A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

Yet another of my almost certainly incorrect puzzlings...

Study matter and its motion through spacetime...

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#21  Postby DavidMcC » Mar 03, 2017 1:46 pm

Handy andy wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Handy andy wrote:I am so ignorant, I only quoted the first few lines out of a plasma physics book, which is in agreement with my own ideas. You are so clever. I should never have doubted your under graduate or pre under post graduate school omniscience. I only questioned the validity of Einsteins theories and the none correlation between an expanding universe, quantum theory, and suggested a solution. I am so sorry for questioning your beliefs.

I wont post anymore on your thread. So sorry. Scientific advances have improved since I was in school, or was it university, it has all blurred into a fog now. I didn't realize Einstein predicted galaxies were accelerating away from us. I am so stupid, I missed that in my lectures. Dark matter wasn't even mentioned, it wasn't needed, or did I miss that as well. The world has changed, the universe must fit mathematical models, not mathematical models fit what is observed.

Question your own beliefs, science is not a religion. Think.!!!!

Many apologies

I did not mean to doubt your belief system or offend you in any way.

Actually, Einstein didn't really predict that the galaxies were accelerating away from us. Rather, his equation contained a "fudge factor" (fudge term, actally) that allowed for the possibility of accelerating exapansion in terms of a value for this term (the cosmological constant, lambda). He initially left it out, because he though the universe was "unchanging". He could only be said to have "predicted" it if he had a way to calculate lambda from first principles, as opposed it inferring it from measurement.
Also, I guess you were being sarcastic about dark matter, which cannot be understood in terms of Einstein's equation, although I have a multiverse cosmology which can understand both dark matter and accelerated expansion, plus a range of other phenomena that are mysteries in single universe therory. (See page 6 of the LQG thread).


Einstein did not predict a accelerating expansion of the universe, which is now observed. It is intriguing to think how he may modified his ideas if he had known this to be the case, given the science of the day.

A simple step for Einstein may have been to return to the ideas of the ether prevalent in his day, and as I suggested, space would be regarded as the ether. He may have used a simple change of concept like space is moving with us, and is relative to each revolving solar system or galaxy. This simple suggestion allows galaxies moving away from our space at 0.3c to have a normal existence at the outer edges of the observable universe. It could also explain a hole multitude of other phenomina if I was to play with it.

Atoms are full of empty space, the concept of atoms being a solid is a nonsense in particle physics. If space is regarded as a substsance, it will swirl around inside and outside of atoms, the effect will be cumalitive. The disturbance in space will be like a stretching of space, in all directions and it fits with the observed that I am aware off.

Space carries all forces as waves of one form or another, all particles are waves. Quantum matter comes into and out of existence as waves. Space conserves inertia, space has inertia in the form of quantum matter, radiation etc.

Whilst it is a simple idea, I think it possibly has more validity than your idea Ref different multiverses allowing your model to explain different phenomina, does a multiverse not lead to paradoxes. Your model sounds interesting I will take a read. String theory or M theory was at 13 dimensions last time I looked, you have got it down to 5 and some multiverses, I aint convinced.

What paradoxes does my kind of multiverse involve? It certainly resolves various issues with the standard, stand-alone one-universe model.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 66
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#22  Postby newolder » Mar 04, 2017 10:38 am

Handy andy wrote:...
Einstein did not predict a accelerating expansion of the universe, which is now observed. It is intriguing to think how he may modified his ideas if he had known this to be the case, given the science of the day.

It is true that Einstein did not predict accelerating universal expansion. It is also true that General Relativity theory can and does predict this phenomenon. The two and a half minute video near the top at this link shows how.

In conclusion, Einstein’s “greatest blunder” was not even a blunder.

+ What crank wrote.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6506
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#23  Postby Handy andy » Mar 04, 2017 6:45 pm

The aether was disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment a century ago, which did not detect any difference in travel time--as it should have if there is an aether--for two beams of light traveling perpendicular but equidistant paths.

THE Michelson Morley experiment was based on newtonian ideas and is ONLY VALID IF SPACE IS STATIONERY AND WE ARE PASSING THROUGH IT. If Space is relative and is moving with us in our solar system or galaxy then it is not valid. If space is relative to each solar system and is moving with galaxies then what I stated above in my little conjecture is plausible. Space is moving, it is not stationery, think outside the box. Galaxies will accelerate away from each other, like charges with the same spin.

Ignorance is bliss, I never mentioned chemistry, and I have not indicated how highly or lowly educated I am. My English grammar is getting worse by the day, but I dont live in an English speaking country any more, so I dont need it. I am not american and am a little bit older than some on this forum so got my education for free. I was also taught how to think in the Bargain.

F sake "Planets dont move through space they drag it with them" Space is relative, it is moving with us in our galaxy.

Rational Skeptism, is a contradiction in terms.
Handy andy
 
Name: Andy
Posts: 45

Country: World
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#24  Postby Thommo » Mar 04, 2017 7:23 pm

Handy andy wrote:Galaxies will accelerate away from each other, like charges with the same spin.


Unless half of them spin the other way.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26322

Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#25  Postby Handy andy » Mar 04, 2017 7:39 pm

I know so called scientists "HATE" wikepedia, so here is a link to the Micholson Morley experiment on wikepedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson ... experiment

Only about 6 galaxies at the outer edges of the observable universe are spinning in the opposite direction. I have not checked to see if they are red or blue shifted.

@ Thommo I guess you astronomy is not one of your subjects.
Handy andy
 
Name: Andy
Posts: 45

Country: World
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#26  Postby Thommo » Mar 04, 2017 7:43 pm

Ok, so the question was whether galaxies spin in differing directions. They do. As stated by astronomers with reference to a paper.

That Wikipedia page (which I have no objection to at all) does not say otherwise. You do, but without a source.

It is possible that in fact it is you who does not know what astronomy says, isn't it?

(An alternative view has also been put forth, which is what this paper is replying to, that there is a small ~ 7% excess of galaxies spinning in one direction compared to the other. Note, that's a small imbalance, not the 99.9999% suggested by there only being six exceptions.)
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26322

Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#27  Postby newolder » Mar 04, 2017 8:12 pm

Handy andy wrote:...
Only about 6 galaxies at the outer edges of the observable universe are spinning in the opposite direction. I have not checked to see if they are red or blue shifted.
...

The outer edges of the observable universe are imaged in maps of the cosmic microwave background radiation (COBE, WMAP & Planck Telescope, for examples). The temperature of this radiation now (about 2.7 K) has undergone redshift by a factor of about 1000* since it was emitted (at temperatures of a few thousand Kelvin degrees) nearly 14 billion years ago. The furthest galaxies observed hitherto are at redshifts around 10. IOW there are no galaxies "at the outer edges of the observable universe" because it took something of the order hundreds of millions of years before the first galaxies arose.

Your claim is absurd, wrong and looks very much like the handywork of a troll (again).

* ETA Source for CMBR redshift:
...
As we discussed in an early lecture, redshifting preserves a blackbody spectrum, simply decreasing the temperature as T ∝ a−1 ∝ (1 + z). Therefore, when the radiation and matter decoupled, the radiation would be left to stream across the universe to us. The current temperature of this background radiation is TCMB = 2.73 K, and the energy in this background is greater than the energy in all other photons in the universe combined.

An interesting point about this background is that it is isotropic: the temperature is the same in all directions, to roughly a part in 105. At first glance this may seem unremarkable; isn’t it just what we expect from the cosmological principle? Further thought, however, reveals a puzzle. Recall that in a matter-dominated universe the scale factor goes with time as a ∝ t2/3, and in a radiation-dominated universe goes as a ∝ t1/2. This means that the region of the universe in causal contact with us (i.e., that could be physically affected by things moving at light speed or slower) is constantly increasing. In turn, this implies that at the time that the CMB set on its way to us, at redshift z ∼ 1000, only small patches of what we see could have been in causal contact. How, then, could they have known to coordinate their temperatures to such a degree? The best current answer turns out to be inflation, which we shall discuss in a later lecture.
...

lecture notes source pdf
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6506
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#28  Postby Handy andy » Mar 04, 2017 8:38 pm

newolder wrote:
Handy andy wrote:...
Only about 6 galaxies at the outer edges of the observable universe are spinning in the opposite direction. I have not checked to see if they are red or blue shifted.
...

The outer edges of the observable universe are imaged in maps of the cosmic microwave background radiation (COBE, WMAP & Planck Telescope, for examples). The temperature of this radiation now (about 2.7 K) has undergone redshift by a factor of about 1000 since it was emitted (at temperatures of a few thousand Kelvin degrees) nearly 14 billion years ago. The furthest galaxies observed hitherto are at redshifts around 10. IOW there are no galaxies "at the outer edges of the observable universe" because it took something of the order hundreds of millions of years before the first galaxies arose.

Your claim is absurd, wrong and looks very much like the handiwork of a troll (again).


It just goes to show you can not trust those NASA websites, I guess you are a big banger, and not a plasma guy, and most definitely not a particle physicist. Galaxies travelling at 0.3c away from us, are possibly a nonsense to you. Would light in those galaxies, still do light speed in your world. If the medium all forces are transmitted in is traveling with those galaxies, then c is c.

