missing mass

[NotStein]

I am not a professional physicist or a mathematician. So I have the following query. As they say, the farther we look , farther in the past we are looking. So how do we know the current reality? Is the process of cognizance, important in all our hypothizing?

An excellent question, pondered by the finest minds in physics and philosophy. Einstein himself explores the topic in his book 'Relativity'. I read I highly suggest to youif you haven't already. From it you come to understand the real-world ramifications of the fact that we each live in our own 'reference frame'; where the timing, in some cases even the sequence of events are physically unique for each of us individually. Thanks to the small differences in our frames compared to 'C', we agree on things for the most part.
Which could explain something thus far quite stubborn to reason. Could it be possible that Washington, D.C. is actually travelling at a significant percentage of the speed of light, thus explaining the huge difference thier perception of reality with the rest of us outside the 'belt'? Could the belt actually be similar to the Oort or Van Allen belts, however, made up of some form of extremely heavy exotic dark matter?

Jeff

[Pramod Desai]

Dear MJA and Neutrallino

Thanks for taking the pain to respond.

If we do not know in what condition and how much of what is seen today is really there today, what is the basis of our calculations? Is it based on the old elementary principle learnt in school about conservation of mass and energy? Which means even if what we see toady is non-existent in the same form as of today, it is still there in some form. Kindly guide. I am trying to inculcate a wonder in the minds of young children about the universe and want to be armed with some basic elemenatry knowldege.

Thanks in advance and regards.

Pramod

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I like this approach. I've not read it well enough to even understand half of it, but it's definitely a possible third horse in the race. Plus, he was invited to Perimeter to work on this, so there's got to be something in it!

I agree, Neutralino...

Regards,
Lloyd

[MJA]

Dear MJA and Neutrallino

Thanks for taking the pain to respond.

If we do not know in what condition and how much of what is seen today is really there today, what is the basis of our calculations? Is it based on the old elementary principle learnt in school about conservation of mass and energy? Which means even if what we see toady is non-existent in the same form as of today, it is still there in some form. Kindly guide. I am trying to inculcate a wonder in the minds of young children about the universe and want to be armed with some basic elemenatry knowldege.

Thanks in advance and regards.

Pramod

Hi PhD,

If your mind is incapable of elementary fundamental thought, due to the complexities you have been taught; perhaps if you ask nicely, the children you wish to teach, will teach you the simple truth that they know.
Obviously those children would be experts on elementary knowledge.
You used to be an expert too; don't you remember?
Have you never seen the pure wonder in a childs eyes,
and you wish to teach that to them?
Learn from them is what I suggest.
Truth is much more simple that thought!

=
MJA

[Pramod Desai]

Dear All

I am extremely thankful to all who have been kind enough to respond to an insignificant like me in the forum.

I certainly agree with MJA that the children may hold more to give it to me than I can possibly pollute their mind with. I would still kindly request some one to enlighten me, even accepting me to be stupidier than the kids I am deluding myself to be educating.

I will try the Einstein book and hope I will be able to fathom something of it.

Thanks and regards to all.

Pramod

[sillysally]

Hi PhD,

If your mind is incapable of elementary fundamental thought, due to the complexities you have been taught; perhaps if you ask nicely, the children you wish to teach, will teach you the simple truth that they know.
Obviously those children would be experts on elementary knowledge.
You used to be an expert too; don't you remember?
Have you never seen the pure wonder in a childs eyes,
and you wish to teach that to them?
Learn from them is what I suggest.
Truth is much more simple that thought!

=
MJA

I agree with MJA, put it in the children's hands and see how they mold it. I met a lady in early Alzheimer yesterday at a store I work in, she reminded me of a little girl. Instead of signing her name in cursive, she wrote it out and said out loud, "I have to remember the 2 n's in my name". She was so sweet, I wished I could be her caregiver. Then when she left she said really loud, "See you next year! lol"

Or you could volunteer some time at an Alzheimer home and get some suggestions from them since they are childlike also. I wouldn't use any form of a preconceived idea, i.e. Einstein, only because that is going to pollute your mind as well. You might even get some Einstein concepts out of them but easier to understand.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I am not a professional physicist or a mathematician. So I have the following query. As they say, the farther we look , farther in the past we are looking. So how do we know the current reality? Is the process of cognizance, important in all our hypothizing?

Hi PD, and welcome to ToeQuest. As to your query about cognizance, yes, it is the most important aspect of all hypothizing___That is, to be extremely cognizant of all the scientific facts of our theories...

Regards,
Lloyd

[Pramod Desai]

Dear All and sillysally as well as Lloyd

As before, I am grateful to all who have kindly favoured me with a response. But, I find that my basic query still remains unresolved. I appreciate and envy MJA's and sillysally's romanticism and I also concede that truth may be on their side. But I am a hard-wired science fundamentalist. I will very much appreciate if some adult responds to my query. Anything else that I may get from children or children-like adults will be a bonus.

Thanks to all and regards.

Pramod

(for some inexplicable reason, I think MJA addressed me as PhD. I apologize for the insult it implies to genuine scholars.)

[ThirdWorld]

...where M is the gravitational mass, G is the universal constant of gravitation, and r is the absolute distance. Therefore, the masses can be expressed as functions of the other parameters: M=gr/G and m=F/g. From these, it is clear that if the local acceleration of gravity is zero, g=0, then M=0 ..

*** Is 'r' constant? What if r^2 = infinity?

...but m becomes infinity or undefined even if F is constant or zero....

*** "undefined" means having a finite value.

I am just making these comments, not knowing where you are going with your arguments but making provisions for any eventualities or any deductions you might make.

...If g is nonzero, M increases without bound with square of distance, ...

*** It is difficult to see what you are aiming at but all your corollaries if I may call them that seem to be skewed and incorrect. The physical reality is that g varies with 1/r^2 so it is not M that increases with r^2 for a constant g but M is constant while g varies inversely with r^2.

You need to explain what physical reality you are referring to by your abstract reference to the mathematics of the equations.

...while m remains practically a constant and m=0 if and only if F=0.

*** Again this is twisted reality: if I apply 0 force to an object of mass 10 kg say will that mean that for the object m = 0 since F = 0? No it doesn't since g is also = 0 in this case => m = F/g = 0/0 which is NOT equal to zero.


Further, a force of 10 kN say can be theoretically applied to 0 mass giving infinite acceleration. Which means that m can be zero for cases other than F = 0 as you proclaim.

In conclusion, these demonstrated that gravitational mass as a continuous field is directly proportional to the square of distance ...

*** Flawed logic, flawed analysis and a flawed conclusion. The expression M = gr^2/G says that for a given object of mass M the acceleration due to gravity varies inversely with r^2.

...while inertial mass as a quantum of particle remains unchanged...

*** Again a meaningless conclusion in my view: when two particles combine mass is "lost". So what is the meaning of your statement in light of this fact? Mass is not as "constant" as you affirm.

Since fields are difficult to detect unless they interact, for example: the Higgs field, gravitational mass are then the missing mass of the universe.

*** You are trying to make a distinction between gravitational mass and inertial mass but there is really no difference. In your treatment of the subject you are using the equations for the [gravitation] force between two masses M and m. If you would carefully scrutinize the physics of the case you are considering you will see that what you are referring to as "gravitational mass" is the gravity field of the object of mass M at a distance away from its surface. And what you are considering as inertial mass is the entire gravity field of the small object of mass m.

In light of this "missing mass" would comprise the gravity field of all objects starting from their surface outward.

It would be interesting to know how you arrive at the concept that mass is "missing" from the universe.

Roger

[dleviwing]

I am not a professional physicist or a mathematician. So I have the following query. As they say, the farther we look , farther in the past we are looking. So how do we know the current reality? Is the process of cognizance, important in all our hypothizing?

PD;
Physics make hypotheses that the natural laws that govern our immediate realm of existence also govern existence that we cannot observe. This simply means that the forces of nature that we develop mathematical equations for are just as valid to the universe beyond our observation as they are within our observation of our own solar system. Those who suggest that different laws of physics and nature exist elsewhere in the universe are just being foolish. The problem arises when we ask ourselves if we truly know the laws of nature and physics in an absolute concept. We are still tweaking the laws to fit the observations.