Gravity Hysteresis: Effects & Implications

[Stingray]

Well ranyart, the first step in trying to get people to understand you is to write proper english. I can hardly tell what you're trying to say even in your last post. I think you were saying that I'm stuck up and closed-minded, but I'm not really sure.

I did understand that you want me to give more in-depth comments to your explanations... Well I could, but I don't see the point. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't believe me (I'm a sheep, right?).

 

[ranyart]

I think you were saying that I'm stuck up and closed-minded, but I'm not really sure.

I certainly do not class you as sheep? I am sorry if I gave that impression in my post, I've re-read it and nowhere do I 'infer' any such likeness.



No Fear IS the key.

Each child is born for Greatness with forces that surround them,Jon Anderson-Nine Voices.

 

[wolram]

if this is what scientific debate has become i dispare, i think there is
to much testosterone or egoism in the halls of science, no one should
be allowed to insult another because of his beliefs, if you want a slanging
match go somewhere else.

 

[steve stillman]

Thanks for the replies to my questions. Stingray, very interesting but only makes me want more details. Orientation to wave? Observables compared to accelerationg interferometers? Where to get example calculations of gravity wave experimental setups?

Ranyart needs to cite references. I've never heard his terms used in any of the 17 cosmology, superstring, supersymmetry, loop gravity, hawking and kaku books I've read.

I like this forum because everone seems objective

My voids in understanding keep me going. And the searching, healthy. And the relaying, invigorating.

Steve Stillman

 

[jgraber]

another good link on gravity speed

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9909/9909087.pdf

by Steve Carlip. So far, I think there is still only indirect experimental or observational evidence for the speed of gravity. Jim Graber

 

[steve stillman]

Gravity waves of star pairs carry away energy

A book by this great Physicist does have much that has been discussed in this topic.

John Archibald Wheeler, "A Journy into Gravity and Spacetime", 1990 (rep 99) 257p, soft, 8x9 blu cover.

A loan from a friend who got it Jan04 at Barnes and Nobel.

Gravity travels at the speed of light.
Gravity waves are the only mode that so far can explain the speed up and approach of pairs of neutron stars observed.

Do skip chapters 6,7,8,9 unless you are into new idea torture.

Steve Stillman

 

[pervect]

can anyone tell me if gravity suffers hysteresis effects? as gravity
travels at C i imagine this effect would only be relevant to ,a high
speed massive body with an highly eccentric orbit, i also wondered
if this effect had implications at the quantum level.

Hysteresis is a property of a material - it doesn't occur in empty space, only in a medium. For instance, if you apply a magnetic field to a piece of iron, all the magnetic dipoles in the iron tend to align with the magnetic field, creating a stronger magnetic field. When you remove the original source magnetic field, some of the atoms remain "lined up", generating a weak residual field.

It's very hard to see how there could be any similar effect in gravity. Velocity would not be an important factor, you'd need a large number of gravitational dipoles that would rotate in response to an external gravitational field. Atoms tend to have almost all their mass concentrated in the center of the atom (the nucleus), so they wouldn't make good natural dipoles.

I suppose if someone could somehow create a planetary scale array of rotating bars, one might get an effect that's roughly analogous to hysteresis. But this would not be a property of gravity itself, it would be a property of the planetary array of rotating bars (and the friction at their hinges).

 

[Veep]

I personally believe that there is space hysteresis caused by moving mass. It would explain a lot as well as friction and waves. To me space is spongy and flexible and mass, depending on the speed it moves, causes space to deform and leaves an imprint for a set amount of time. Time, mass, and the hysteresis of space deformation are all connected by my thinking. In my outlook, as an object moves it creates a gravity well in space that takes time to "heal" or reform to normal space and another particle that is near sees this well even after the first object has moved or is gone. If you think on a molecular scale then all of this happens very quickly. and it is like one particle chasing another which is why particles tend to clump (gravity) together. At some point when the particle energies become too great then the mass flies apart because the particles can't keep up with the change in space or are flung beyond the area of continual space perturbations. The particles are trying to fill the bent space that another particle has left behind a fraction of an instant ago. This of course is impossible to measure or even prove at this point in time. To me the Casimir effect of two materials in close proximity explains this effect. The two materials are trying to join when in close proximity to each other and if left next to each other long enough would eventually bond or become one material. I really believe that it is the only explanation. Space does not react instaneously as many believe and it is flexible and fluid and requires time to revert to it's natural form (hysteresis). My opinion anyway. Great to see someone else is thinking along the same lines.

 

[George Jones]

This thread is almost four years old. Time to lock, and to remind posters that discussion of non-peer reviewed, non-mainstream ideas violates Physics Forums rules,

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374.