# Gravity never zero

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Ivan, Dec 18, 2011.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
I am not denying BB . I am not denying the event of BB . BIG BANG might have happened 13.7 billion years ago to expand our Universe from the tiny point to its present infinite size .

But, what I am trying to say is that ; BB did not created the energy of our Universe . This energy was already existing before BB . So, it should not be considered that BB created our Universe ; as the energy was pre-existing .

I dont think so . We can lead a better life , if we know it all ; as the goal of science is to know the truth .

3. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
As far as the creation of our Universe is concerned ; I think we should still consider the Law that , " Mass and Energy neither can be created nor destroyed . " .

So, this can be said that ; " total mass and energy existing today in our Universe , was also existing at the beginning of our Universe . " .

5. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
Mass and Energy still interchangeable? Total mass/Energy and their variants constant or are you saying Mass constant , then Energy constant?

7. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
YES. Mass and Energy are interchangeable . This is as per Einstein's Equation E = MC^2 .

Total Mass/Energy and their variants constant .

8. ### Robittybob1BannedBanned

Messages:
4,199
so that comes back to energy then. That was my view too, that the Energy pre-existed the Big Bang. But it was a type revelation to me. So it has no scientific value as it is just a personal view. The input of the Energy becomes the Twelth Dimension. At the time they were finding 11 dimensions in the String Theory.
Have they gone beyond that now?

9. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
As stated above this can be misleading. I have said this before, the equation $E = mc^2$ describes the total energy associated with a specific rest mass. It does not describe the total energy of a mass that is not at rest.

What it does say is that there is some relationship between energy and mass. What it does not say is that all energy and mass are equivalent.

There is some debate about how much or what part heat as energy might play in gravitational mass, but this remains at present a theoretical debate, supported only by the fact that we can not separate the energy of an object associated with its rest mass from any heat energy the object also contains.

That discussion aside, energy and mass cannot be considered as "equivalent" in all respects and forms. At least not within the context of our current understanding, of general relativity and the standard model of particle physics.

10. ### EmilValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,801
Mass and energy in special relativity:

"The incorrect popular idea that mass may be converted to (massless) energy in relativity is because some matter particles may in some cases be converted to types of energy which are not matter (such as light, kinetic energy, and the potential energy in magnetic, electric, and other fields). However, this confuses "matter" (a non-conserved and ill-defined thing) with mass (which is well-defined and is conserved). Even if not considered "matter," all types of energy still continue to exhibit mass in relativity. Thus, mass and energy do not change into one another in relativity; rather, both are names for the same thing, and neither mass nor energy appear without the other. "Matter" particles may not be conserved in reactions in relativity, but closed-system mass always is."

Mass–energy equivalence:

"Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be "converted" to energy, but it allows for matter to be converted to energy. Through all such conversions, mass remains conserved, since it is a property of matter and any type of energy. In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter. Matter, when seen as certain types of particles, can be created and destroyed (as in particle annihilation or creation), but the system of precursors and products of such reactions, as a whole, retain both the original mass and energy, with each of these system properties remaining unchanged (conserved) throughout the process."

11. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
WiKi is not always the best source of accurate information. The begginning of your second link says almost exactly what I was saying....., then things begin to devolve into a discussion which attempts to reconcile outdated interpretations of mass and energy, with more contemporary understanding of what E = mc^2 means.

Mass is not well defined anywhere. If it were! particle physicists would not be looking for Higgs Bosons or other mechanisms to explain it.

The old concept of conservation of mass and energy as separate conversation mechanisms is just that old. The only way they make any sense today is where the balance of mass and energy is what is conserved. Consider the union of a proton and an antiproton. The result is no mass and a great deal of energy. No mass may be an inaccurate exaggeration, but the mass left is not equivalent to the initial mass involved, while the energy or free energy does significantly increase.

We can through both fission and fusion reactions convert small amounts of mass into energy, perhaps release as energy would or may be more accurate, or at least that is the way it looks to us now. The reverse, has as yet not been accomplished. It seems far easier to let the genie out of the bottle, than to put it back in. This is not to say it cannot be done, or that there are not conditions within theory where it does occur.

