Gravitational Attraction

More
22 years 5 months ago #2434 by dholeman
Replied by dholeman on topic Reply from Don Holeman
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
At the same time the lightwaves are losing energy to the graviton medium, the latter medium is gaining energy lost by the lightwaves. This replaces the energy deposited in bodies such as planets and stars during graviton collisions. So the universe does not run down in this process. If one considers the universe at large, the energy books are balanced.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

One of the thermodynamic laws seems (to me) to be missing from this explaination, the one dealing with entropy....

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 5 months ago #2435 by tvanflandern
This discussion crosses with the one in "Big Bang dogma", where I mentioned that gravity organizes chaos (clouds of gas and dust) into planets, stars, and galaxies; and this can only be reversed by doing work, as in a supernova explosion. So, while electromagnetic forces are entropic (entropy or disorder always increases unless work is done), gravitational forces are always anti-entropic (entropy and disorder always decrease unless work is done).

On average, over an infinite number of forces of nature operating in an infinite range of scale, the entropic and anti-entropic forces balance too, leaving the universe as a whole unchanged. If it were otherwise, the universe could not be infinite in space and time, let alone scale. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 5 months ago #2442 by ohlman
Replied by ohlman on topic Reply from Vaughn Ohlman


This is intriguing. I would be interested in what you mean by "infinite in time" here... since, of course, time cannot be infinit in the backwards direction( as this would state that "an infinite time has passed", a clear contradiction in terms).

Also, I thought that the second law clearly stated that in any closed system the overall entropy was always increasing. Has this law been repealed?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 5 months ago #2443 by ohlman
Replied by ohlman on topic Reply from Vaughn Ohlman
If this is correct (the idea about gravitons losing energy, which then gets turned into lightwaves, which turn in to gravitic energy, etc.) then the actual gravity of objects decreases over distance due to this *friction* and not merely the standard formula. (Since of course the newly created gravity would not be *traveling* in the same direction as that which had created it, and thus the system as a whole would be becoming less directed.)And indeed is not this a sort of gravitic entropy?? And does this imply that object near to a large gravity source (such as a black hole) are then *heavier* when measured in their relationship with third object??

An intruiging discussion.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 5 months ago #2479 by tvanflandern
> [ohlman]: I would be interested in what you mean by "infinite in time" here... since, of course, time cannot be infinite in the backwards direction (as this would state that "an infinite time has passed", a clear contradiction in terms).

By "the dimension of time is infinite", I mean that time has no boundaries or termination in either direction, future or past. So yes, an infinite time has already passed. I see no contradiction in terms. Perhaps if you examined how this follows as a necessary condition of any real universe (as opposed to mathematical or thought universes) in the Meta Model (as developed in "Dark Matter, ..."), and is not merely some axiom or personal philosophy, the apparent contradiction would be resolved.

To take but one of several such lines of thought, Zeno's paradoxes show that time must be infinitely divisible for motion or change to be possible. But if infinitely divisible, then an infinite number of time components pass by in every nanosecond, just as they do in every trillion years. So it becomes rather irrelevant how long time lasts because it is just a measure of change, and therefore occurs at different effective rates at different scales.

> [ohlman]: Also, I thought that the second law clearly stated that in any closed system the overall entropy was always increasing. Has this law been repealed?

This law is correct at the scale it applies to -- phenomena involving the light-carrying medium (i.e., all electric, magnetic, and mechanical forces). It is incomplete when other scales are included in the picture, as I described earlier. This characteristic of the 2nd law is unique to the Meta Model, as far as I know.

> [ohlman]: If this is correct (the idea about gravitons losing energy, which then gets turned into lightwaves, which turn in to gravitic energy, etc.) then the actual gravity of objects decreases over distance due to this *friction* and not merely the standard formula.

The range of gravitational force is indeed finite -- about one kiloparsec. This is explained in "Possible new properties of gravity", and explains why the character of the law of gravity seems to change for large-scale structures.

> [ohlman]: (Since of course the newly created gravity would not be *traveling* in the same direction as that which had created it, and thus the system as a whole would be becoming less directed.) And indeed is not this a sort of gravitic entropy?? And does this imply that object near to a large gravity source (such as a black hole) are then *heavier* when measured in their relationship with third object??

You lost me here. All objects are heavier in a stronger gravitational field even in Newtonian gravity. Objects do gain energy (which has a mass equivalent) by absorbing gravitons, but they radiate that energy away as heat, and stay in thermodynamic equilibrium. If something disturbs that equilibrium, the planet would be at risk to explode in short order.

As I explained in the Big Bang thread, with respect to entropy, all actions add entropy to one medium while they take it from another. From instant to instant, the entropy of the universe never changes. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
22 years 5 months ago #2446 by ohlman
Replied by ohlman on topic Reply from Vaughn Ohlman
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
> [ohlman]: I would be interested in what you mean by "infinite in time" here... since, of course, time cannot be infinite in the backwards direction (as this would state that "an infinite time has passed", a clear contradiction in terms).

By "the dimension of time is infinite", I mean that time has no boundaries or termination in either direction, future or past. So yes, an infinite time has already passed. I see no contradiction in terms.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

When I say “contradiction in terms” I am speaking as a linguist and layman not a scientist. Nor am I particularly inserting my own particular philosophy (any more than one always does as a mortal, anyway).

The definition of “infinite time” that I normally use explicitly includes the quality “unfinishable”. The definition I use for “has passed” is linguistically equivalent to “has finished”. Thus they are explicit contradictions (an unfinishable event has finished).

For and example, the number zero “goes into” the number four an infinite number of times.... as each addition of zero gains us no ground toward the progression toward “four-ness”. Thus to say “I have *finished* transporting four tons of sand by transporting no sand on each trip” is (barring outside agencies) a simply non-sensical statement.

This same problem is reflected when one attempts, using finite amounts, to fill an infite bucket, etc.

Similary one cannot say, and stay within the bounds of linguistic meaning: “I traveled an infinite amount of distance to arrive at this point” or “This book is infinitely long” (altho I have read books....)

Thus, using the terms in their normal linguistic sense “an infite amount of time has passed” is a contradiction in terms.

(A Christian hymn reflects this interesting thought, when it says (about believers in heaven) “When we’ve been there ten thousand years... we’ve no less days [to be in heaven]... then when we’d first begun.”)


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.271 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum