Post by: Space Flow on 04/12/2015 01:38:53
Space Flow Theory
ARTHUR MANOUSAKIS·MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 2015This Paper is the intellectual property of Arthur Manousakis. You may not reproduce, edit, translate, distribute, publish or host this document in any way with out the permission of Arthur Manousakis.
What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
What is the mechanism behind Gravity, Plagued Newton, Einstein, and still plagues all of physics today.
Newton first described it as the flow of aether into matter. After not being able to account for what then happens to this continuous flow of aether into all matter, he abandoned his intuition for an easier to prove Force description with F=MA. Which he then describes as an attractive force between Matter.
Albert Einstein described it as Matter somehow Curving and in other ways deforming the surrounding, otherwise ‘non-moving’ Physical Spacetime.
We commonly use the example of a steel ball on a rubber sheet to demonstrate that distortion. This description does not tell us how Matter manages to cause this distortion.
Albert Einstein's analogy has been difficult to apply to reality. The rubber sheet analogy doesn't work. It does not offer any explanation about the actual mechanism.
General relativity already describes the dynamics of spacetime as if it were a "classical" object. Albert Einstein with his interpretation of GR has given us a plausible mechanism for the effect of Gravity, but doesn't answer the original question. Instead by saying that the Gravity effect is caused by spacetime curvature, it changes the question to;
What is the mechanism behind spacetime curvature?
Exchanging one set of words for another in no way answers either one.
I present a different approach. An approach centred on the principle that there is no Universally non-relatively moving reference frame. Not even a set of physical coordinates assigned to a physical Spacetime.
I am going to allow Spacetime to move as everything in this Universe does, I will show how this movement achieves all the same results attributed to Spacetime curvature, and answers a lot of the mysteries physics and cosmology have been plagued with.
I will also show how this flow of Spacetime can be generated at the Quantum level, and how it applies and explains all observations at all levels.
With this interpretation of General Relativity I will also present a hypothesis that does away with the duality of Light, and explains the nature and origin of Quantum Fluctuations.
I will describe the bridge that elegantly unifies Quantum Physics and relativity, and also explains Black Hole Event Horizons.
Within this explanation of the mechanism behind Gravity, being a proper and complete explanation of Gravity, is the very simple answer for the mystery we have labelled "Dark Matter".
...
I intend to stay guided by the notion that for a new theory to be worthy of consideration, it has to answer as well or better “all” questions answered by the existing theory.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The Hypothesis I now put forward is totally my own.
Gravity is a push, not a pull
We as Humans on Planet Earth are not being pulled towards it’s centre but pushed into it’s denser than us surface, by the torrent rushing and accelerating through and past us, into the rest of the planet.Matter attracts spacetime. Not only does Matter attract spacetime it consumes it. It recycles it. Spacetime is matter's food. Every Quark, Every Proton, Every Neutron, Every atomic nucleus in combination with the electron fields they set up around them, constitute Space/Energy pumps. To give one description every time an electron shell jumps to a higher orbital it encompasses a larger volume of spacetime. By returning to it’s lower state it imprints on that spacetime it’s own signature and sends it on it’s way as a global electromagnetic shockwave, at the same time as drawing in more spacetime to replace it ready for the next cycle. Just one of the sub-atomic processes that pumps spacetime.
In this way spacetime is quantised, and comes in all flavours defined by amplitude and frequency of the combination of Electromagnetic Shockwaves (light), going through any one spot at any one time. All Matter suck’s in the appropriately configured Spacetime to power their internal processes (that which resonates with a subatomic process) and each outputs new spacetime carrying the information of the status of the structure that caused the output, generally in the form of an Electromagnetic Wave. An Electromagnetic wave that either is, or is analogous to, a Shockwave. This Shockwave carries the Electromagnetic signature characteristics of the subatomic or atomic structure that made it. It propagates out from every source at the maximum Electromagnetic shockwave propagation speed of “spacetime”. (What we refer to as the speed of light). Because this Shockwave is Light. The spacetime maximum shockwave transmission speed is matter density dependant and slows as matter density within spacetime increases.
Any coordinates in spacetime can be referred to as a frame of reference and follows all the relativity rules. No Universal reference frame is available because all spacetime everywhere is on the move relative to any other coordinates. The closest that can be found to a static frame would be the centre of the largest available “empty” void. (If such really exists). A coordinate in spacetime can disappear forever into matter where it is transformed through matter’s ability into a traveling energy wave. This way Timespace is made to flow.
This process is also why expansion affects only the Voids and not the structures of matter. The flow rate of spacetime into matter makes the expansion rate which happens “everywhere the same”, totally insignificant in the vicinity.
Matter does not attract Matter
Instead it behaves like a vacuum cleaner, sucking in “globally” the amount of spacetime that it requires to meet the requirements of every subatomic/atomic particle that is considered a part of a whole unit. Be that a single atom in intergalactic space, a planet orbiting a star, a black hole in a galaxy, a super cluster of galaxies or a human being on the surface of Planet Earth.
Where there is a lot of matter concentrated in a relatively small space this effect becomes pronounced. It turns into a current/torrent of the surrounding spacetime as it flows into matter. In the process carrying with it anything it contains that does not have the angular momentum necessary to avoid smashing into the cause of the flow.
If two masses end up close enough to each other to be trying to suck in from the same area of spacetime (because they need an even global intake), a low pressure/low density region will form between them. They reduce the available density of spacetime in that direction, and so to balance the global intake rate (maintain a geodesic), the bodies will move in that direction bringing them together. If they have the necessary angular momentum to avoid crashing they will orbit each other, always moving to globally balance their spacetime intake. (“Their” Geodesic)
This phenomenon has always been attributed to the “indisputable” fact (Because you could see it was so) That "Matter Attracted Matter”.
This flow is also responsible for Einstein’s conclusion that matter distorts the surrounding spacetime. The result is exactly the same. Instead of curvature we have funnelling flow rates. Instead of an attractive force we have flow rates and paterns. Things like Lagrange Points can be explained Hydro-dynamically as the interference pattern caused by the interaction of two different flows. The whirlpool that is the Earth’s intake, existing and operating within the much larger whirlpool that is the spacetime flowing into the Sun and inner planets. In fact flowing inwards past the Earth to service the needs of all the Mass inside the Earth’s orbit (Mainly the Sun). Every other mass in space operates under the exact same conditions. From a single atom to the biggest Galaxy cluster.
As more mass accumulates in a smaller space the local flow rate increases to accommodate. Enough flow rate and large inward pressures (as gravity) can be felt by anything resisting the flow. (Like the surface of a planet, or Star). We have some very good theories backed up by observation of the way Matter behaves as Gravitational pressure increases.
We can pack just under 1.4 solar masses into a small space and have it get no smaller, as the strength of the EM field maintains a certain amount of spacetime between a nucleus and it's associated electron/s. (Electron Degeneracy Pressure)
When that compact mass reaches 1.4 Solar masses (Chandrasekhar limit), the inward pressure, represented by the flow rate at which spacetime has to rush in, to supply the demand of so much matter in such a small area, overcomes the EM force's ability to maintain that spacing and forces the electrons to recombine with the protons in the nucleus, forming just Neutrons. The whole thing then very rapidly gets compressed further until it tries to compress the Neutrons.
We now have a neutron star. Tremendous pressure inwards being held at bay by Neutron Degeneracy Pressure. In other words by the Neutron's need of personal space.
If the mass is or builds to a couple of solar masses, the inward pressure becomes so massive that the "Pauli Exclusion Principle", the requirement by every Neutron to maintain a certain amount of personal space, is overcome.
Neutrons in giving up this space can no longer exist as Neutrons.
A Black Hole is born.
Now we can't see anything. The surface if such exists is hidden by the fact that the speed of light is not fast enough to escape the inward flow rate of spacetime. An event horizon is thus formed and all we have are our equations.
Black Holes are not singularities but compressed matter that has reached the maximum possible input rate. Matter that still makes use of spacetime. The event horizon may then be taken as an actual surface. A balance point between the demand of the representative mass for spacetime and the inward pressure represented by the maximum possible supply rate per unit area possible. This flow rate may or may not be related to, and as such may or may not be limited to, the transmission rate of EM shockwaves through the vacuum of spacetime.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65123.0
At this stage it remains possible that spacetime may be capable of flowing faster than this transmission rate. When the appropriate mathematics that can properly describe this flow is developed, along with observational and maybe future experimental results, we may quantify this property.
“The speed of light is not "the" constant”. The transmission rate of Electromagnetic Shockwaves in the medium of Spacetime is the constant, and lightwaves just obey it. If we measure the speed of an object moving through spacetime by the doppler effect of light, it is in no way different to measuring the doppler effect of light moving against the flow rate of spacetime created by a massive object (Gravitational doppler effect).
