- Thank you received: 0
Gravitons and Push Gravity question.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
19 years 10 months ago #12139
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />Will a stationary atomic clock and a fast spinning atomic clock keep the same time?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That would depend on construction. There is no essential reason why spin should affect a clock. But to the extent that the spin affects speeds in the cesium/rubidium atomic transitions, then that rotational speed will affect the clock's output too.
For example, an atomic clock on Earth's equator shares Earth's spin in a way that is just like translational speed through the local gravity field. By contrast, an atomic clock at the north pole also shares Earth's spin, but not in a way that simulates translational motion. -|Tom|-
<br />Will a stationary atomic clock and a fast spinning atomic clock keep the same time?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That would depend on construction. There is no essential reason why spin should affect a clock. But to the extent that the spin affects speeds in the cesium/rubidium atomic transitions, then that rotational speed will affect the clock's output too.
For example, an atomic clock on Earth's equator shares Earth's spin in a way that is just like translational speed through the local gravity field. By contrast, an atomic clock at the north pole also shares Earth's spin, but not in a way that simulates translational motion. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
19 years 10 months ago #12389
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
[Jim] "So, it would be a good thing if a way could be found to calculate how much the object velocity is retarded due to the fact the mass is not centered."
It has been done. You will probably find one or more homework problems covering this in most second year physics text books.
For the simplest case (spherical planet with uniform density) the drop in gravitational acceleration with depth as you descend below the surface is linear. IOW, full surface gravity at r = R (at the surface), half of surface gravity at r = R/2, 10% of surface gravity at r = R/10, and zero at r = 0 (at the center).
This would appear to be a "velocity retardation" compared to an object falling in a constant g field.
LB
It has been done. You will probably find one or more homework problems covering this in most second year physics text books.
For the simplest case (spherical planet with uniform density) the drop in gravitational acceleration with depth as you descend below the surface is linear. IOW, full surface gravity at r = R (at the surface), half of surface gravity at r = R/2, 10% of surface gravity at r = R/10, and zero at r = 0 (at the center).
This would appear to be a "velocity retardation" compared to an object falling in a constant g field.
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 10 months ago #12275
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
LB, The estimate of the rate of acceleration is easy to make but how much is the period retarded due to this happening? I'm sure you will agree the period would be as per Kepler's 3rd law if the orbit was calculated with the mass focused at a center point. But with this example the mass is not at a central point. The motion would be a round orbit if angular momentum was factored in and the period would be the same whatever the amount of angular momentum.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 10 months ago #11022
by north
perhaps i'm missing or overlooked something here but where is it that the diameter of Jim's hole has been defined? no matter its location!!
i find this detail significant.
Replied by north on topic Reply from
perhaps i'm missing or overlooked something here but where is it that the diameter of Jim's hole has been defined? no matter its location!!
i find this detail significant.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 10 months ago #12093
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Hi North. The hole is through a sphere and is big enough to allow an object to pass through without friction. This is not something that can exist in the real world-it is just a model of ideal properties.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
19 years 10 months ago #12141
by north
Jim
good , lets go from here
since the ability of the gravitons to affect mass, is by the density of a mass, in the end , since from what i understand , gravitons have less effect in the center of this sphere of mass than at its surface , then what would happen if this hole was say , a 0.25 miles across and that a ton of lead was dropped from 10 miles above this hole. does the density of the lead(Pb) have the density to make the gravitons actions non-significant,or for that matter , gravity in any form? is the density of lead(Pb)enough to not allow any gravitational action upon it's self because of its density?
or does the density of the mass , matter? if not why not?
i think that the consentration or density of mass is important.
since it it is easier to stop a 50lb balloon(air spreads the weight) than a 50lb sphere of lead! no
Replied by north on topic Reply from
Jim
good , lets go from here
since the ability of the gravitons to affect mass, is by the density of a mass, in the end , since from what i understand , gravitons have less effect in the center of this sphere of mass than at its surface , then what would happen if this hole was say , a 0.25 miles across and that a ton of lead was dropped from 10 miles above this hole. does the density of the lead(Pb) have the density to make the gravitons actions non-significant,or for that matter , gravity in any form? is the density of lead(Pb)enough to not allow any gravitational action upon it's self because of its density?
or does the density of the mass , matter? if not why not?
i think that the consentration or density of mass is important.
since it it is easier to stop a 50lb balloon(air spreads the weight) than a 50lb sphere of lead! no
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.382 seconds