high-level energy concentrations such as those in transmission lines and large generators (even over a period of months or years)?

As I say M=E/c^2. Even though you think there is a lot of energy in a transmission line, when divided by the speed of light squared, its mass equivalent is tiny. Much easier to get a measurable effect with two balls of lead.

[antosarai]

Einstein's supporters, which encompass most of the present mainstream science, have a disturbing tendency to make unsupported claims or claims of verification when there are alternative and sometimes better explanations.

Is General Relativity an explanation to gravity bending light?

Or is gravity's light bending a prediction of General Relativity?