“Spacetime is not nothing”. It is something. It can always be described by it’s coordinates so it is something. It just is not something static that just gets bent and twisted by matter. It flows, it swirls into vortices, it runs like a current within an ocean, and is a really efficient transmitting medium for “Electromagnetic Shockwaves” (Light). Similar in a way to sound waves in water. (Just an analogy)
I can see the need for a new branch of science to study and map out those currents and whirlpools (Vortices) of spacetime in our Universe. We could start with the data sets already compiled and still actively seek to map, what we refer to as “Dark Matter”. In the above model “Dark Matter amounts to no more than turbulence and back-eddies, vortices caused by the intake of matter and counter vortices and other disturbances caused by the flow itself and the turbulence induced by intervening matter on the main flow”s way to the centre.
The Bullet Cluster often used as evidence of Dark Matter is no more than the turbulance created when two fast flowing whirlpools of spacetime impacted on each other. The result is a very turbulent region with huge counter vortices to where the flow is still being sucked up by matter in colision trying to maintain supply. It’s a mess that will take a while to resettle into orderly flow patterns.
As an aside I also believe that such an environment as the bullet cluster would make galactic scale space travel a lot more economic. If the turbulent flows could be mapped it would just be a matter of picking the right fast flowing current to your destination. (Like most cheap transport systems, you may have to expend some energy on current jumping at appropriate times.
Perhaps we could call the new field of study:- “SPACETIME FLOW DYNAMICS” :)
We Humans live in an accelerating spacetime current. Akin to living on a mesh stretched across the 9.81m/s/s current funnelling into the Earth.
By standing up we defy that current and we balance in the flow of spacetime taking out of it what amount we require for our own processes.
The natural state of matter is Free-fall. Anything that changes that free-fall condition is felt as an Acceleration/Gravity. There is absolutely no detectable difference between standing your whole life in a current that is flowing past you at an accelerating rate of 9.81 m/s/s, and being in a spaceship constantly accelerating past spacetime at 9.81 m/s/s. Either way you would be in an accelerated flow rate of spacetime of 9.81 m/s/s. Discounting the relativistic effects due to increased relative speed, it would feel to all our senses identical.
Following your Geodesic
Any freely moving or falling particle always moves along a geodesic. For every representative quanta of Mass/Energy in the Universe that in the absence of an outside force this is a straight line through spacetime described by two factors. Angular momentum and a balanced inflow of spacetime from all directions. It takes an input of energy to change this. Matter will always maintain angular momentum and will remain in the balance point of even spacetime flow input. Even if to an outside observer this translates to relative movement towards another Mass. It's geodesic can be an orbit not because it is falling towards a larger Mass, but because space time itself is flowing. If a concentration of Mass is spinning, what we now call frame draging is the inflowing spacetime is forced into a vortex. It is imposible to drop something from infinity into the centre of any rotating object. Because any rotating object can be viewed as a number of sub atomic to atomic vacuum pumps they will always create a whirlpool effect on the spacetime surrounding them. Therefore any object aproaching in a direct line, following it’s own geodesic will follow the flow of spacetime around the whirlpool. Making a direct bullseye hit impossible, no matter how well aimed it starts. This effect is predicted by General Relativity (Frame draging), and was proven by the “Gravity Probe B” experiment.The Casimir effect
“The Casimir effect is a small attractive force that acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. It is claimed to be due to quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field. The effect was predicted by the Dutch physicist Hendrick Casimir in 1948.” It is also the main argument presented as observational proof that Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations exist.Now if we view the same experiment with Space Flow, it immediately becomes obvious that such exotic phenomena as Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations, are not necessary to make the two plates move towards each other. By having them so close together we are causing an extreme low spacetime pressure region between them. All Matter wants to absorb an equal amount of spacetime from all sides. The Low pressure between the plates, will naturally cause spacetime to be unable to meet that demand. The plates must then be drawn together, because of pressure differences between one side and the other. The vacuum is intensified by Matter’s demand and the one sided lack of spacetime available to meet it. The closer the plates are the more this effect intensifies.
The other thing this point of view would change is the age old John Archibald Wheeler quote:- “Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.”
It would now have to read:-
--Matter tells spacetime how to move; Spacetime tells matter where to go.--
Arthur Manousakis
Post by: Space Flow on 05/12/2015 02:28:50
One that fills in the gaps and answers the questions still unanswered in 100 years.