We have over time discovered what we have come to accept as facts. Most of the time we have observed or demonstrated these in small well confined tests or systems. We then try to project this to the whole of experience. In the process great advancements have been made and great knowledge aquired, and still things don't always seem to work out to be as we think they should, either in the small, local and practical scales or the macrocosmic scales we are still trying to understand.

12. ### EmilValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,801
From the second link: Conservation of mass and energy

"The concept of mass–energy equivalence connects the concepts of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, which continue to hold separately in any isolated system (one that is closed to loss of any type of energy, including energy associated with loss of matter). The theory of relativity allows particles which have rest mass to be converted to other forms of mass which require motion, such as kinetic energy, heat, or light. However, the system mass remains. Kinetic energy or light can also be converted to new kinds of particles which have rest mass, but again the energy remains. Both the total mass and the total energy inside an isolated system remain constant over time, as seen by any single observer in a given inertial frame.
In other words, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and energy, in all of its forms, has mass. Mass also can neither be created nor destroyed, and in all of its forms, has energy. According to the theory of relativity, mass and energy as commonly understood, are two names for the same thing, and neither one is changed nor transformed into the other. Rather, neither one exists without the other existing also, as a property of a system. Rather than mass being changed into energy, the view of special relativity is that rest mass has been changed to a more mobile form of mass, but remains mass. In the transformation process, neither the amount of mass nor the amount of energy changes, since both are properties which are connected to each other via a simple constant.[4] Thus, if energy leaves a system by changing its form, it simply takes its system mass with it. This view requires that if either mass or energy disappears from a system, it will always be found that both have simply moved off to another place, where they may both be measured as an increase of both mass and energy corresponding to the loss in the first system."

13. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387
You guys say all these things, but I am still banned from posting in this thread, and my posts were deleted. So there is another force at work in opinion. Don't go against science.

Last edited: Mar 16, 2012
14. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,593
You are not banned from posting in this thread. You are not allowed to post garbage that has been shown to you to be garbage. You do not have a theory, nor a hypothesis, what you have is a bunch unevidenced hand waving. When you are asked for some evidence to support your ideas you start talking about bubbles and negative mass and other double talk. I am sorry that you cannot seem to get it through your head that this is not evidence. Since you have proven to everyones satisfaction that you do not have evidence for you ideas, they cannot be presented as viable in the science section.

If you want to participate in the science sections then learn some science and apply it here.

Are you really so surprised that in a science forum there is a desire for science to be discussed as opposed to unevidence conjecture and pseudo-science?:shrug:

15. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387
See you did it again. Anyway, carry on doing whatever you are doing in this thread. Who wants the answer anyway...

Last edited: Mar 16, 2012
16. ### hansdaValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,424
What I mean to say is that Total 'Mass and Energy' of our Universe is constant .

Say, at present Our Universe is containing X amount of mass and Y amount of energy .

By applying Einstein's Equation E = MC^2 ; X can be converted into energy and if added with Y , this addition of Total Energy of our Universe will remain constant .

17. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
The issue I would raise is that, if we accept that mass, meaning rest mass, has an energy component described by E = mc^2, while we can say that the "Total" energy of the universe may be conserved, mass may not.

We can conceive of an interaction where a quantity of mass is converted or released, to or as energy, but we are unable to reverse that process, in any practical way.., yet. Essentially mass can be converted to energy but we are as yet unable to convert energy into mass.

Since the universe seems to be dynamic, there is likely mechanisms that result in just that. Our present assumptions, at least to some extent, assume that all of the mass in the universe was generated during the big bang. If that is the case any destruction or conversion of mass to energy, that cannot be matched up against an ongoing conversion of mass from energy, would result in a conservation of Total energy, without any confirmation of a conservation of mass.

Just as an example... The standard model of particle physics defines a proton, its mass and that it is composed or made up of quarks and guons whose total individual masses are not equal to the proton's total mass. Break one proton into its parts, quarks and guons and while you may still have the same energy, the measureable mass is diminished.

18. ### OnlyMeValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,914
Here is an example of one of my objections, to the reasoning involved in the whole quote.

