• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The dumb questions thread

We could differentiate between gravity determined by number of quarks and gravity determined by mass with a scale and an accelerometer.
Inertial mass doesn't change acceleration due to gravity in this scenario: acceleration is determined by the number of quarks. Weight is still mass * acceleration, but mass isn't what determines acceleration.

111 *10^30 quarks will create a certain acceleration, whether the object has greater total mass or not (due to the amount of neutrons in and binding energy of the object's nuclei).
Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. If N is the number of quarks in one body, you're proposing that F = G Nm/r2? (I had been taking you to mean F = G Nn/r2.) If it's G Nm/r2, presumably the force the second body exerts on the first would be G Mn/r2, yes? Nm would be different from Mn whenever the two objects are made of different materials. That would mean action would no longer equal reaction. Put a block of carbon next to a block of lead and you'd have a reactionless drive for a spacecraft.

... or maybe the number of particles is what determines gravitational attraction, and gravity's correlation with mass was just because of the close correlation between number of particles and mass (and nobody checked, because we habitually just assumed the mass-gravity connection was correct, without trying to figure out other stuff, because it's what we were taught... by authority figures... that we don't question... because we're complacent little brainwashed sheep who don't question authority unless our peer group does.. and nobody questioned the mass/gravity connection (unless someone did)).
Someone did. People have been doing tests of inertial and gravitational mass for centuries, most notably Loránd Eötvös, with a lot more precision than the discrepancy between proton and neutron mass.
 
Oh, I think I see what you're getting at. If N is the number of quarks in one body, you're proposing that F = G Nm/r2?
Yeah.
G (the gravitational constant) would have n (number of particles) instead of kg (mass) as one of its dimensions.

\(F_{1} = G\frac{n_2 m_1}{r^2} \)

\(F_{2} = G\frac{n_1 m_2}{r^2} \)

likewise:

\(a_{1 \rightarrow 2} = G\frac{n_2}{r^2} \)

\(a_{2 \rightarrow 1} = G\frac{n_1}{r^2} \)

If it's \(G\frac{n_1 m_2}{r^2} \), presumably the force the second body exerts on the first would be \(G\frac{n_2 m_1}{r^2} \), yes?
Yes. :D

\(n_1 m_2\) would be different from \(n_2 m_1\) whenever the two objects are made of different materials.
Depends, if \(n_1 = n_2 \) and \(m_1 != m_2 \) they'd be different, likewise if \(n_1 != n_2 \) and \(m_1 = m_2 \) they would be different.

There could be cases in which \(n_1 != n_2 \) and \(m_1 != m_2 \) in which \(n_1 m_2 = n_2 m_1 \).

That would mean action would no longer equal reaction. Put a block of carbon next to a block of lead and you'd have a reactionless drive for a spacecraft.
I'm not going to react to that.

and nobody questioned the mass/gravity connection (unless someone did)).
Someone did. People have been doing tests of inertial and gravitational mass for centuries, most notably Loránd Eötvös, with a lot more precision than the discrepancy between proton and neutron mass.
As far as I can tell, the Eötvös experiment simply confirmed that inertial and gravitational mass are the same, which has nothing to do with the number of particles, other than the fact that the number of particles * the mass of a particle = total mass.


I haven't read of any experiment that tested whether 2 identical masses with different numbers of particles caused different gravitational acceleration. All of the experiments that I've read about have focused upon mass, and the experimenters never mentioned using 100kg of iron vs. 100 kg of lead.

I estimate a particle (nucleon) ratio of around ~1.001067 between the 2- doesn't matter though- I'm not conducting the experiment (yet):

I want to know if an experimental measurement of gravity has been done with mass as a control, and the number of particles as the independent variable.

Objects could be the same size, density, and mass, and just have different numbers of particles. If there is a difference in acceleration towards different objects of the same mass and density it means there is something there. Otherwise, stuff is settled (except for creation of artificial virtual universes that evolve according to slightly different rules.... :D).
 
If it's \(G\frac{n_1 m_2}{r^2} \), presumably the force the second body exerts on the first would be \(G\frac{n_2 m_1}{r^2} \), yes?
Yes. :D

That would mean action would no longer equal reaction. Put a block of carbon next to a block of lead and you'd have a reactionless drive for a spacecraft.
I'm not going to react to that.
:laugh:

I haven't read of any experiment that tested whether 2 identical masses with different numbers of particles caused different gravitational acceleration. All of the experiments that I've read about have focused upon mass, and the experimenters never mentioned using 100kg of iron vs. 100 kg of lead.
Eötvös certainly tested different materials to see if that made a difference in how strongly they were affected by gravity, as opposed to what you're talking about, how strongly they generate it; he found that it made no difference, to a precision of better than one part in a million; your estimate of a 1.001067 discrepancy would certainly have been detected. But of course he was assuming, like nearly everyone else, that action equals reaction and therefore the force of 100 kg of lead on 1 kg of iron is the same as the force of 1 kg of iron on 100 kg of lead. You're proposing that in all the careful measurements of the acceleration of the 1 kg object, nobody bothered to check the (roughly?) one hundred times smaller acceleration of the 100 kg object. (Which was probably rigidly attached to the Earth anyway.) That's a fair point and you're probably right that it wasn't checked. However, this means you're no longer really talking about a test of Newton's law of gravity; you're talking about a test of Newton's laws of motion. If momentum isn't conserved, physics has far worse problems than its 0.1% inaccuracy in gravity calculations.

Much as the cottage industry of perpetual motion machine inventors serves as an ongoing test of the laws of thermodynamics, there is a steady stream of inventors claiming reactionless drives. So far, none of their designs have been shown to work. That's an ongoing test of the law that action equals reaction.

I estimate a particle (nucleon) ratio of around ~1.001067 between the 2- doesn't matter though- I'm not conducting the experiment (yet):
Go for it! NASA awaits with baited breath!
 
I haven't read of any experiment that tested whether 2 identical masses with different numbers of particles caused different gravitational acceleration. All of the experiments that I've read about have focused upon mass, and the experimenters never mentioned using 100kg of iron vs. 100 kg of lead.
Eötvös certainly tested different materials to see if that made a difference in how strongly they were affected by gravity, as opposed to what you're talking about, how strongly they generate it;he found that it made no difference, to a precision of better than one part in a million;
The detected that gravitational and inertial mass are the same, which isn't what I'm looking for. I don't think we can detect the acceleration of the Earth or the Sun towards the objects, and I don't think the Eötvös and related experiments tested the different objects attraction towards one another. However... there are other experiments that do this, aimed at measuring G with great precision. Although...
your estimate of a 1.001067 discrepancy would certainly have been detected.
Ehh... a .1067% discrepancy would be detected as.. what, imprecision in measurements of G by reputable research teams?

Eöt-Wash_Group_Website said:
Recently the value of G has been called into question by new measurements from respected research teams in Germany, New Zealand, and Russia. The new values disagree wildly. For example, a team from the German Institute of Standards led by W. Michaelis obtained a value for G that is 0.6% larger than the accepted value; a group from the University of Wuppertal in Germany led by Hinrich Meyer found a value that is 0.06% lower, and Mark Fitzgerald and collaborators at Measurement Standards Laboratory of New Zealand measured a value that is 0.1% lower. The Russian group found a curious space and time variation of G of up to 0.7% The collection of these new results suggests that the uncertainty in G could be much larger than originally thought. This controversy has spurred several efforts to make a more reliable measurement of G.
Might be nothing, or maybe they're all using different materials. (The Eöt-Wash_Group did do an Eötvös type experiment with a 3 ton mass of U-238, with 2 substances, but it's a test of the equivalence principle- not to determine G, and they don't mention anything that I parse as pertinent to my questions- maybe you'll see it differently).


Other (scientific) control situations could arise: does a molecule itself count as another particle- in other words, do we need to test whether spacetime reacts to the quarks as individual particles, to nucleons as additional particles (so a nucleon would count as 4), to molecules as individual particles (so a water molecule could be a total of 86 particles: 1 molecule + 3 atoms + 18 nucleons + 10 electrons + 54 quarks). Say an element forms several different types of molecules (O2 and O3 come to mind), would one of the controls have to be the number of molecules of one type or the other?



You're proposing that in all the careful measurements of the acceleration of the 1 kg object, nobody bothered to check the (roughly?) one hundred times smaller acceleration of the 100 kg object.
I'm thinking that maybe, just maybe, particle number wasn't a control in these experiments measuring G, because they are measuring G (a constant with mass as a dimension- so they are focused on mass).

I tend to agree with the idea that people would think of this and check it out, considering that I constantly have new ideas in my field, and see new connections, and apply what I hope is due diligence (admittedly I've got some work that someone asked me to get done, but I can message them and put it off until tomorrow). I imagine if there were 1000s of people like me with slightly different backgrounds with slightly different ideas, we would pretty much cover a lot of the bases... over time(). However, if I can't find a record of someone looking into something to rule it out... doesn't strike me as something that wouldn't be published anywhere.

It's just as important to rule something out as to discover something new (well, they are equivalent...:)).
That's a fair point and you're probably right that it wasn't checked. However, this means you're no longer really talking about a test of Newton's law of gravity; you're talking about a test of Newton's laws of motion.
Ehh, actually, they're involved, but... maybe I'm talking about reverse entropy like you mention later, because of the book on information theory I'm reading?

I estimate a particle (nucleon) ratio of around ~1.001067 between the 2- doesn't matter though- I'm not conducting the experiment (yet):
Go for it! NASA awaits with baited breath!
I've smelled a scientist's breath after a day of coffee drinking from 5 feet away. What, pray tell, are they trying to lure?
 
Go for it! NASA awaits with baited breath!
I've smelled a scientist's breath after a day of coffee drinking from 5 feet away. What, pray tell, are they trying to lure?


This raises a difficult metaphysical question. Are you guys bad-speller-bating, or are you just bad-speller-baiting?
 
I've smelled a scientist's breath after a day of coffee drinking from 5 feet away. What, pray tell, are they trying to lure?


This raises a difficult metaphysical question. Are you guys bad-speller-bating, or are you just bad-speller-baiting?

Either way, they appear to be master baiters.
 

This raises a difficult metaphysical question. Are you guys bad-speller-bating, or are you just bad-speller-baiting?

Either way, they appear to be master baiters.

My question is about whether acceleration due to matter baiting is directly correlated with the number of particles in the system <exclusive or> mass of the system.

If you consider matter to be your master, I suppose I'm talking about master baiting.

Tooby or not Tooby. I suppose we'll find out...
 
Does the detection of gravitational waves mean that gravity is no longer a theory?

Whatever the answer, I think this discovery will be quite useful in explaining concepts of "theory" and "fact," etc., to the scientifically illiterate.
 
Does the detection of gravitational waves mean that gravity is no longer a theory?

No, theories don't grow up to be laws. In fact, laws are the undeveloped form; laws grow up to be theories.

A law is a consistent relationship. "Things fall down" could be said to be the law of gravity. If you add an explanation, then you have a theory: "Things fall down because all matter is attracted to all other matter in proportion to the amount of mass, and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance."

No amount of confirmatory evidence will promote a theory into something else. The most you could say is that you have confirmed a theory, proven it to be true.
 
Does the detection of gravitational waves mean that gravity is no longer a theory?

No, theories don't grow up to be laws. In fact, laws are the undeveloped form; laws grow up to be theories.

A law is a consistent relationship. "Things fall down" could be said to be the law of gravity. If you add an explanation, then you have a theory: "Things fall down because all matter is attracted to all other matter in proportion to the amount of mass, and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance."

No amount of confirmatory evidence will promote a theory into something else. The most you could say is that you have confirmed a theory, proven it to be true.

Thanks!
 
If it happens, it's an occurrence.

If it happens more than once, the same way, it's a law

Why did it happen? That's the theory.
 
If it happens, it's an occurrence.

If it happens more than once, the same way, it's a law

Why did it happen? That's the theory.
Not why. The theory is How. ;)

You're right, of course. I'm not sure how I missed that.

The short version that I coined years ago when discussing evolution (Is it a fact or a theory?):

That it happens is a fact.
How it happens is a theory.
 
"Why" would be a theological explanation for a theory.
 
"Why" would be a theological explanation for a theory.
Why? Why isn't "Why are there no sauropods?" a perfectly good scientific question? Why isn't "Because a meteorite took them out." a perfectly good scientific answer? Why are you guys on a vendetta against "Why?"?
 
"Why" (in this context) is shorthand for "Why did it happen this way and not some other way?"... NOT "what is the reason for it happening at all?" or "Was it Good?"
 
"Why" would be a theological explanation for a theory.
Why? Why isn't "Why are there no sauropods?" a perfectly good scientific question? Why isn't "Because a meteorite took them out." a perfectly good scientific answer? Why are you guys on a vendetta against "Why?"?
There is nothing wrong with why questions when used in the right context but a theory is a detailed description of how something occurs. "Why did a meteorite kill the sauropods" is a very different question from, "how did a meteorite kill the sauropods". The first is easily misunderstood and all to often has an implication of intent while the second is clearly asking only for mechanism (which is what a theory describes).
 
Back
Top Bottom