An interpretation that provides answers even to questions we would not normally have thought in General Relativity's influence.
A simple modification to what we thought General Relativity was telling us, that is going to have far reaching consequences for all of Physics, Astro Physics, Cosmology, Quantum Theory, Most of science...
Post by: guest39538 on 05/12/2015 13:29:33
100 years after Albert Einstein Unveiled General Relativity, a new interpretation surfaces.
One that fills in the gaps and answers the questions still unanswered in 100 years.
An interpretation that provides answers even to questions we would not normally have thought in General Relativity's influence.
A simple modification to what we thought General Relativity was telling us, that is going to have far reaching consequences for all of Physics, Astro Physics, Cosmology, Quantum Theory, Most of science...
''GRAVITY IS: Any measurable change from a state of "FREE FALL"... True
GRAVITY IS: An attraction of matter to matter... False
GRAVITY IS: A force... False
GRAVITY IS: Acceleration... True''
What sorry?
I will start here at the beginning of your post,
''GRAVITY IS: Any measurable change from a state of "FREE FALL"... True''
Not true, gravity is a constant force, any change in free fall is a change in acceleration,
''GRAVITY IS: An attraction of matter to matter... False''
True that is false, because we say mass is attracted to mass
''GRAVITY IS: A force... False''
Untrue, gravity is a force,
'GRAVITY IS: Acceleration... True''''
False. acceleration is a product of force and gravity is the force.
Post by: Space Flow on 05/12/2015 22:20:28
I will start here at the beginning of your post,
''GRAVITY IS: Any measurable change from a state of "FREE FALL"... True''
Not true, gravity is a constant force, any change in free fall is a change in acceleration,
A change in free fall is a change in acceleration? Really? Only if you consider a change from "0" acceleration at free fall.
You may be confusing acceleration with an outside observer's view of a change in speed relative to them. Acceleration can be detected by the Mass being accelerated. Speed is relative to another observer.
There is no acceleration while in a state of free fall. Any change from a state of free fall constitutes an acceleration.
There is no difference between acceleration (Pushing past Spacetime) and resisting the push of spacetime by standing on the surface of a planet. "Gravity". Your Geodesic changes in respect to spacetime in exactly the same way.
If I was to put you in a sealed box and applied "no" force, you would have absolutely no way of knowing whether you were free falling in intergalactic space or rapidly descending into a Black Hole. (Geodesic)
Same if 9.81 m/s/s of constant acceleration was applied to that box. You would have no way of telling if you were stationary on planet Earth or on a spaceship approaching the speed of light. (Constantly changing Geodesic = acceleration).
''GRAVITY IS: An attraction of matter to matter... False''You have made a distinction between Matter and Mass but made no effort to justify that distinction.
True that is false, because we say mass is attracted to mass
What is the difference between Matter and Mass?
My statement above makes no such distinction but if it pleases you I will say
GRAVITY IS: An attraction between Mass and Mass. FALSE.
I know that we say Mass attracts Mass. That is the whole point of a new theory. To change our understanding about something. So read the Hypothesis and disprove anything it claims, but please don't take the attitude that this is what we have always believed so it must be true. We are not still in the Dark ages, and our understanding and approach to the truth should be guided by Observation and evidence, not established "belief".
''GRAVITY IS: A force... False''
Untrue, gravity is a force,
Newton talked about a gravitational force,but he was never clear what that force was.
What was the mechanism behind Newton's "Universal Force of Gravity.
One way of phrasing Einstein's theory, is as a search for an answer to that question.
What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
And He's answer in 1915 was:-
There is no force.
There is nothing that pulls.
It's the curvature of spacetime itself which we experience as Gravity.
So it's all pure geometry.
That is all it is.
So you contradict the only man that has never been proven wrong and declare that Gravity is a force. On what evidence?
Now I know we have tried every means at our disposal to falsify General Relativity.
I was just not aware that we have ever succeeded as your statement seems to imply. If this has really happened can you please link me to that revolutionary evidence.
I know there are many that would agree with you. But there is not one shred of evidence to support that "Hypothesis".
'GRAVITY IS: Acceleration... True''''So it is gravity that provides the force for a rocket to accelerate in Space? Do you even read what you write.
False. acceleration is a product of force and gravity is the force.
Again all that I said above still applies. General Relativity say's so. Please link me with the evidence that General Relativity has been proven false to allow such a statement to be considered as fact.
Now unless you have other objections as to the points I set out, that the theory bellow those statements attempts to make clear, maybe you can read that theory and hopefully offer insight as to where and how it can be falsified.
And "no" I do not take your's or any other preacher's word as gospel. I gave that up with religion.
I accept logical argument, Observational, and Experimental evidence. If you find you can play by these simple rules I welcome any contribution, if not and you just want to make unsubstantiated statements please annoy someone else.
Thank you for your so far in depth appraisal though..
Post by: guest39538 on 06/12/2015 02:51:20
A change in free fall is a change in acceleration? Really? Only if you consider a change from "0" acceleration at free fall.
An object falls for the first meter a9.82m/s, the second meter it falls a9.82m/s*2 , the third meter it falls at a9.82m/s*3 etc etc, until the falling object reaches terminal velocity. That is what acceleration is,
Have you ever heard the expression F=ma?
Force=mass * acceleration
''You have made a distinction between Matter and Mass but made no effort to justify that distinction.
What is the difference between Matter and Mass?''
Matter is that of physical substance (things), and you may be confusing this with the ordinary use, definition of mass, but in physics the definition and use of the word mass is different, it means a property of matter that science uses to measure force etc.
''GRAVITY IS: An attraction between Mass and Mass. FALSE.
I know that we say Mass attracts Mass. That is the whole point of a new theory. To change our understanding about something. So read the Hypothesis and disprove anything it claims, but please don't take the attitude that this is what we have always believed so it must be true. We are not still in the Dark ages, and our understanding and approach to the truth should be guided by Observation and evidence, not established "belief".''
Lol you have obviously not read any of my posts, I am pretty much known has the anti-science, no need to get defensive I will come to the rest of your post in all good due time.
Mass attracted to mass is experimentally proven by the Cavendish experiment, it is hard to deny this when it is hard evidence .
''One way of phrasing Einstein's theory, is as a search for an answer to that question.
What is the mechanism behind Gravity?
And He's answer in 1915 was:-
There is no force.
There is nothing that pulls.
It's the curvature of spacetime itself which we experience as Gravity.
So it's all pure geometry.
That is all it is.
So you contradict the only man that has never been proven wrong and declare that Gravity is a force. On what evidence?''
Well, I contradict most science, Newton included, gravity is a force, my ideas are negative mass and positive mass and neutral mass. But if you want to observe gravity pulling, google a comets tail bends towards gravity, comets tails can be visually observed being pulled towards a body while the comet is flying a linear path past the body. Also you can google solar flares curving back to the sun by pull. Also the moon pulls the oceans , where do you think tides come from?
''So it is gravity that provides the force for a rocket to accelerate in Space? Do you even read what you write.''
What? Rockets are propelled by the huge output of energy from their rear ends, its called thrust.
Post by: Space Flow on 06/12/2015 03:48:06
An object falls for the first meter a9.82m/s, the second meter it falls a9.82m/s*2 , the third meter it falls at a9.82m/s*3 etc etc, until the falling object reaches terminal velocity. That is what acceleration is,Can you not see that all this is true whether the "Force" applied is a push or a pull? And in a closed box except for air resistance you would feel no acceleration?
Have you ever heard the expression F=ma?
Force=mass * acceleration
In your own reference frame there is nothing you can detect to tell you that you are about to meet a planet? Acceleration is change over time. You do not experience any change without experiencing the application of force. In that box you don't experience any change.
Matter is that of physical substance (things), and you may be confusing this with the ordinary use, definition of mass, but in physics the definition and use of the word mass is different, it means a property of matter that science uses to measure force etc.Interesting drivel. Show or describe this supposed difference. Teach me something.
Lol you have obviously not read any of my posts, I am pretty much known has the anti-science, no need to get defensive I will come to the rest of your post in all good due time.
Mass attracted to mass is experimentally proven by the Cavendish experiment, it is hard to deny this when it is hard evidence .
No I have not as yet read any of your posts. If indeed you are anti-science I would prefer that you wasted someone else's time.
If you had understood what Flow Theory is saying and applied it to the Cavendish experiment, you would have got the exact same results for different reasons. The Cavendish experiment proves Flow Theory as much as it proves curved space.
What? Rockets are propelled by the huge output of energy from their rear ends, its called thrust.At least I don't have to explain that.
Read the theory (it may even answer your comet tail and how the moon manages to pull on the ocean) and then ask questions about any part you don't understand. "Your solar flares involve a lot of electromagnetic fields that combine with the flow to give you what you see".
If you believe you can falsify any part of it then please present what you base things on.
I put this theory up to see if it can stand up to reason and observational evidence.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/12/2015 10:56:20
No I have not as yet read any of your posts. If indeed you are anti-science I would prefer that you wasted someone else's time.
If you had understood what Flow Theory is saying and applied it to the Cavendish experiment, you would have got the exact same results for different reasons. The Cavendish experiment proves Flow Theory as much as it proves curved space.
I will help you, consider moving an object, space itself pulls together to fill the space with space where the object was....and objects contain space and energy, energy pushes, space pulls.
You are rather rude, consider yourself lucky somebody is even engaging your post when you are ''anti-science'' with your post.
You asked if I understood your idea, about push and pull being just push. I have wrote your idea myself before and explained it in much more depth using comparisons as such has magnetic bottling and monopole fields.
Your ''theory'' is not even a theory, it is a basic thought written down, a fundamental idea.
I have suggested we live inside a nuclear reactor, centripetal force/magnetic bottling ''pushing'' everything together, then ''centripetal'' force, also pushing things away from each other. One push no pull, so yes of course I understand your idea, but this does not make it so. You know why? because it would be pure guess work of what is after the ''edge of space firmament''.
And in explanation of matter and mass, mass is that of ''convertual'' energy, matter is just materialistic waste.
P.s I will help you, consider space, move an object and space pulls together filling the space where the object has left. space pulls space together and is in objects and energy pushes,
Post by: Space Flow on 06/12/2015 11:08:46
Post by: guest39538 on 06/12/2015 11:12:09
Maybe I chose the wrong Forum to post this...
Actually my friend, other forums will call you names, call you stupid, insult you, then ban you. Trust me I have been there and you will be wasting your time , This forum is the best forum, they allow you freedom of speech.
Post by: Space Flow on 06/12/2015 11:20:48
I have been trying to make this theory fall over for a couple of years now and failed.
I now want others to have a go but not with BS. Criticise with logical thinking and observational evidence.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/12/2015 11:28:30
I prefer a good critical analysis of what I am presenting.
I have been trying to make this theory fall over for a couple of years now and failed.
I now want others to have a go but not with BS. Criticise with logical thinking and observational evidence.
I understand mate, I am an amateur , there is only so far we take an idea. I use axiom logic, I will show how it really works in my opinion in a diagram, you will recognise a construction of your similar idea.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
I will give you a hint to forum life, when posting an idea, try to make it clear within only a few sentences. State is clear and brief. Add a diagram if you can.
Post by: puppypower on 06/12/2015 12:44:13
In terms of space-time reference, matter and anti-matter exist in inertial reference, while energy exists in a speed of light reference. Matter and anti-matter cannot move at the speed of light; special relativity. While the speed of light is the same in all references. There is a gap that separates these two references.
If we combine this gap with the hierarchy of potential above, this implies the inertial reference of matter and anti-matter is at a higher potential than the speed of light reference; matter and anti-matter and their inertial reference will spontaneously return to the energy and the speed of light reference.
When the universe formed, there was a slight asymmetry resulting in our observed matter dominated universe. Matter without anti-matter is very stable but it still exists at a potential that is higher than energy. Gravity is simply one way for matter, lacking anti-matter, to return to back to the speed of light reference. When mass concentrates even by your mechanism, and space-time contracts and curves via GR, space-time is heading in the direction of the speed of light reference. In Special relativity V=C has the same reference as high mass contained in a singularity.
All the other forces of nature give off energy when matter lowers potential with these. All roads lead to Rome as matter finds ways to return to the C reference, while lacking the direct path offered by anti-matter. If anti-matter appears matter will gladly take that path since this is the fast lane back to C.
Post by: Space Flow on 08/12/2015 03:31:09
All the other forces of nature give off energy when matter lowers potential with these. All roads lead to Rome as matter finds ways to return to the C reference, while lacking the direct path offered by anti-matter. If anti-matter appears matter will gladly take that path since this is the fast lane back to C.You know even though I never really thought about it that way, I can see some sense in this view. Interestingly the Universe continues to cool, and consequently there is more and more spacetime as matter concentrates into smaller and smaller regions within this expanding spacetime.
What your implying if I get you right is, even though the average temperature of the Universe is going down, the average temperature of Matter is going up. It would have to if the potential is pushing matter towards c.
I don't know what this has to do with my post, but an interesting idea to contemplate.
How do you propose this can be tested?
