Were the moon landings faked?

Helps if your fairly good at maths. I question whether QM is really understandable with out maths, some of its wierdest features are mathematicaly not conceptual. But I do agree in general that understanding is more important.

 

Tony

What are you ideas on the nature of the fabric of space...ie: zero point energy
and that mater 'just keeps moving' at near zero kelvin.?

Occam

 

Wow that covers a huge area. Well the 'just keeps moving' part comes from the 3rd law of thermodynamics which basically says that you cant get to 0K. The law actually says that you cant get to 0K in any finite number of steps, its done using a statistical argument, they were unaware of the zero opint energy at the time. For the zero point energy you have to move over to QM and properties of wavefunctions. Its fairly standard knowledge that quantum mechanics is related to 'packets'. The maths is a little arduous but if you thing of holding a string at two ends, like a musical instrument. The amplitude at the two ends always has to be 0, so the only waves that can propagate are ones that have 0 amplitude at either end, hence you have a discrete set of possible waves in that string, this is a very strong analogy for a simple QM argument. In QM, in general the ground state, the lowest energy state of a system, is not 0, hence that system always has some intrinsic, or zero point energy. Now this energy can be used to create particles that exist for very short period of time etc etc, this uses quantum field theory and is somewhat beyond my string analogy.

 

So space is a 'thing in itself'? It has structure?

 

Well i mean it has a framework and it has a lot more stuff in it than we can see. But when people talk about fabric, its an absract mathematical object it makes more sense to talk about the curvature of a fabric than the curvature of nothing. I personally try no think of it as the shape of a fabric I think of it more like a mesh in a computer game map, its the shape of the universe.

 

.

 

Understood

Yes, curvature. Has been occams arguement for space as a 'thing' in itself for years.
If something can be curved/warped by mass. Then it is 'some' thing.

Occam would ask a question. it may be the biggest noob one out there in physics.
If mass warps space like a 3d dimple in the mostly soft curve of space.
[a result of the mass of the observable universe]
Then where does the energy come from to accelerate other mass 'down' those more radical dimple/curves?
If one falls from a cliff . Is the energy borrowed from earth and then payed back
when kinetic energy is shed on impact?
[Even planetary near misses by significant bodies repay the mass/dimple with transfer of angular momentum.]
Do the two [or more ] masses transfer energy into delta V by a principle yet unknown to science?
Is the speed of that transfer [gravitic influence] faster than light.?
[that would be a hard one to experiment]

Hey,, sorry to pick your brains but occam always picks the brains of ones that understand more on any subject.
And the subject is damn interesting.

Occam

 

Its true the vacuum is far from empty it has a permitivity, a permeability, zero point energy density and shape. For me I separate the shape from other properties. You can have a red cube. Well GR if you want tells us how mass influences the shape of the cube but its still red. Im sitting here in space, really all that separates me from a point in deep space is that there are more atoms around me, but there are lots of other things that can be in the space, hence the difference between vacuum and empty. I dont think theres a right or wrong way to picture something that you cant picture anyway, whatever works.

As to how energy is transferred as you move, classically energy is transferred between two particles in a field by means of a force. So as you jump of the cliff your body exchanges energy with the Earth. Macroscopically this exchange is felt as a force, you fall. As the ground approaches you experience another force, rather more powerfull than gravity, the rapid deceleration creates a very high force that may be harmful. With QM a force is felt by the exchange of particles, photons are the exchange particle for electromagnetism. This gets to the crux of the QM/GR argument, they deal with force very differently. People kind of assume there is a quantum solution for gravity and we've even named its exchange particle the graviton.

To answer the question about where the energy goes when you hit the ground, most of it will be absorbed by the Earth which will move a miniscule amount. I imagine some more will go into breaking bones.

The speed of gravity has, since Einstein been assumed to be the speed of light. An experiment a few year ago measured this, and said it was the speed of light. Though it was questioned apparently there was an argument about whether it measured the speed of gravity or the speed of light by some incredibly obscure method, dont know the details. But the smart money is that the speed of gravity is the speed of light.

 

.

 

Tony

So what is gravity?
"The warping of space by mass."
or
"transfer of energy in a field by means of a force"

This is what occam was probing. If gravity is loosely analogous to a magnetic field..Then the transfer of energy fits.
But if it is the warping of space.
Then how is energy transfered between masses?
Gravitic lensing is a proof that mass does warp space. As energy [em radiation] should not be effected by a 'gravity field' in the classic sense.

Occam thinks the cause of gravitic effects is pretty much on open theory at the moment..we dont know enough.

It would be amusing if gravity had two natures. A field and a warping of space.
Much like the duality of light itself..wave or particle?

Occam

 

Shaggie..

Dont think it IS stored.. The energy is applied picosecond by picosecond to buildings the entire realtime existance of the structures
Just as gravitic effect holds us to the ground our whole lives at ~32ft per/sec per/sec.
Where does this energy come from? WE certainly do not give it back to the planet in the classic newtonian sense.
Occam thinks.
The workings of reality are FAR deeper than we imagine.

Occam

 

They're really two approaches to the same thing GR sees it as a warping of space time and in classical physics two paricles in a field exchange energy via a force. I guess its fair to see GR as an exention to classical physics to take into account the fact that spacetime is 'shaped'. Though the fact that gravity is seen in this way and the other forces are 'quantised' goes back to the largest problem in modern physics. You can extend electromag to a curved space time as well, but I dont think its used often given that its quite short ranged, i.e. a space rocket will fall to earth from space but a magnet aint going to find the fridge.

Gravitational lensing occurs because gravity couples to total energy not mass energy.

 

.

 

Shaggie.

But the we stay stuck to the ground. Not through stored energy but applied energy
from a field or the warping of space.
There is no 'drop in energy' between a human stuck to the earths surface
and one floating between galaxies.

Both would have the same energy total in either situation.

One concrete block at the top of the wtc spent it's entire existence trying to
reach the earths cog. that 'trying' was not stored but external application
Eventually, on 911, it got 1000 feet closer.
The energy to do so cannot be stored in the block.. It is an external force.
Just as that explosion in the cartridge of a riffle round,applies force to the rear of bullet that accellerates the bullet to x velocity. the bullet does not 'hold the energy'. The energy is transfered into velocity on the mass of the bullet over several hundred milliseconds.

AS occam sees it there is nothing but transfer in these situations, not storage.

Occam

 

The chemical in the gun power holds the energy. When it is burnt it rapidly forms a new compound with less energy stored in the bonds . So yes the energy is stored in the bonds of the potassium whatever. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it must be conserved, its my favorite law of physics, whether your talking about galaxies, stars, people, atoms or quarks it holds.

 

.

 

.

 

So as the block 'IS FALLING' to the ground what release of energy is enacted in the block?

Occam

 

Tony

That is chemical reaction...
Not gavitic effect.

No structural change occurs in the object 'falling' to earth.
The energy for it to 'fall' is applied from external source.

Gravity APPLIES energy constantly to mass . to u and me.. yet we do not give it back. where does this energy come from.?

Occam

 

.