As mentioned in a recent contribution*, cumulative gravitational potential of remote masses is about 108 times the sun's gravitational potential at our location. As potential gradients generated by remote masses due to large distance and isotropic distribution are negligible we won't be able to detect any sinificant linear static forces on a probing mass. This, however, shouldn't preclude other local phenomena like, in particular, those related to changes of spatial orientation. Centrifugal forces, Newton's bucket, Mach's principle, Sagnac's interferometer and Keith's rotational drag experiment** may be regarded as specific examples.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_rest_mass_of_a_body_equivalent_to_local_accumulated_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
Dear Johan,
The Aether was thought for allowing the electromagnetic waves in vacuum and not related with gravity. For me, the existence of a big gravitational potential is not important because its value is in fact not well determined, what would be important is its gradient which would have a gravitational interaction involved.
"The Aether was thought for allowing the electromagnetic waves in vacuum and not related with gravity."
Dear Baldomir,
In fact, I'm aware of hot dicussions about the influence of gravitational fields on the propagation of light. Should we definitely discard the idea that limited speed of light, and possibly cosmological red shift as well, might be related to the omnipresence of some huge, gradient-free gravitational potential?
How could one discriminate between a gradient-free gravitational potential and an absent one? Would it make any difference, and if so, in which sense and why?
"How could one discriminate between a gradient-free gravitational potential and an absent one?"
Dear Jan-Martin,
in view of Mach's Principle the appearance of inertial forces might be interpreted as the most sensitive indicator of a gravitational potential.
JKF "in view of Mach's Principle the appearance of inertial forces might be interpreted as the most sensitive indicator of a gravitational potential"
It could be argued that the basic assumptions of Mach's principle are invalidated by electromagnetic phenomena. Photons in particular are seen as having no inertia and yet are influenced by gravity. Much the same argument is used around neutrinos, free electrons and other elementary particles.
Electromagnetic fields may have 'persistence' and interact with these phenomena but this differs from inertia in many ways.
Given that we can point to specific, multiple examples which refute Mach's principle how can we then say it is an indicator of anything, much less the 'most sensitive' with respect to gravity?
JKF "in view of Mach's Principle the appearance of inertial forces might be interpreted as the most sensitive indicator of a gravitational potential"
Dear Ian,
maybe that instead of "most sensitive" I should better have stated "most obvious". Yet "sensitive" also implies that everybody can feel inertial forces just by waving hands.
It was not my intention to address inertial phenomena in the fields that you are talking about. But, anyway, I won't preclude the existence of other physical phenomena, in particular those happening in vacuum space, that might result from interaction with remote masses. It really appears strange that although remote galaxies make up by far the biggest part of our cosmos, our present physical laws in no way take into consideration any local effects that might be related to those masses.
JKF
My apologies if my response was too aggressive. That was not my intention alt all.
My point was to differentiate inertia from gravity;
Although the argument that universal gravity potential is the prime 'motivator' of inertia is a compelling one, we can easily point to phenomena that fall outside of this theory. Photons are the prime example - they exhibit no inertia but are influenced by gravity.
If the link between gravity and inertia fails then Mach's principle fails also. This then (in a circular argument) nullifies your statement as quoted above.
With humility and respect
Ian
Dear Ian,
you should know that I didn't notice any aggressive tone in your comment. We simply have been talking about different effects of gravitation. Inertia may be only one, yet I suspect that there are others that we still aren't aware of.
"It really appears strange that although remote galaxies make up by far the biggest part of our cosmos, our present physical laws in no way take into consideration any local effect related to those masses." -- As far as I know, only such a thing can be a candidate for a physical law which can be tested by experiment (because otherwise it would be just philosophical speculation, but not natural science). So, how were such an involvement of remote masses to be tested?
"So, how were such an involvement of remote masses to be tested?"
In fact, there have been activities in the 1960/70s that apparently weren't appreciated in view of the enthusiasm with alleged first gravitational wave discovery at that time, see references below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Weber
Dear Johan,
Assuming that aether is the accumulation of all the fields, we can locally define the speed of light c = sqrt ((E/V)/(m/V)) in which E/V is the elasticity and m/V the density of aether.
Hence, every change of E/V or m/V gives a change of 'c'.
When one accounts for matter like deBroglie, a self-trapped lightwave (in aether), the speed of light will determine the value of mass that a particle obtains.
Mass is then defined as the quantity of loops that self-trapped light makes per unit of time: when applying a force upon a particle, one changes the path of the selftrapped light by that force, and an epicycloid-like path occurs.
Successive 'loops' of the epicycloid are mutually interacting by a (purely mechanical) Coriolis force that is counter-acting the initial force.
Hence, the slower 'c', the smaller the inertial mass, but also, the smaller the counter-force, so that Newton remains right.
The gravitational constant is the link between inertial mass and gravitational mass, and can change as well.
I found an empirical relationship between the Sun's rotation and the gravitational constant, through the surface gravity on the Sun.
It suggests that the star's dynamics define that constant.
Article Is the Differential Rotation of the Sun Caused by a Coriolis...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics