Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jeffreyH on 29/06/2016 09:59:30
-
Imagine two tangents on a geodesic at a distance from each other. Now as we slide one of the tangents along the line element towards the other one at what point have we reached an interval that can be defined as a minimum distance? Meaning that below this distance we would have a truly straight line and not a segment of a curve. This is like saying the portion of the line element between graviton interactions. So that the mass is in an inertial frame at that point and experiences no acceleration. In other words can we define a granularity of the line element?
-
In my theory of gravity, the gravitational waves jump a particular distance. Thus there is nothing between this distance which concerns gravity. The wave pushes the following wave and this produces a kickback effect which is gravity. The electromagnetic fields operate in a similar manner. What are the value of these small distances? I have not yet come up with an equation for the measurement. In any event your question seems to bring this concept to mind.
-
I placed this thread in new theories because firstly it is purely speculative and secondly it has no mathematics associated with it. This is definitely not the same as your ideas.
-
I placed this thread in new theories because firstly it is purely speculative and secondly it has no mathematics associated with it. This is definitely not the same as your ideas
I was not sure what you meant. It just brought to mind the gravitational field spacing. Although the Heisenberg distance is valid for common photonic energy levels, the gravitational field energy levels is extremely low and Heisenberg would most likely not be the correct answer. Sorry for misinterpreting your post.
-
I have just found a site discussing C Alden Mead's paper "Possible Connection Between Gravitation And Fundamental Length" and a link to the abstract of the paper. Both are below.
http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/planck-length-as-minimal-length.html (http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/planck-length-as-minimal-length.html)
http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.135.B849 (http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.135.B849)
I am going to be investigating this line of thought.
-
I placed this thread in new theories because firstly it is purely speculative and secondly it has no mathematics associated with it. This is definitely not the same as your ideas
I was not sure what you meant. It just brought to mind the gravitational field spacing. Although the Heisenberg distance is valid for common photonic energy levels, the gravitational field energy levels is extremely low and Heisenberg would most likely not be the correct answer. Sorry for misinterpreting your post.
Read the two links above.
-
I have just found a site discussing C Alden Mead's paper "Possible Connection Between Gravitation And Fundamental Length" and a link to the abstract of the paper. Both are below.
Thanks for the information. I am going to study it as I believe that space is quantized by gravitational distances and between these distances are electrical distances. Thus what we call the properties of space are really the properties of the gravitational field and the electrical fields and space itself has no properties whatsoever. Einsteins curved space time is really the curvature of the gravitational wave which is everywhere.
-
Thanks, I looked up what you suggested and then studied the plank length a little more. I posted a new post "What does the Plank length mean? Hopefully you will add your viewpoints.
-
Imagine two tangents on a geodesic at a distance from each other. Now as we slide one of the tangents along the line element towards the other one at what point have we reached an interval that can be defined as a minimum distance? Meaning that below this distance we would have a truly straight line and not a segment of a curve. This is like saying the portion of the line element between graviton interactions. So that the mass is in an inertial frame at that point and experiences no acceleration. In other words can we define a granularity of the line element?
It's controversial, but as far as I concern, the term gravity is already the metric unit, a measurement of a "reaction" provident from a still unknown "action", at least for some gravity is already the measurement as being the product of electromagnetism interacting with and trough space fabric, and as electromagnetism being also a interaction of energy released from the atoms and particles trough and within the same space fabric... In a shorter version some consider gravity as some exclusive force resultant from the presence of mass resulting in weight bending space time, others that mass generates a inconstant but equivalent eletromagneticfield that interacts with space fabric, somehow, providing complex electrical solutions to the same result, for those gravity is a consequence of electromagnetism and others is from weight, but both start with mass, the mass weight concept predicts a flat universe where everything and every single measurement will be proportional to the mass, when the other predicts a series of magnetosphere providing local gravity and as consequence a inconstant and unpredictable universe where mass and atomic composition determines and is proportional to the electromagnetic field it produces, somehow also generating orbits, weight concepts force the planets to bends space, and electromagnetism concepts use their mass to force space to bend itself around them... It's a little more complex than that but for one gravity is the force and for others gravity is a result of interaction... Every one know what it is, no one, really, understands how it does, yet... Three possible awnsers for one specific question, the tirth anwser would be that both are correct...
-
Using the Schwarzschild metric the velocity of a circular orbit can be calculated from
v = sqrt[{GM}/{r-rs}]
where r is radial distance of the orbit, rs is the Schwarzschild radius and r > rs.
If we set c as equal to the circumference of this orbit then the time for one complete revolution is c/v. We can then set a constant value for time and then determine the arc length traversed during this interval. So we then have
s = vt
Along this length we will find a field density that relates to the velocity. As the radial distance from the source increases this length reduces. As a consequence the path becomes increasingly flat. This means that spacetime curvature can be neglected. However we can still define a perfectly valid circular orbit. In this case along the length s we can safely say that a force may be absent. We cannot then argue that a force is not present as we approach the source mass. Whatever general relativity says. Since we have an increasing orbital acceleration that relates to the position in the field with respect to the source mass. As shown above this acceleration can be treated as entirely absent at large enough radial distance with respect to s.
-
Using the Schwarzschild metric the velocity of a circular orbit can be calculated from
v = sqrt[{GM}/{r-rs}]
where r is radial distance of the orbit, rs is the Schwarzschild radius and r > rs.
If we set c as equal to the circumference of this orbit then the time for one complete revolution is c/v. We can then set a constant value for time and then determine the arc length traversed during this interval. So we then have
s = vt
Along this length we will find a field density that relates to the velocity. As the radial distance from the source increases this length reduces. As a consequence the path becomes increasingly flat. This means that spacetime curvature can be neglected. However we can still define a perfectly valid circular orbit. In this case along the length s we can safely say that a force may be absent. We cannot then argue that a force is not present as we approach the source mass. Whatever general relativity says. Since we have an increasing orbital acceleration that relates to the position in the field with respect to the source mass. As shown above this acceleration can be treated as entirely absent at large enough radial distance with respect to s.
I don't really understand your maths mate, but I like the reading .
In my terms I think you are describing that >G=d<4/3 pi r³ and there is an ''invisible'' edge of an ''event horizon'' where the force of G is 0
A gravity sphere that declines in magnitude the greater the radius , but between m1 and m2 there is an ''invisible'' link that is a linearity?
-
Are you saying this mate?