|Feb11-04, 12:36 PM||#1|
Casimir, Swiss cheese & Buoyancy Question?
Forgive me in advance for what may be a dumb question. (i'm not a physicist_)
I have this very hard to grasp thought that involves the Casimir experiment.
If the force outside the plates is greater than in between them, could that make
the experiment aparatus (in theory) less dense than its surroundings?
in other words, if we could imagine a kind of hot air balloon filled with less
energy than what is outside of it, would that make the balloon
buoyant? (in a denser enviroment) Now lets imagine Space as a big piece
of Swiss cheese, where the cheese is Vacuum and the holes are the planets.
The reason for this, in my model , is that the vacuum is filled with
UNIMPEDED energy particles , while the planets (holes in the cheese ) prevent
energies from penetrating (all solids acting as a giant Casimir apparatus).
In this model, planets would be less dense, lacking certain energy particles. . . . ?
than the vacuum surrounding it. . . . . . ?
if so. . . would this create a kind of buoyancy from denser to less dense ?
pushing energy particles into planets (along with atoms- the balloon falling instead of rising),
would this upside down buoyancy act like gravity?
I don't know . . . . . .just a thought, let me know if this idea has any merit.
sorry for being all over the place with this letter.
thank you, sincerely f. traverso
physics news on PhysOrg.com
>> Promising doped zirconia
>> New X-ray method shows how frog embryos could help thwart disease
>> Bringing life into focus
|Feb12-04, 12:11 AM||#2|
We get impressions about how things are constructed. Your model of space with holes like Swiss cheese is like my model of a space made of matter. Where planets and stars exist, they have absorbed the matter of space, leaving a less dense space around them for things to fall into. The space around the planets is less dense. The planets, of course, are very dense, but the space around them is depleted of matter.
What is interesting is that you have a similar picture to what I have, where planets and stars create holes in space.
|Feb12-04, 11:22 AM||#3|
thanks for the reply,
the Swiss cheese analogy
refers to the "cheese" being denser ,not in matter but in certain
"energy particles" , while the "holes" (although denser in matter)
are less dense in these "energy particles"
in essence the holes (in a grand scale)represent the void
between the plates in a Casimir experiment
could it be possible. . . ?
|Feb15-04, 11:35 PM||#4|
Casimir, Swiss cheese & Buoyancy Question?
It is just about the concept of having a Swiss cheese hole in space around each concentration of matter. I predicted objects would move slower through the denser space. Objects would move faster in less dense space around concentrations of matter.
My system made objects always speed up in high gravity fields. Why would an object slow down going away from a high gravity field? Because it is going into more dense space, so it would slow down. This is exactly Einsteinís idea that gravity works because of the shape of space. We draw two-dimensional space and draw holes to represent gravity fields. But in this three-dimensional model, the points of space are closer together in dense space and farther apart in less dense space. When you introduce the concept of points having distance between them in the spacetime continuum, you introduce a space that has six underlying dimensions; because points with distance between them can only neatly line up in a maximum of six directions. They donít always have to neatly line up, so the dimensions are not like a solid structure. But the real idea is the distance between points, which represent more dense or less dense space. If an object is always traveling from point to point in the same amount of time, then when the points are farther apart, it speeds up. When the points are getting closer together it slows down.
|Feb16-04, 05:27 PM||#5|
In my model of a progression from less dense to more dense space, it assumes the source of the gravity field is relatively motionless, like the earth is motionless to things connected to earth. The whole cosmos is motionless. When we describe gravity in the cosmos, we describe it against a motionless background.
If the gravity generator is moving rapidly, that shouldn't change the way it affects the object, such as Jupiter and Neptune moving away rapidly from Voyager being affected. The force should gradually dissipate. We have equations to describe it as a force. My model, which acts just like our equations when the gravity generator is fairly still, acts differently when the gravity generator is moving faster than the object being affected. You canít just describe it as the two objects separating. The object will be forced to slow down as denser space is drawn into it. That is what happened with Voyager. No one could explain why it slowed down, but I immediately realized my ideas did explain it. I couldnít figure out exactly why at first, but I knew it would happen that way. When an object was far way from a gravity field, it would slow down because it leaves the Swiss cheese gravity hole and enters denser space. I had this idea of minute boundary layers of gravity around objects. My brain told me what happened with Voyager slowing down would happen. I realized it was because Jupiter and Neptune were moving away so fast, they were dragging denser space into Voyager.
Gravity is not a force, it is a shaping of space. They will never find it in their equations if they try to define it as a force. The only way to describe space with a shape is to have points in space that have distance between them. When you have that, you have an underlying six dimensions.
|Apr25-04, 05:48 AM||#6|
It wouldn't surprise me if the idea both of you share shall be recognized in the near future. People usually forget the fact gravity was an illusion in Einstein's mind. Hence, would gravitons ever be found? I read about Casimir effect, but why Kaku wrote "liquid" effect? Can you explain me?
Perhaps in the Swiss cheese idea, the holes should represent black holes and planets gotta be "inserted" like setting grapefruits into the cheese.
|Apr26-04, 02:26 PM||#7|
Ketterle adds that attractions between atoms in a BEC could parallel the collapse of a neutron star so emulating the distant and massive in the laboratory too. The explosive collapse of a BEC, dubbed a "Bosenova" (pronounced "bose-a-nova") by Wieman releases only a tiny quantity of energy, just enough to raise the temperature of the BEC by 200 billionths of a degree. Supernovae release many times the energy.
I mean how do you really define such action in a dynamcial universe?
Is it the same as the Casimere effect and the two plates? So we look for other examples as well. Like this experiment revisited?
You need a way in which to be able to see the dynamics of this universe taking place? What similarities speak to the natural progression of Einstein's work and extends itself into Kaluza's cylinder?
How would such a geometrical realization have gained value when we pursued the understanding of Geometrodynamics? What is bubble/brane world?:)
|Apr26-04, 02:58 PM||#8|
This has major implications in cosmology, particularly in light of observational "failure" of the cosmological principle (no local homogeneity or isotropy).
|Apr28-04, 05:07 AM||#9|
|Similar Threads for: Casimir, Swiss cheese & Buoyancy Question?|
|Buoyancy Question||Classical Physics||18|
|HELP - my math is like Swiss Cheese||Academic Guidance||5|
|buoyancy question||General Physics||12|
|Swiss cheese effect||Cosmology||1|
|Casimir Effect and relativity question(very basic approach)||General Physics||0|