You know I think I am going to have to find out what a troll is, I never did english literature or read about hansel and gretal, but it seems to be something people on this forum have to read about. None of the folk I went to school with read about fairy stories or trolls.
Handy andy
 
Name: Andy
Posts: 45

Country: World
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#29  Postby Thommo » Mar 04, 2017 8:43 pm

The first hit google produces for "troll" as a search term may be of help to you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.


Anyway, I am glad you have so magnanimously accepted correction on your astronomy regarding the number of spinning galaxies and how your theory no longer works.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26322

Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#30  Postby newolder » Mar 04, 2017 8:49 pm

Handy andy wrote:...
It just goes to show you can not trust those NASA websites,

What goes to show this?
I guess you are a big banger,

Wrong. Are you going to guess again, or ask?
and not a plasma guy, and most definitely not a particle physicist.

Keep guessing, or ask.
Galaxies travelling at 0.3c away from us, are possibly a nonsense to you.

Keep guessing...
Would light in those galaxies, still do light speed in your world.

I've already instructed you (freely) on the use of the question mark. Have you forgotten how and when to use it?
If the medium all forces are transmitted in is traveling with those galaxies, then c is c.

And apples is apples.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6506
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#31  Postby Handy andy » Mar 05, 2017 9:37 am

The Michelson Morley experiment was done parallel to the earths surface.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E

The above link shows an extended micholson morley experiment being done at right angles to the earth. The answer is different to the one Micholson and Morley got with their setup. It is interesting and related to gravity and the ether concept.

I will check your claim ref the rotating galaxy idea, because I am sure I read it on credible science web page. However I don't take notes, of which link I follow when something is interesting, I just follow the line of thought. So I will hang onto my conjecture, for a while longer, it has me interested.
Handy andy
 
Name: Andy
Posts: 45

Country: World
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#32  Postby newolder » Mar 05, 2017 9:54 am

^ The author writes:
In the meantime, I have built with better equipment two new interferometers. The measured value is now smaller, roughly between 1.5 and 2.0

The effect is not independent of device construction. IOW it's bollocks.

ETA Here's an image of the original M & M setup. Note the concrete granite table floating on a bath of mercury and the lack of plywood in any length critical elements. :roll:
Image
image source
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6506
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#33  Postby LjSpike » Mar 05, 2017 10:58 am

twistor59 wrote:I feel a strange but powerful force pulling this thread towards the pseudoscience forum.... :levi:

Perhaps, but is groundbreaking science not just pseudoscience that happens to end up being right? :P

Anyway, to the point of some theories having 21 or so dimensions, when you have a theory with that many dimensions for things, it's a bit of a step up from are 3 or 4 dimensions, and surely the idea of simplifying it down to as few things, like is trying to be done in particle physics, is a goal to aim for? Also, I'm just throwing in gravity as an extra dimension, any other phenomena which need extra dimensions could well have their own, I'm not trying to throw together a unifying theory of everything, just some ideas of how to unify gravity a bit better.

Handy andy, I do believe some people are still looking for gravitons. It does appear that the world hasn't given up on them, for some reason? Now, I do understand that gravitational waves travel at c, fitting nicely in with SR, but gravity itself at least supposedly travels infinitely fast, effecting all points instantly, therefore gravity (not gravitational waves) don't sit nicely with SR. For that fact, and that gravitational waves aren't continuously emitted from their source of mass like gravity is, makes me believe that they would be very different phenomena.

In a 5th gravity dimension, our traditional expression of gravity could be the most common disturbance of that dimension, expressing itself around mass of the lower dimensions (for whatever reason), whereas gravitational waves are an alternative less frequent disturbance, and can occur separately to mass of the lower dimensions, perhaps the actual travelling of the wave is then more exclusively in our lower dimensions, explaining its travel at c.

Also, you can potentially rule out gravity as a form of energy as it doesn't observe conservation of energy (only energy expressed as matter causes gravity, heat or chemical energy etc. don't), and the graviton wouldn't fit with SR due to needing to instantaneously travel with traditional gravity, likewise as wave for traditional gravity would also have to travel instantaneously so doesn't fit with SR.
LjSpike
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 89
Age: 19
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#34  Postby Handy andy » Mar 05, 2017 11:28 am

The micholson morley experiment is very sensitive to flexing of the mirrors instruments etc. But it is used in gravitational wave detection.The youtube video I posted above is interesting from this point of view. All experiments can be improved with better apparatus. Newolder mentioned, the experiment was repeated with better equipment and a reduced effect was noted, I have not been able to find anything on that point. But it is very possible even a reduced effect points to a detection in a gravitational gradient, which could equally be a vibration or stretching of space.

With reference to the 6 galaxies spinning the opposite direction I cede defeat, I have looked for any links to support what I think I read some time ago, and can not find any thing to support the statement I made.

I do not think any idea is a bad idea if it provokes a better one. Relative space I think is an excellent idea, I am going to kick it around in my head for a while. All things are waves or vibrations in space, all points are connected. I think this fits with quantum mechanics, or particle physics, and allows them to incorporate a simple explanation for gravity.

The graviton concept could simply be a vibration radiating in all directions in the ether or space. The term space and ether are one and the same, ether is normally referred to on the small scale, but the word space could equally be used.

The 5th dimension concept would give instantaneous transmission of messages, I through that in above to explain quantum entanglement.

Andy
Handy andy
 
Name: Andy
Posts: 45

Country: World
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#35  Postby newolder » Mar 05, 2017 11:37 am

Handy andy wrote:... Newolder mentioned, the experiment was repeated with better equipment and a reduced effect was noted, I have not been able to find anything on that point.

It follows immediately after this bit (above the viewer comments section):
Uploaded on 8 Sep 2009
Dear interested Viewers! ...

But it is very possible even a reduced effect points to a detection in a gravitational gradient, which could equally be a vibration or stretching of space.

No, it suggests the setup is not suitable for purpose. The simplest explanation is that the apparatus is constructed of materials and components that cause flexion under vertical rotation. Indeed, an 11 fringe shift suggests a deflection of around 6 microns.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6506
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#36  Postby Handy andy » Mar 05, 2017 11:48 am

crank wrote:Spacetime is the gravitational field. Trying to bring the ether back seems like madness to me, what evidence is there that this is needed? What exactly do you mean by the ether is a substance? Saying particle theory looks at atoms as solids is ludicrous, thinking this evidences a profound ignorance of highschool chemistry and the impossibility of there being a chance in hell that you have a clue about the physics. Sorry, but pretty much everything you've said is beyond incoherent. Just an e.g., planets don't move through space, they drag it with them. What does that even mean? How would you measure the rate travel of the space? How does something drag space along with it? Is there an interaction, and if so, what's the force? How do you render Michelson-Morley irrelevant?


Can you read, All things are waves and vibrations. I made a couple of interesting to me remarks above, which you failed to understand.

I don't trade insults, with fanatics who believe everything they ever read.

We are done
Handy andy
 
Name: Andy
Posts: 45

Country: World
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#37  Postby Fallible » Mar 05, 2017 12:09 pm

You don't trade insults with fanatics, eh? That, sir, is priceless. :lol:
Sorry that you think you had it rough in the first world.
You ought to get out a map sooner than later.
Knowledge has turned into a trap; you have to slow down.
Get out of your head and spend less time alone.
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 49318
Age: 46
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#38  Postby Handy andy » Mar 05, 2017 2:32 pm

An interesting post from an actual science website, ref developments in maths, to a language of visualisation.

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-math-lego ... y-nwletter

I might upset some that don't seem to be able to use reason.
Handy andy
 
Name: Andy
Posts: 45

Country: World
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#39  Postby newolder » Mar 05, 2017 2:59 pm

Handy andy wrote:An interesting post from an actual science website, ref developments in maths, to a language of visualisation.

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-math-lego ... y-nwletter

I might upset some that don't seem to be able to use reason.

From the conclusions in the related arxiv pre-print:
In general, the quon language can be defined for any subfactor planar algebra [21], if we do not require τ = τ-bar.

How does the quon language extend to non-planar algebras such that it would find use in studies of gravity and spacetime?

Otherwise, how is it of reasonable interest here? :ask:
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6506
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

#40  Postby Handy andy » Mar 05, 2017 9:44 pm

newolder wrote:
Handy andy wrote:An interesting post from an actual science website, ref developments in maths, to a language of visualisation.

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-math-lego ... y-nwletter

I might upset some that don't seem to be able to use reason.

From the conclusions in the related arxiv pre-print:
In general, the quon language can be defined for any subfactor planar algebra [21], if we do not require τ = τ-bar.

How does the quon language extend to non-planar algebras such that it would find use in studies of gravity and spacetime?

Otherwise, how is it of reasonable interest here? :ask:


It seems a lot of people on this forum struggle with being nice.

This distracts from a free exchange of ideas.

When I posted the link above I was thinking of a new form of mathematics, but perhaps turning the posted idea on its head, and extending it a little. The concept I was thinking off would take a lot of development and time, something I am not prepared to commit. The chances of you understanding was thinking about is minimal. I Strongly suspect you are one of those very sad people that only learn something if it is written in a book.

Since the arsehole count on this forum seems to be disproportionate to other forums I sometimes play on, I am gone. :what:

I stumbled in here by chance, it was a mistake, to disturb your cosy little club. :lol:

Suggest name change of website to irrational belief, it is more suitable. :clap:
Handy andy
 
Name: Andy
Posts: 45

Country: World
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest