Physics Help Forum "What IS and What IS Not"

 Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Jul 9th 2018, 01:11 AM   #31
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Somerset, England
Posts: 1,035
 Originally Posted by lancew561 In the definition there is no difference where the gravity well center is. If shaped like a potato on the outside, it does not matter, since the gravity well center is used as the reference point for up/down. No matter where the center of gravity well is, by these definitions, it is the up/down point. A reading of say down assumes at light speed that the center of gravity remains mostly constant while pointing at it otherwise it becomes more difficult to point to exact down with center fluctuations. That is now what I think you are saying studiot? This makes good sense and demands a correction to the up/down definitions like within an error of ? or other short worded method to correct them. Will consider and does indicate a definition problem. Something like subject to center of gravity well fluctuations. Which is a bit long to add? etc.?

I didn't say anything about light speed.

In fact I referred to a stationary observer as it's the simplest case.

My two diagrams in my foregoing post are prime examples of my philosophy of working from through a simple example before attempting the difficult stuff.

There is no limit to specifying the conditions of applicability of a theory, a definition, a mathematical expression etc.

Indeed far too often it is neglect of this part of the Science that leads to (sometimes spectacular) error.

Now can I take it that you have chosen AO as the line of up and down in my diagram in answer to my question?

Do you understand the immediate implication of this as it directly contradicts your stated and intended definition of up and down, being that if something moves up it gains gravitational potential energy and if it moves down it looses it?

Geometrically moving sideways (at right angles to the line) means that gravitational potential energy should not change.

Yet moving sideways to the line AO means that moving at right angles to AO in some directions increases the gravitational potential energy and in other directions it reduces it.
This is because AO is tilted relative to the equipotential surfaces.

Furthermore, who said that the 'bottom of a potential well has to be a single point?

What if it is a wide flat bottomed valley?

There is ample precedence for this in the Konig-Penny equation for electrostatic potential which leads to the correct quantum interpretation of electrons in a crystal.

What happens when there is an array of gravitational 'potential wells'?

Quantum mechanics doesn't play nicely with 'points'.

 Jul 9th 2018, 01:04 PM #32 Junior Member   Join Date: Jun 2018 Posts: 20 Started a new thread ____What is What is Not Part 2_________ This one is getting to long? Just go to that one..........
Jul 9th 2018, 03:20 PM   #33
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Somerset, England
Posts: 1,035
I do believe I've solved Jim's opening riddle.

 The Rubaiyat Omar Khayyam 1120 AD LVI For "Is" and "Is-not" though with Rule and Line And "Up" and "Down" by Logic I define, Of all that one should care to fathom, Was never deep in anything but--Wine.
Or

 Sir Arthur Eddington 1920 AD For IS and IS-NOT though with Rule and Line And UP-AND-DOWN without I could define

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post THERMO Spoken Here Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics 0 Sep 11th 2017 07:39 AM Crystal0513 Kinematics and Dynamics 1 Sep 13th 2013 04:36 AM tesla2 Theoretical Physics 2 Jun 11th 2013 06:52 AM khamaar Electricity and Magnetism 1 Mar 4th 2011 03:14 PM s3a Light and Optics 1 May 30th 2009 11:27 PM