First, let me say I originally began from essentially this same understanding. Over the last few years I have been attempting to understand some of the work done in explaining inertia and gravitation from the perspective of quantum mechanics. (quantum mechanics was not my favorite subject, so the process is less than ideal)

If you take the quote from your post literally, then one would have assume that the zero point energy of quantum mechanics, has mass. This is essentially saying that empty space where a ground state non-zero energy (ZPE) is present, has mass. While conceptually this could help to explain some difficult observations, it also raises significant issues. ZPE begins to resemble some form of ether that would not only act as a medium for the propagation of EM radiation, but may also interact dynamically with it.

If empty space has mass then an interaction between photons and empty space, become more difficult to explain, without some degradation of the photon.., this suggests a tired light potential and problems for our current understanding of a large portion of the observed cosmological redshift.

While from what I can understand of the quantum argument for the origin of inertia and gravitation, it does seem to me that "empty" space must be considered to be filled with some intrinsic substance or energy, I am not sure that whatever practical form that substance/energy may have or take, it is not likely one we could describe as mass, within the current context of the concept of mass.

There does appear to be a significant link or connection between what we understand of mass and energy, mass seems to be emergent rather than a fundamental component....

There is a second issue in that the quote itself suggests that all energy has mass, and we know with some degree of certainty that while gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent, gravitational mass does not increase with an object's velocity. Kinetic energy associated with relative motion does not add or subtract from an object's gravitational field or potential.

While there is a close relationship between mass and energy, and mass may in fact be an emergent phenomena dependent on energy, they are not equivalent and entirely interchangeable. Though mathematically this may be possible, as a matter of practical application mass and energy continue to have some independently defined characteristics.

Some of the discussion involves principles of thermodynamics originating from closed systems. Ideally it is convenient to project closed system observations, into the world generally. The problem is when we do so we must also define the expanded closed system. We cannot with any real certainty limit the world and the universe to a closed system, that can be locally defined.

In some respects this question may come to one of, while we can accept that $E = mc^2$ represents the energy content of a given mass, it does not exclude any contribution to that mass of anything other than energy. Though it does seem that, at least a significant portion of the theoretical approach, to this subject does attempt to suggest just that.

19. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,593
You are still not getting it. When I say science I mean the scientific method. I am not talking about the current conclusions of science. New scientific discoveries are made all of the time, many of them may bring into question current theories - that is fine - no, it is better than fine it is wonderful. This is scientific discovery.

What doesn't work is when an idea is presented that does not utilize the scientific method that instead utilizes the pseudo-scientific method. This method does not rely on data, evidence or mathematics. The pseudo-scientific method relys on incredulity, 'looks like' observations and distains math.

'Incredulity' results in ideas like; I don't understand that so it must be wrong, or the speed of light cannot be the same in all frames because that is not how the speed of familiar objects works.

'Looks like' results in comments like; magnetism looks like gravity so gravity is magnetism.

In all of these cases the math is dismissed as 'not real world' and any evidence against the ideas is ignored.

20. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387

If you want the scientific method here is my first formula...

F = G.-m1.-m2 / r^2

Which states that energy always travels towards lower energy.. not mass. It gets rid of attraction, and changes forces like Gravity to become information passed towards holes in electrons... a push force.

Ok. So scientific method.

Last edited: Mar 16, 2012
21. ### AlexGLike nailing Jello to a treeValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,304
So you took Newton's equation, stuck a minus sign in front of m1 and m2, and claim you've done something original?

That's censored.

22. ### Pincho PaxtonBannedBanned

Messages:
2,387
No, I have corrected the formula. You now have electrons as holes, and you don't need attraction anymore, and you don't need the Big Bang anymore. I have also produced a way to make energy, and magnetism, and mass. All you have to do is use the formula in the way that I have changed it. I have changed..

m/ mass, a convex body of matter, energy, a solid body.

into

-m/ negative mass, a concave body, negative energy, a hole

And so I have fixed a silly mistake...

Energy flows to lower energy.. not higher energy.

And if you are telling me to use the scientific method, at least get your own scientific PROOFS right.

23. ### AlexGLike nailing Jello to a treeValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,304
You do realize that by mulitplying -m1 and -m2, you get the same result as using m1 and m2?

In other words, you've done nothing. :bugeye: