## A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

Yet another of my almost certainly incorrect puzzlings...

Study matter and its motion through spacetime...

### A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

Ok, so the Standard Model struggles with explaining gravity, and some theories that explain gravity struggle to fit along with theories explaining other phenomena...Now its all nice and dandy, the idea of a magic "graviton" that fixed this problem, but it does sound a bit far-fetched in places, because this particle travels faster than the speed of light? Also, the graviton is yet to be successfully observed (as far as I know)...

So what about an alternative solution, perhaps gravity isn't (caused by) a wave or particle? What if gravity is simply dimension number 5.

Its just one of my sudden thoughts when reading about various bits, because gravity warps space-time, perhaps it would be the dimension above that of time. (Here I'm working off the basis of time as the fourth dimension, as I'm yet to have encountered any reasonable arguments against that premise). Now, if we imagine a being existing in a two dimensional cross section of our universe. A piece of paper happens to be in that cross section, when you rotate that paper in the third dimension, only a thinner, smaller piece exists in the two dimensional plane, equally, if you lift a ball through that plane, it will grow, then shrink, only to disappear again. Now, specifically here, its an object that is being stretched and shrunk, however it could be possible for the dimension to be stretched and shrunk, if you imagine the paper as the dimension itself, and look straight down onto it, when its sloped, all the drawings on it are squished one way, when its flat, they return to their normal proportions.

If gravity were to be the successive dimension to time, then perhaps "things" existing within that dimension, cause warping of the lower dimensions, caused the effects of gravity.

EDIT: Correction to my statement of gravity as the 5th dimension itself - Gravity is disturbances in the fifth dimension?
LjSpike

Posts: 89
Age: 20

Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

Gravitational waves travel at c as measured by the LIGO consortium. Hypothetical spin 2 gravitons would be the quanta of this gravitational field. For 5th, extra dimension stuff you could do worse than study the Randall Sundrum model and linked others (e.g. the earlier works of Kaluza & Klein).
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

newolder

Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7028

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

newolder wrote:Gravitational waves travel at c as measured by the LIGO consortium. Hypothetical spin 2 gravitons would be the quanta of this gravitational field. For 5th, extra dimension stuff you could do worse than study the Randall Sundrum model and linked others (e.g. the earlier works of Kaluza & Klein).

Unless gravitons are demonstrated to exist, the Einsteinian theory that gravity is a distortion of space-time itself, rather than a particle, should not be ruled out.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC

Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 66

Country: United Kigdom
Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

DavidMcC wrote:...
Unless gravitons are demonstrated to exist, the Einsteinian theory that gravity is a distortion of space-time itself, rather than a particle, should not be ruled out.

General Relativity in 4 dimensions (“Einsteinian theory”) predicts its own failure at vanishingly short range - it rules itself out. Gravitons are predictions of various quantum theories of gravity designed to fix this failure. The current status of likely gravitons: Coulomb charge free, QCD colorless, massless, spin 2 quanta of the gravitational field; hitherto unobserved in nature.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

newolder

Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7028

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

newolder wrote:General Relativity in 4 dimensions (“Einsteinian theory”) predicts its own failure at vanishingly short range - it rules itself out. Gravitons are predictions of various quantum theories of gravity designed to fix this failure. The current status of likely gravitons: Coulomb charge free, QCD colorless, massless, spin 2 quanta of the gravitational field; hitherto unobserved in nature.

But just because GR in four dimensions falls short, that doesn't automatically validate gravitons, especially as nothing predicts their existence (e.g. the standard model). Also, gravitons do sound much to be a fudge factor...
LjSpike

Posts: 89
Age: 20

Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

LjSpike wrote:
newolder wrote:General Relativity in 4 dimensions (“Einsteinian theory”) predicts its own failure at vanishingly short range - it rules itself out. Gravitons are predictions of various quantum theories of gravity designed to fix this failure. The current status of likely gravitons: Coulomb charge free, QCD colorless, massless, spin 2 quanta of the gravitational field; hitherto unobserved in nature.

But just because GR in four dimensions falls short, that doesn't automatically validate gravitons, especially as nothing predicts their existence (e.g. the standard model). Also, gravitons do sound much to be a fudge factor...

I do not know what you mean by "sound much to be a fudge factor..." All forces in the standard model operate by the exchange of (virtual) bosons (photons, W & Z, gluons, Higgs) how is it a fudge to guess that the gravitational force works similarly?

Lots of models predict gravitons - a simple internet search shows where.

I do not know what you mean by 'validate' here: gravitons are a predicted consequence of theory, theory will pass or fail future experimental test.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

newolder

Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7028

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

The big problem with much of science today, is that it is built on a lot of very wobbly mathematical equations. Einsteins theories do not predict an accelerating universe, so dark matter and energy has been introduced as a fudge factor. The thing with Einsteins theory is it is amazingly accurate in our solar system.

Einstein viewed the galaxies as moving through space, not with space.

Is it possible that space is a substance. Planets are not moving through space they are dragging it with them. Rotating galaxies are dragging a rotating area of space with them. Galaxies all virtually have the same spin. Vortices with the same spin will repel and accelerate away from each other like two electrons would.

Space as a substance was considered to be the ether. Quantum mechanics is amazingly accurate but does not include gravity, if it included space or the ether you have a theory of everything. Vibrating atoms would disturb the space around them causing a vibration. The gravitational wave is mono directional, it can only be a vibration in space. Wave particle duality is a nonsense all things all particles are waves. All wave particle duality does is confuse people make scientists look smart, and fudge quantum mechanics and Maxwells equations together.

With one extra dimension connecting all points in the universe, you have quantum entanglement.

In the double slit experiment you see, space has a memory of what has passed. Memory is a sort of intelligence.
etc

The Ether is in you and around you and everything you see. This sounds very similar to Luke "God is in you and around you and everything you see". At least I think that was what was written.

Space conserves inertia, Quantum matter appears and disappears in space, space must have inertia. All types of radiation are waves in space or the ether, the two terms are equal. E=mc^2 = hf. Again space must have inertia.

Einstein failed to understand space is moving with us, it is not fixed. Using this concept when viewing the edge of the known universe where galaxies are moving away from us at 0.3 light speed, light can still travel at c. There is no problem with the laws of physics, we only need a small tweek in the concept of space not mathematical fudges. Life goes on as normal on the edges of the known universe as it does here.

Using this concept in 4 billion years time maybe the Andromeda galaxy wont swallow our galaxy. At the moment it is coming this way or we are going its way, its all relative, even space.

Apologies for the grammar it is getting worse with age not better.

Andy
Handy andy

Name: Andy
Posts: 45

Country: World
Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

Handy andy wrote:...
The thing with Einsteins theory is it is amazingly accurate in our solar system.
...

Ignoring punctuation/grammar, this is the only statement in your post that does not read like the wibble of a troll.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

newolder

Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7028

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

I seem to have caused you some offense for pointing out what could be the obvious on gravity. I note you never remarked in the same way with reference to the clearly inaccurate other posts on this thread. My quick throw away remarks based on observations fit the observed facts. I would guess you believe in the academic process or pier group review, by persons who would like to stick with the idea that Einstein could not possibly have dropped a clanger, and rather than moving through space, space is moving with us. Science has become like a religion and is holding people back. I will clearly have to bow to your excellent grammar, and that is about it. I reckon the idea is simple works and I am happy with it. This comes under control of what we are allowed to believe. Regarding your troll remark, are you the TROLL trying to provoke a response. You will find remarks like yours do not provoke interesting discussions. Perhaps I used too many words for you to be able to grasp how simple the concept was. No Worries though, the thoughts are my thoughts, I added them to the thread, for interest. Are you an English Teacher, I am obviously struggling in that department, do you do free lessons.

OR maybe you can not read, the following is the other section of the paragraph you missed, and is fact "The big problem with much of science today, is that it is built on a lot of very wobbly mathematical equations. Einsteins theories do not predict an accelerating universe, so dark matter and energy has been introduced as a fudge factor"

With a slightly different model of space, the model could fit the observed universe. Science is trying to make the universe fit the equations. This is wrong, the equations should fit what is observed. FACT

Rgds

Andy
Handy andy

Name: Andy
Posts: 45

Country: World
Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

Well, I for one found your response and interesting one. Perhaps it may be wrong, perhaps it may be right. Some bits sounded a bit wibbly in there, but it was a certainly intriguing view.

As to clarify my previous point, gravitons sound much to be a fudge factor, as we have no empirical evidence for them, and they are not predicted by the standard model (by which numerous particles are predicted) so that can't suggest they would exist. They have simply been coined by scientists as a potential "fix all" solution, with no actual suggestion from the universe that they exist. They may do, but we have no evidence for that yet. It could as easily be god playing around with his little universe that's causing all this gravity.
Thats why this topic is a nice little one to open to discussion, as there is so little evidence aside from the fact that we know gravity, whatever causes it, exists.

For imagining gravity as the 5th dimension, work off the nice little demonstration where space-time is shown as a 2D piece of paper (or fabric or whatever) and you put a mass on it. You've now stretched space time, but in a 3rd dimension. For a 4D scenario, you'd be stretching it into the 5th dimension. A distortion into the 5th dimension causes a disturbance in the fourth, which then cascades to our 3D existence, as gravity.
LjSpike

Posts: 89
Age: 20

Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

I feel a strange but powerful force pulling this thread towards the pseudoscience forum....
A soul in tension that's learning to fly
Condition grounded but determined to try
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies
Tongue-tied and twisted just an earthbound misfit, I

twistor59
RS Donator

Posts: 4966

Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

Handy andy wrote:...
"The big problem with much of science today, is that it is built on a lot of very wobbly mathematical equations. Einsteins theories do not predict an accelerating universe, so dark matter and energy has been introduced as a fudge factor"
...

Repeated whining opinion and basic errors has 0 impact in a physics chatroom.

Free English lesson: Some of your words read like they may be questions but the missing punctuation mark, ?, suggests not.

Example question: Do you have a question?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

newolder

Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7028

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

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.
Handy andy

Name: Andy
Posts: 45

Country: World
Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

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.
Handy andy

Name: Andy
Posts: 45

Country: World
Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

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).
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC

Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 66

Country: United Kigdom
Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

Handy andy is right in a sense about modern particle science wanting to interpret gravity as a particle-mediated "force".
Also, I would like to know how newolder figured out that gravity as a distortion of space cannot work at very small distances. The main problem with it is that it, isn't possible to measure gravity at such minute distances, and it is simply too weak to influence particle physics, because of the minute masses of any of the known particles. AFAIK, the electro-weak and strong forces are all that matter in particle physics.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC

Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 66

Country: United Kigdom
Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

DavidMcC wrote:Handy andy is right in a sense about modern particle science wanting to interpret gravity as a particle-mediated "force".
Also, I would like to know how newolder figured out that gravity as a distortion of space cannot work at very small distances. The main problem with it is that it, isn't possible to measure gravity at such minute distances, and it is simply too weak to influence particle physics, because of the minute masses of any of the known particles. AFAIK, the electro-weak and strong forces are all that matter in particle physics.

In this theory, the gravitational potential goes as 1/r. As r -> 0 the potential goes to infinity (like the proposed singularity at the centre of a black hole*). This is a failure of such theory. "Particles" are/were considered as points, so r -> 0 (r is the separation between objects) is allowed (unless "particles" are extended objects like strings or the quanta of a field in quantum field theory). None of this was "figured out by newolder"; he is simply reporting the findings of others.

* ETA
Due to a strong sense of deja vu, I'm adding here that the singularity at the centre of a black hole is a singularity of curvature as shown in any textbook on General Relativity theory like the pages around this link.

The deja vu relates to someone correcting me on this issue.
Last edited by newolder on Mar 03, 2017 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

newolder

Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7028

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

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.
Handy andy

Name: Andy
Posts: 45

Country: World
Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

LjSpike wrote:Well, I for one found your response and interesting one. Perhaps it may be wrong, perhaps it may be right. Some bits sounded a bit wibbly in there, but it was a certainly intriguing view.

As to clarify my previous point, gravitons sound much to be a fudge factor, as we have no empirical evidence for them, and they are not predicted by the standard model (by which numerous particles are predicted) so that can't suggest they would exist. They have simply been coined by scientists as a potential "fix all" solution, with no actual suggestion from the universe that they exist. They may do, but we have no evidence for that yet. It could as easily be god playing around with his little universe that's causing all this gravity.
Thats why this topic is a nice little one to open to discussion, as there is so little evidence aside from the fact that we know gravity, whatever causes it, exists.

For imagining gravity as the 5th dimension, work off the nice little demonstration where space-time is shown as a 2D piece of paper (or fabric or whatever) and you put a mass on it. You've now stretched space time, but in a 3rd dimension. For a 4D scenario, you'd be stretching it into the 5th dimension. A distortion into the 5th dimension causes a disturbance in the fourth, which then cascades to our 3D existence, as gravity.

Thanks for the response, at least you found it interesting. I note you mention the graviton, was that idea not dropped quietly about 10 years ago. Your concept uses a mathematical approach I merely visualised a solution, which to be quite honest, I have no idea how to model it, it covers everything. It is my opinion that a lumped parameter approach looking it individual aspects of science would be easier which to a large degree is what we have today. The particle physics approach seems to be the most accurate, but it does not take into account the concept of space as a substance and therefore does not include gravity yet as far as I am aware.

Everything in quantum theory is waves.

A wave to describe gravity could be a vibration in space radiating in all directions. It does not have to be a radio wave or a magnetic field, or a static charge type wave. A static charge using dipole theory could be a wave looking like a donut spinning radially, rotating in on itself, giving it a north and south. A magnetic field line would like a sausage or a stream of donuts connected together. A photon would be a ???? maybe a vibration moving through space. Space conserves inertia, once a body starts moving, it may develop an envelope around it, and it is pushed fwd until it changes speed. etc

I have over the years looked at particle physics, astrophysics, string theory, and various dipole theories. I understand a monopole theory is being worked on by Alan Guth somewhere in the states. The concept of the ether to visualise what is happening may fit with all these theories. It is just a thought, what I put forward is a method of visualising what is happening, what other theories have done is use maths to try and describe what I have visualised. So String Theory, Quantum Mechanics, Dipole theory, Multiverses may all be calculating different aspects of the ether depending on exactly what waveform you are looking at. Which one of the many proposed physics theories using maths is one hundred percent accurate. Is it even possible to have one theory fit all scenarios, or is it better to have little lumped parameter models of the universe depicting various aspects, that explain different things.

Todays science may be tomorrows pseudo science. The ether theory was dumped years ago, but it wont go away, space has a substance and properties, it has memory of what has passed, see double slit experiment, the Aspden effect also, etc.
Handy andy

Name: Andy
Posts: 45

Country: World
Print view this post

### Re: A thought on Gravity and Space-Time

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?
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place

crank
RS Donator

Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10362
Age: 5

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Print view this post

Next