Re: is perpetual motion possible ?

FellKnight wrote:
On Jul 7 2008 2:36 PM, Kyle T. Jones wrote:

Here's an interesting question (IMO): How do they know that mass exerts an attractive force? Couldn't vacuum be exerting a repulsive force instead? Or, in Einstein's language, maybe it isn't that mass creates valleys; maybe vacuum creates mountains.

I think the math would work out the same in either case. I could be wrong.

Cheers.

1. The distance between stars is not a vacuum.

And physical objects are mostly "vacuum". I'm not sure what yer point is, here. No, they aren't perfect vacuums. Any more than any physical object is a "perfect solid".

2. Bigger objects have bigger attractive forces, it has nothing to do with
the distance between them.

Oh, I see what you mean. Well, it wouldn't work like that, of course. First, you would assume a similar "inverse-square" law as is currently applied to gravity.

Look, the Universe is generally a pretty empty place. So, let's say that all regions have a potential repulsive force that's roughly the same. That force only leaps into action when there is an object with mass around; mass, here, is literally the measure of how much repulsive force is absorbed from the vacuum. So, you have a particle flying around, minding it's own business. The repulsive force acts on that particle equally from all sides; things basically are canceled out until: another particle approaches from the opposite direction.

Now, the old picture was that the particles exert some force that causes them to fall together; what I'm saying is that the particles absorb vacuum antigravity in an "unequal from all sides" fashion because, if we see something like:

-> 0 0 <-
A B

The stuff coming from -> hits particle A and is absorbed; less than normal hits particle B, because particle A is blocking.

The same thing occurs on the other side; less of the repulsive force hits particle A that is coming on a direct line through particle B.

The net result is that A and B start moving together (A begins to travel directly "right" <in our example> because it is hit by repulsive force that is strongest to the left of the particle and weakest directly right; B begins to travel directly "left" because it is hit by repulsive force that is strongest to the right of the particle and weakest directly left).

Picture yerself walking. We are taught that you are "attracted" to the Earth's large mass, right? What if this is what's happening: if you were off the Earth, in the middle of space, you are being hit from every direction by the repulsive vacuum force. However, it should be clear that while you are on Earth, you aren't; for one, there isn't as much vacuum directly "down", but I think that's fairly insignificant (which addresses yer next question). The real effect is because all that mass under you absorbs repulsive vacuum energy; since you are being hit most directly from above, and then less and less as we move off perpendicular with the Earth's center of gravity, the effect "feels" like what we experience.

So, the Earth is holding you down, but it isn't the causative agent. All it's doing is performing blocking service for ya. Truthfully, it's more that you are being pushed down from above than pulled down from below.

3. We can produce a really good vacuum, and have seen nothing of the sort.


What would you expect to see? How large are these "really good vacuum(s)" we produce? We can produce a really good vacuum-cleaner, and not notice it distorting/denting space/time, yes?

Picture things in Einstein interpretation, rather than Newtonian, Fell. So, you see that you have this topography, and we are told that any mass creates a "dent" in that topography. So, you get what looks somewhat like a relief map, right? My assertion is that the map appears identical regardless of the causative agent: whether gravity dents or vacuum lifts, you still have the same thing: areas of low mass higher up, areas of high mass down below.

This is all crappy, to have to speak like this, but it's impossible, at least for me, to imagine a three-dimensional space then add in the gravitational distortions. I can only do 2-D plus gravity, as is often presented to us in books and lecture.

Fell
--
"One should always play fairly - when one has the winning cards."
Oscar Wilde

------ looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What if the higgs dont exist....
    ... > back to this part of what the mass situation might be described from. ... > charge and a volume of space. ... A particle may be charged or neutral while having mass, ... square of the speed of light in vacuum. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: What if the higgs dont exist....
    ... > back to this part of what the mass situation might be described from. ... > charge and a volume of space. ... A particle may be charged or neutral while having mass, ... square of the speed of light in vacuum. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • vacuum energy and dark matter
    ... It occurred to me recently, though, that the so-called 'missing mass' ... When particle pairs form and annihilate as a result of vacuum ... ensuring that the principle of energy conservation is not violated. ... But during the brief lifetime of that particle pair each particle has ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: OT: Perp Motion Cont. (the KTJones superforce)
    ... We can't understand it in terms of mass ... allows photons to interact with gravitons. ... the loss of such a tiny volume of vacuum can result in such huge force. ... not the fact that the black hole has "displaced vacuum". ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Big Bang Question
    ... Why does it make sense to talk about time, length and mass, right ... geometric parity inversion of chiral atomic mass distributions, ... for left shoe in left vacuum versus right shoe in left vacuum. ... divergence validates a massed sector interactive vacuum background. ...
    (sci.physics)