Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Special and General Relativity

Special and General Relativity Special and General Relativity Physics Help Forum

Like Tree4Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jan 15th 2018, 10:12 PM   #11
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,442
Originally Posted by avito009 View Post
Just listen to me carefully you will understand the purpose of defining gravity to not be conserved.

Reasoning is simple observe when you throw an object in air verically it falls down with a constant acceleration 9.8 m/s^2. This means the pull of gravity is stronger close to the earth which proves gravity is not conserved.
We don't even need GR here. The gravitational force in Newtonian gravity is defined by
$\displaystyle F = \frac{Gm_1m_2}{r^2}$

It is only near the surface of the Earth that we can say that the acceleration due to gravity is essentially constant. And, as the Newtonian model suggests, the force between two masses gets larger the closer the two masses become. And Newtonian gravity can be easily shown to be a conservative force. I don't understand your point about this.

Originally Posted by avito009 View Post
This is the basis for the new theory I am proposing. In brief i would prove that light cant be pulled inside the black hole because there cant be acceleration because nothing travels faster than the speed of light. Since there is no acceleration if light is pulled inside the black hole it would mean gravity is conserved since the pull of gravity would be uniform and the pull would not be greater at the bottom.
See my comment about the black hole thing in another of your recent posts.

A theory has evidence behind it in order to be "validated." You are using little or no experimental evidence to make your point. What you have right now are ideas. There is nothing wrong with this but if you want us to believe in your ideas you need evidence. Keep looking for it...I'm not saying there isn't any, but so far as I know GR has passed every test that has been made. (At least on the macroscopic size range. Gravity on the Quantum level doesn't have a testable theory yet.)

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16th 2018, 05:56 AM   #12
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,557
Just because you toss an object up and it falls back down accelerating on the way in no way implies that gravity is not a conserved force. You don't appear to know the mean I g of that term. A force is said to be conserved if it can be expressed as the gradient of a scalar function or equivalent if the energy of an object in a field subject to that force remains constant, which is always true for any gravitational field which is constant in time.
topsquark likes this.
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16th 2018, 08:11 AM   #13
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,557
Just because you toss an object up and it falls back down accelerating on the way in no way implies that gravity is not a conserved force. You don't appear to know the mean I g of that term. A force is said to be conserved if it can be expressed as the gradient of a (time independent) scalar function or equivalently if the energy of an object subject a conservative force is constant in time, which is always true for any gravitational field which is constant in time.

Dan - I think you may have confused the concepts of conserved and invariant. E.g. a particles 4-momentum is always invariant but isn't always conserved. Recall that invariant means to remain unchanged by a valid change in coordinates. Did I misinterpret your comment on this above?
topsquark likes this.
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16th 2018, 11:59 AM   #14
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,442
Originally Posted by Pmb View Post
Dan - I think you may have confused the concepts of conserved and invariant. E.g. a particles 4-momentum is always invariant but isn't always conserved. Recall that invariant means to remain unchanged by a valid change in coordinates. Did I misinterpret your comment on this above?
Nope. You read it right. Thanks for the catch.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 16th 2018, 04:38 PM   #15
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,557
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
Nope. You read it right. Thanks for the catch.

-Dan
No problemo . Glad to be of service
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Special and General Relativity

Tags
conserved, fictitious, force



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Normal force and gravity force are not action reaction pairs? jlyu002 Kinematics and Dynamics 6 May 21st 2017 09:21 PM
Is centripetal force opposite but equal in magnitude of centrifugal force? jlyu002 Kinematics and Dynamics 2 Jul 24th 2014 05:17 PM
Im trying to apply a force at the middle a column, how do i predict the maximum force yichenli Equilibrium and Elasticity 4 Sep 13th 2013 03:13 PM
The Slope of a Normal Force vs Applied Force Graph reventon703 Kinematics and Dynamics 1 Apr 11th 2012 05:47 AM
Physical quantity that is conserved? sensei Advanced Mechanics 1 Oct 10th 2008 12:01 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed