Does gravity have mass?

[inocente]

Now are you one of those intellectual snobs? Not all of us can have Phds for our instructors. And perhaps a normal intelligent guy with hands on experience has a chance of being more objective. He is more likely to have his feet on the ground.

Earlier you said his first job was “theoretical research on guided missiles”. Theoretical. So when did he get “hands on experience”?

It wasn’t an insult. It was a jab at your well known repugnance for philosophy ( we have been all through that before)

The repugnance is for armchair philosophers, not the real deal (we have been all through that before).

Certainly, I don’t object to the theory or the mathematics. I object to the interpretation of some aspects of it, especially those which violate the nature of things as they actually exist.

Evidence won’t magically change to fit your preconceptions. As hecd has said, the world is the way it is whether you like it or not.

Is hecd2 named for a He-Cd laser? So good they named him twice? I digress.

No doubt you are correct. Did you understand it?

Apparently so. What would you like explained?

*Perhaps, but you use them often enough. And it certainly isn’t universally true. After all I do not understand Quantum Mechanics or the the Theories of Relativity. So by necessity I must rely on authority figures. But I don’t accept everything they say, not when it violates the nature of things. So how about you? Do you understand these things? Good for you if you do. But what about all of us who don’t? Why should I swallow everything these people say?. *

That paragraph starts by saying you must rely on authority figures, and ends saying you shouldn’t. In between it says you already made up your mind anyway, and won’t accept anything which doesn’t match your preconceptions. It’s all a bit confusing for us ordinary mortals in the cheap seats.

I’d say that you are never obligated to rely on authority figures, all you need is an open mind.

So when Einstein found that Newton’s laws were not universally applicable, was he regarded as a crank. Hey isn’t " …relativity denial is mostly the province of lone cranks…" an insult ?. I should feel insulted, but I know you just kidding .

I never said you are a crank, that was in the article I linked, which says that a lot of people found relativity hard to accept initially. But that was before the evidence rolled in. It isn’t overly rational to deny the weight of evidence.

No, Telsa was right. As I explained before, the math works but that does not mean that space is curved. That is utter nonesense.

All the evidence says that’s the way God planned it, that’s the way God wants it to be.

There are always people who cry nonsense. As George Gershwin wrote, “they all laughed at Wilbur and his brother when they said that man could fly”. But a century later, with GPS in every cellphone vindicating Einstein, it isn’t overly rational to deny the weight of evidence. Imho.

 

[hecd2]

Is hecd2 named for a He-Cd laser? So good they named him twice? I digress.

In 15+ years you are the only person to spot that. Lases in the visible at a very fetching blue, 441.6nm.

 

[inocente]

By ordinary people, I mean all those who don’t know or understand higher science as in Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, etc.

I mean my own judgment of what is true or not. That is my own common sense.

I think when relying on our own value judgment, we should explicitly say that it’s only our opinion.

For instance, my common sense tells me that if light had mass as you maintain, then if we stood outside absorbing sunlight, we’d be heavier than if we stayed indoors. But of course we’re not. And the Earth, which is bathed in sunlight all day every day, would get a bit heavier every year. But of course it doesn’t, as light has no mass.

All us folk who according to you have never read any philosophy know that Thomas also argues that light has no mass. He says it is “repugnant, not only to reason, but to common sense” to say otherwise.

Although his common sense wrongly told him light is instantaneous and composed of “fire, the noblest of the four elements”.

I have no idea how he did it. He was a brilliant man. Did he think space actually curved? At least he was not one of those running around saying it, nor did he ever say time was curved. These are rediculous notions and so is the notion that the photon has no mass. If it did not have mass a beam of light would not react to a gravitational mass. Or are you going to tell me that gravity doesn’t exist, that it was one of Newton’s great errors.

Lemaître was not the kind of man to live a lie or to keep quiet to avoid frightening the horses. There’s a bit about him here. It’s only you who gets so upset with modern physics, most people don’t. There are philosophies other than yours. Or so Shakespeare tells me.

Here’s how it works (confirmed by evidence).

1. Light takes the shortest path between two points in space.
2. In the presence of mass, space (more strictly spacetime) curves.
3. Therefore in the presence of mass the shortest path also curves, and so light bends.

So hopefully you see that light doesn’t need any mass nor does it need to be affected by gravity, it bends because the space through which it is moving curves. Put another way, light doesn’t know what a straight line or a curve is, it just does what comes naturally.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Earlier you said his first job was “theoretical research on guided missiles”. Theoretical. So when did he get “hands on experience”?

The repugnance is for armchair philosophers, not the real deal (we have been all through that before).

Evidence won’t magically change to fit your preconceptions. As hecd has said, the world is the way it is whether you like it or not.

Is hecd2 named for a He-Cd laser? So good they named him twice? I digress.

Apparently so. What would you like explained?

That paragraph starts by saying you must rely on authority figures, and ends saying you shouldn’t. In between it says you already made up your mind anyway, and won’t accept anything which doesn’t match your preconceptions. It’s all a bit confusing for us ordinary mortals in the cheap seats.

I’d say that you are never obligated to rely on authority figures, all you need is an open mind.

I never said you are a crank, that was in the article I linked, which says that a lot of people found relativity hard to accept initially. But that was before the evidence rolled in. It isn’t overly rational to deny the weight of evidence.

All the evidence says that’s the way God planned it, that’s the way God wants it to be.

There are always people who cry nonsense. As George Gershwin wrote, “they all laughed at Wilbur and his brother when they said that man could fly”. But a century later, with GPS in every cellphone vindicating Einstein, it isn’t overly rational to deny the weight of evidence. Imho.

Just to let you know I read your response. Doesn’t surprise me at all, exactly what I expected.

Linus2nd

 

[Faith1960]

Nope. Isn’t Catholic.

LOL!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think when relying on our own value judgment, we should explicitly say that it’s only our opinion.

For instance, my common sense tells me that if light had mass as you maintain, then if we stood outside absorbing sunlight, we’d be heavier than if we stayed indoors. But of course we’re not. And the Earth, which is bathed in sunlight all day every day, would get a bit heavier every year. But of course it doesn’t, as light has no mass.

All us folk who according to you have never read any philosophy know that Thomas also argues that light has no mass. He says it is “repugnant, not only to reason, but to common sense” to say otherwise.

Although his common sense wrongly told him light is instantaneous and composed of “fire, the noblest of the four elements”.

Lemaître was not the kind of man to live a lie or to keep quiet to avoid frightening the horses. There’s a bit about him here. It’s only you who gets so upset with modern physics, most people don’t. There are philosophies other than yours. Or so Shakespeare tells me.

Here’s how it works (confirmed by evidence).

1. Light takes the shortest path between two points in space.

Only in the absence of an attracting mass.

1. In the presence of mass, space (more strictly spacetime) curves.

In the presence of mass light bends, not space ( What is the nature of space that makes it susceptible to curving? )

1. Therefore in the presence of mass the shortest path also curves, and so light bends.

.

So hopefully you see that light doesn’t need any mass nor does it need to be affected by gravity, it bends because the space through which it is moving curves. Put another way, light doesn’t know what a straight line or a curve is, it just does what comes naturally.

Again, what is the nature of space? It must be something, it must have a nature if, as you say, it can bend?

I’m not upset at all, just amazed that people can’t see the light , especially highly educated people.

Why not see what Weisheipl and Wallace have to say, I gave you references earlier.

Thank you for looking up what Thomas had to say. He might think differently today.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Hey, who is being insulting again ? Geez, give us a break. You might be surprised that Aristotle was more about correct thinking than he was about Celestial Spheres, so was Thomas. And moden folk, including yourself have not read them. You accept without critical thinking, the opinions of those who haven’t read them either, but who have absorbed the opinions of prejudiced witnesses. Feser, your favorite guy, has often demonstrated this fact. The well has been posioned by slanderous tongues.

The well was dry. I probably won’t have time today but may post to granny on your Copernicus thread tomorrow on my understanding of the revolution which brought about the end of the medieval world and the separation of science and religion, the difference between Aristotelian qualitative and modern quantitative physics (which btw could be why you don’t like math). You can tell me there how much better read and wiser you are than us mere mortals in the cheap seats.

*All I wish for is that the science departments be balanced in their judgments, that they consider that philosophy does have some contribution to make in the search for truth, which is what Aristotle called Wisdom.

Why not read a bit: . dhspriory.org/thomas/* ? I suggest you start with Thomas’ Commentary on A’s Metaphysics.

I think scientists do fine, but like just about everyone else other than perhaps your good self, they recognize that philosophy is much greater than one medieval school. Try it, you’ll find a whole new world out there. Maybe start with Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, contemporaneous with Shakespeare. See how his ideas of morality and the State fit with game theory. Very interesting. Well, at any rate to us unrefined mortals on the back row in temple.

 

[inocente]

Oh, I agree. He and Thomas both were honest men. But he was right in that all substances are composed of basic elements, we know them by different names and natures. He was also was right that there are underlying principles of each subsrtance, their nature or form, which make them what they are and which make them exist in the first place. These latter things are what science assumes but does not deal with.

A medieval alchemist might talk about the natures of substances, not sure a modern chemist would think in those terms as it doesn’t have any explanatory power.

 

[inocente]

Jim - spotted this one minute video and accompanying article (link just under the video) about relativity at the UK Open University. Click the arrow to start the video. Scroll down for other videos about dark energy and so on.

 

[inocente]

In 15+ years you are the only person to spot that. Lases in the visible at a very fetching blue, 441.6nm.

You made my day . But I only spotted the elements, google found the laser. And a very fetching blue it is too.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The well was dry. I probably won’t have time today but may post to granny on your Copernicus thread tomorrow on my understanding of the revolution which brought about the end of the medieval world and the separation of science and religion, the difference between Aristotelian qualitative and modern quantitative physics (which btw could be why you don’t like math). You can tell me there how much better read and wiser you are than us mere mortals in the cheap seats.

Still casting aspersions I see. But never mind. I never intimated that I was better read or wiser, actually I’m just average. I just happen to have read more Aristotle and Aquina - and really not all that much considering their body of work.

Oh, there is a lot to say about the so called " Revolution, " Feser, Weisheipl and Wallace, et al have said quite a bit.

I think scientists do fine, but like just about everyone else other than perhaps your good self, they recognize that philosophy is much greater than one medieval school. Try it, you’ll find a whole new world out there. Maybe start with Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, contemporaneous with Shakespeare. See how his ideas of morality and the State fit with game theory. Very interesting. Well, at any rate to us unrefined mortals on the back row in temple.

I have no problem with scientists, it is their drum beating, cymbal rattling camp followers I have trouble with.

Not interested in Hobbes or the movers and shakers of the " Modern School. " The further one gets from A and T.A. the further one gets away from the truth.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A medieval alchemist might talk about the natures of substances, not sure a modern chemist would think in those terms as it doesn’t have any explanatory power.

How do you science arrives at their system of classification. Each science has its own but each is based on the fact that every substance ( being, thing, essence ) has its unique nature. It is a things’ nature from which flow all its physical composition, behavior, and operations. Weisheipl is a specialist in this area, Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages . His book really is worth reading.

Linus2nd

 

[Jim_Baur]

Inocente

THANKS

 

[inocente]

Again, what is the nature of space? It must be something, it must have a nature if, as you say, it can bend?

That little book we both have has a paper by Minkowski containing the famous line “Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality”.

Einstein shows that for the speed of light to be constant, space must interchange with time. It’s just geometry (in the little book straight after Minkowski’s paper).

I’m not upset at all, just amazed that people can’t see the light , especially highly educated people.

When there are mountains of evidence for something, hopefully the jury goes with the evidence.

Why not see what Weisheipl and Wallace have to say, I gave you references earlier.

But it’s false, disproved. Why read stuff that’s false?

Thank you for looking up what Thomas had to say. He might think differently today.

That was just to let you know I had read some medieval stuff.

Not interested in Hobbes or the movers and shakers of the " Modern School. " The further one gets from A and T.A. the further one gets away from the truth.

That sounds as if you’ve made them into idols. Hopefully you haven’t. But tis a bit rich if you go round telling others they haven’t read philosophy when what you really mean is they have.

How do you science arrives at their system of classification. Each science has its own but each is based on the fact that every substance ( being, thing, essence ) has its unique nature. It is a things’ nature from which flow all its physical composition, behavior, and operations. Weisheipl is a specialist in this area, Nature and Motion in the Middle Ages . His book really is worth reading.

Matter made from essences is a medieval magical view. It was proved wrong by Galileo.

We now know that chemicals are made from elements, and each element has a unique atom with properties that depend on the number of protons in its nucleus and so on, which is the basis for the periodic table. That knowledge has enabled materials to be made which medieval philosophers could not have imagined. Which is yet another tangible proof that science works much better than medieval magic.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That little book we both have has a paper by Minkowski containing the famous line “Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality”.

Einstein shows that for the speed of light to be constant, space must interchange with time. It’s just geometry (in the little book straight after Minkowski’s paper).

When there are mountains of evidence for something, hopefully the jury goes with the evidence.

But it’s false, disproved. Why read stuff that’s false?

That was just to let you know I had read some medieval stuff.

That sounds as if you’ve made them into idols. Hopefully you haven’t. But tis a bit rich if you go round telling others they haven’t read philosophy when what you really mean is they have.

Matter made from essences is a medieval magical view. It was proved wrong by Galileo.

We now know that chemicals are made from elements, and each element has a unique atom with properties that depend on the number of protons in its nucleus and so on, which is the basis for the periodic table. That knowledge has enabled materials to be made which medieval philosophers could not have imagined. Which is yet another tangible proof that science works much better than medieval magic.

Your animas against the philosophy of A and TA is truly astonishing. It is hard to reach a mind that already knows everything. Really its like talking to a Bahai’, which is impossible.

Galileo disproved the reality of essences? Please explain. The " elements " you speak of above I have always acknowledged ( and so would have A and TA ). They would however point out that these elements ( whatever they are ) flow from the nature of the substance in which they exist, as does the characteristic behavior and properties of the substance in which they exist. If this were not so these elements could never be organized to direct and preserve the afore mentioned behaviors and properties of a particular substance.

Since all substances, animate and inanimate, are composed of the same basic elements,
how explain the unique properties of each particular substance if it does not have an interior essence or nature or substantial form? Aristotle explains this beautifully in his Physics and Weisheipl gives an excellent explanation. But, as you say, what can these old fossils know compared to the enlightened " Moderns. "

I see that you just can resist casting aspersions. Cute but doesn’t improve your argument in the least.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That little book we both have has a paper by Minkowski containing the famous line “Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality”.

Einstein shows that for the speed of light to be constant, space must interchange with time. It’s just geometry (in the little book straight after Minkowski’s paper).

Gee, space and time are just geometry, imagine that ( pretty hard to do ). Tell that to your boss the next time you are late to work. And the next time you trip and fall on the ice, just remember it is just geometry.

When there are mountains of evidence for something, hopefully the jury goes with the evidence.

Really?

But it’s false, disproved. Why read stuff that’s false?

False. Hardly. Why read the stuff? To broaden your mind, and you will certainly learn things you don’t know now.

That was just to let you know I had read some medieval stuff.

Really, you mean some blurb on a blog somewhere. Don’t tell me you actually opend Aristotle or Thomas?

That sounds as if you’ve made them into idols. Hopefully you haven’t. But tis a bit rich if you go round telling others they haven’t read philosophy when what you really mean is they have.

I admit, it sounds a little hypocritical, but I plead age and time remaining ( ? ). Also, once you have seen the truth, it is very hard to get interested in those whom I know already reject that truth.

Matter made from essences is a medieval magical view. It was proved wrong by Galileo.

I never heard that before. And if he claimed to have done so, he certainly erred. Perhaps he was just " spouting off " as he often did.

We now know that chemicals are made from elements, and each element has a unique atom with properties that depend on the number of protons in its nucleus and so on, which is the basis for the periodic table. That knowledge has enabled materials to be made which medieval philosophers could not have imagined. Which is yet another tangible proof that science works much better than medieval magic.

Addressed in the previous post.

Just a few observations.

What is the nature of space that allows it to bend? If it is not a substance or a body, how can it bend?

What is the nature of time that allows it to bend? If it is not a substance or a body of some type, how can it bend?

Are we to discard gravity on account of General Relativity? Or was Newton correct after all?

Gravity either must exist or not, it cannot be both. I think I’ll stick with Newton.

A thought experiment: If the universe consisted of a single firey sun, what has happened to its mass after it has burned to a cinder. On the account of General Relativity, photons have no mass. But the mass of our fictional sun has been dissapated by the expelling of photons. So it would seem, on that interpretation, that mass has been destroyed. But we know by the law of the conservation of energy and mass that this cannot be. So photons must have mass if we are to maintain the conservation of energy and mass.

Linus2nd

 

[pnewton]

I will hope that someone with a PhD can jump on and explain where I am right or wrong, but I thought gravity has mass. I was under the impression that the accumulated mass from the gravitational force of the sun, under Einstein’s theory of general relativity was what accounted for the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury, thus providing evidence against the hypothetical planet Vulcan.

 

[Bahman]

I will hope that someone with a PhD can jump on and explain where I am right or wrong, but I thought gravity has mass. I was under the impression that the accumulated mass from the gravitational force of the sun, under Einstein’s theory of general relativity was what accounted for the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury, thus providing evidence against the hypothetical planet Vulcan.

That is speed of mercury which is relatively large so you need special relativity and not general relativity to have the right orbit. Basically what you do, is to solve equation of motion of special relativity under the limit that speed is small compared to speed of light. You get simple classical equation with the some corrections, after including those corrections you get the right orbit.

 

[inocente]

Your animas against the philosophy of A and TA is truly astonishing. It is hard to reach a mind that already knows everything.

I think it’s wrong to idolize.

Galileo disproved the reality of essences? Please explain.

Aristotle thought that objects are animated (heavy objects fall fastest due to their greater desire to reach the center of the Earth, and objects slow down of their own accord unless being acted on). Galileo was by no means the first to question this, but was the first to show precisely that objects are inert.

The " elements " you speak of above I have always acknowledged ( and so would have A and TA ). They would however point out that these elements ( whatever they are ) flow from the nature of the substance in which they exist, as does the characteristic behavior and properties of the substance in which they exist. If this were not so these elements could never be organized to direct and preserve the afore mentioned behaviors and properties of a particular substance.

Not really. If we only knew the properties of protons, neutrons and electrons, I think we would not be able to predict the possible existence of petroleum and its properties, even though it is made from them. The rule instead seems to be “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” (which is Aristotle in one of his clearer moments).

Since all substances, animate and inanimate, are composed of the same basic elements, how explain the unique properties of each particular substance if it does not have an interior essence or nature or substantial form? Aristotle explains this beautifully in his Physics and Weisheipl gives an excellent explanation. But, as you say, what can these old fossils know compared to the enlightened " Moderns. "

I don’t see the point of trying to shoehorn a medieval worldview into modern science, it just makes everything more complicated and adds unnecessary baggage. If we are interested in how the heavens go, it’s just confusing to heap in all the wrong ideas that long ago got disproved.

I see that you just can resist casting aspersions. Cute but doesn’t improve your argument in the least.

It’s not casting aspersions. Science works a lot better than magic, period. Otherwise we’d all go to magicians when we’re ill. I can’t believe you’re trying to argue this, are you at a loss for anything else to do today?

 

[inocente]

Gee, space and time are just geometry, imagine that ( pretty hard to do ). Tell that to your boss the next time you are late to work. And the next time you trip and fall on the ice, just remember it is just geometry.

As I keep saying, flat earthers are also baffled that anyone could possibly think differently to them.

*False. Hardly. Why read the stuff? To broaden your mind, and you will certainly learn things you don’t know now. *

The internet is full of wrong ideas. Reading wrong ideas narrows the mind imho.

Really, you mean some blurb on a blog somewhere. Don’t tell me you actually opend Aristotle or Thomas?

Yes of course I read the original. What’s the point of reading blogs? Is it you who likes Fesser’s blog? I don’t read any blogs. Reading blogs dulls the mind imho.

I admit, it sounds a little hypocritical, but I plead age and time remaining ( ? ). Also, once you have seen the truth, it is very hard to get interested in those whom I know already reject that truth.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.

*What is the nature of space that allows it to bend? If it is not a substance or a body, how can it bend?

What is the nature of time that allows it to bend? If it is not a substance or a body of some type, how can it bend?*

For centuries people thought Euclidean geometry was the only kind. But no, there are more things in heaven and earth, Euclid, than are dreamt of in your geometry.

Have a look here, it talks about the geometry - pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity/

Are we to discard gravity on account of General Relativity? Or was Newton correct after all?

The curving of spacetime explains gravity. Perfectly.

A thought experiment: If the universe consisted of a single firey sun, what has happened to its mass after it has burned to a cinder. On the account of General Relativity, photons have no mass. But the mass of our fictional sun has been dissapated by the expelling of photons. So it would seem, on that interpretation, that mass has been destroyed. But we know by the law of the conservation of energy and mass that this cannot be. So photons must have mass if we are to maintain the conservation of energy and mass.

So now you’re questioning E = mc[sup]2[/sup] ? Does that mean that as A & TA didn’t predict mass/energy equivalence either, you’re now an atom bomb denier as well?

Holy Here We Go Again Batman!

I gave you a thought experiment earlier, about how, if light had mass, the earth would be getting heavier from being bathed in sunlight every day. Seems you forgot to answer that. I wonder why?