Post by: GoC on 12/12/2015 13:23:50
Post by: Space Flow on 12/12/2015 22:37:59
Just the claim of either push or pull is useless without a mechanism to explain gravity in the first place. What is pushing?GoC, The whole concept of Space Flow Theory comes from the fact that a mechanism is described to explain it.
What is doing the pushing is Spacetime itself on it's way into Matter.
Maybe I have to make that part clearer as you obviously somehow missed it.
I will have to work on that.
In the mean time, have another read because it is in there.
Spacetime in this Theory acts like a compressible fluid, but that is going past what you asked.
Re-read. The answer to your question is there.
As a hint get back to what you know about the behavior of electrons around an atomic nucleus. When they change from a higher (more energetic) orbital to a lower one, they don't do it gradually. They are claimed to do it without crossing the space in-between. As if that space suddenly vanished. Like it was no longer there. That is because it is no longer there. New space automatically moves in to replace it. So we have a spacetime pump.
Hope that helps.
Post by: Phractality on 13/12/2015 04:36:52
Just the claim of either push or pull is useless without a mechanism to explain gravity in the first place. What is pushing?
Pulling without a mechanism bothered Newton, but it was accepted until Einstein's mathematical description of the effect became accepted as the cause; and that is not a mechanism, either. Now you want a mechanism? :o
Fatio & Lesage postulated gravitons (ultra-small, ultra-numerous, ultra-fast elastic spheres) imparting momentum to masses as they bounce off, like 100% elastic billiard balls. Van Flandern calculated the speed of gravity (and gravitons) to be at least 20 billion times the speed of light, to explain why Earth accelerates in the direction (relative to the stars) where we saw the Sun 8 minutes ago, not the direction where we see it now.
If the gravitons are that fast, then for or a particle to accelerate at a mere 1 g, it would have to absorb energy (momentum times the speed of gravity) equivalent to its mass in every picosecond.
Another failing of the Fatio/Lesage model is their fallacious belief that perfectly reflective spheres in a uniform white room should see each other as shadows against the background graviton flux. Easily disproven mathematically.
Van Flandern postulated some pretty strange solutions. He did, however, inspire me to come up with a more viable model.
I accept Van Flandern's speed of gravity (minimum 20 billion c) as the speed of aethereal pressure waves. If there is an aether, as there certainly must be, then light propagates as a transverse shear wave (S-wave). Has no one before me considered that a medium of shear waves might also be a medium of longitudinal pressure waves (P-waves)? I am aware of no such postulate in any previous aether model. I believe this is a major failing of past aether models; no wonder they have all failed.
Try this though experiment:
Imagine a vast expanse of a transparent solid acoustic medium, with a rectilinear grid of dots representing the space through which waves propagate relative to the medium. For shear waves to propagate the medium must be deformable; as an S-wave passes, it wiggles the medium side to side; not much but not zero. Likewise, a P-wave wiggles the medium forward and back.
Let's look at a thin slice of the medium; call it the xy plane.
Imagine an S-wave creeping up the y axis at the speed of a snail. Along comes a P-wave horizontally, left to right along the x axis at the speed of light. (Actually, that snail is the speed of light; the P-wave is moving at the speed of gravity.) Part of the P-wave propagates upwind, so to speak, passing thru the part of the S-wave which is moving right to left; downwind on the part that is moving left to right. This causes part of the P-wave to end up ahead of the other part. Consequently, the P-wave is very slightly distorted as it exits to the right.
The amount of distortion of the P-wave must be unimaginably slight, yet it must be responsible for all the forces of nature.
I postulate that the wiggles imparted to the P-wave by passing thru the S-wave affect the momentum of the P-wave. (Anyone here up to the challenge of proving that mathematically?) For momentum to be conserved, an equal and opposite momentum must be imparted to the S-wave. If P-waves are that much faster, then they must carry greater momentum, and the exchanged momentum must be a greater fraction of the S-waves momentum, while having little effect on the P-wave. The P-wave's direction is nudged ever so slightly, while the S-wave is nudged billions of times more strongly.
The magnitude and direction of the exchanged momentum depends on the angle between the P-wave's path and the S-waves polarity.
If the flux of incoming P-waves is uniform in all directions around the S-wave, then the momentum imparted to the S-wave from all P-waves must add up to zero, and the S-wave does not change its energy or momentum.
If the P-wave flux is stronger in one direction, then the S-wave may receive more momentum from P-waves coming from that direction. (I don't know if that amounts to a push directly away from where the P-wave flux is greater; perhaps in some other direction.)
This kind of momentum exchange between aethereal waves can account for the acceleration of gravity without imparting a lot of energy. However, I'm jumping way ahead. Gravity is a tiny residual imbalance of all the short-range forces at distances beyond their effective range. And all those other forces result from the exchange of momentum between aethereal P-waves, AKA dark energy, and aethereal S-waves, AKA electromagnetic waves or photons.
The simplest forces result when a pair of S-waves of compatible wavelength pass close enough to each other with their planes of polarity optimally aligned. Each S-wave then feels more or less P-wave flux from the direction of the other. This may cause the two S-waves to accelerate either toward or away from one another. (Or perhaps another direction.)
If such a force of attraction is strong enough, it may lock the two S-waves in orbit around one another, thus forming a fundamental particle of matter; the energy of the two S-waves remains with them and becomes the proper mass of the particle. The two S-waves fall toward one another into a vacuum-energy well, and some of that energy may be ejected as an S-wave.
Fast forward: The otherwise uniform P-wave flux continues to be distorted around each S-wave as before; but now that flux disturbance is being spun into a spiral, spreading outward at the speed of P-waves. Those spreading spirals may mesh like gears at close range to form larger particles. Each species of particle is a strange attractor in the chaotic mix of S- and P-waves.
Post by: GoC on 13/12/2015 22:00:47
Post by: Space Flow on 13/12/2015 23:22:17
Mass moves with Spacetime. Spacetime is not static. Nothing in the Universe is.
Gravity as a flow of spacetime has a speed dependent on the amount of mass and the distance from the centre of that mass. It can be so slow it wouldn't be measurable, like for a single Hydrogen Atom in interstellar space, it could flow so fast that the speed of light is not fast enough to make any headway through it, like a Black Hole.
It is just flow rate.
Now having said that we know the speed that light is transmitted through it, in my view as an EM shockwave.
What we don't know is if the disturbances that moving matter causes (Gravity Waves) is in the form of a shock wave as well in which case it may have a transmission speed equivalent to light, or if they are analogous to movement relative disturbances, in which case they would only travel at the speed given to them by the moving masses, which would make them a local effect that would get destroyed (swallowed up) by the flow.
If it is the second of these, it may explain why our efforts to detect GWs have so far failed.
Lots of new questions...
Post by: Phractality on 14/12/2015 03:11:21
I suspect gravity does not have a speed.
The lack of a speed-of-gravity factor in general relativity amounts to an assumption that whatever mechanism carries the force of gravity is either infinitely fast or nonexistent. I am of the opinion that there is a mechanism, and it has a finite speed.
There are claims that the speed of gravity is the speed of light. I think that error comes from applying general relativity to a hypothetical vanishing star's gravity. Suppose the star's mass is suddenly released as a uniform sphere of light, expanding at the speed of light. Freeing the energy from its bondage in massive particles does not eliminate the the gravitational mass of the star. Instead, each photon carries away its share of gravitational mass. From Newton's shell theorem, we surmise that an observer outside the expanding shell of light will continue to feel the same gravity as before the star vanished;
be he will be observing the gravity of expanding light sphere, not the gravity of the vanished star. As soon at the light sphere envelopes the observer, the shell theorem says he will no longer feel the gravity of the light sphere. That explains why there should be a speed of light time delay if a hypothetical star could suddenly be converted to light equally in all directions.
Newton's shell theorem, however, tacitly assumes that the speed of gravity is infinite. If it is finite, then another parameter must be added to the shell theorem. My intuition says that the gravity of the light would resemble that of an expanding ellipsoid of light, and I'm not sure if that would spell the same sudden drop in gravity or a gradual drop after entering the shell.
It would just be a dilation of space as a field that moves with mass when mass moves.
Math is God? I think not. There is a deeper reality.
Post by: GoC on 14/12/2015 18:11:58
There are claims that the speed of gravity is the speed of light. I think that error comes from applying general relativity to a hypothetical vanishing star's gravity. Suppose the star's mass is suddenly released as a uniform sphere of light, expanding at the speed of light. Freeing the energy from its bondage in massive particles does not eliminate the the gravitational mass of the star. Instead, each photon carries away its share of gravitational mass. From Newton's shell theorem, we surmise that an observer outside the expanding shell of light will continue to feel the same gravity as before the star vanished;be he will be observing the gravity of expanding light sphere, not the gravity of the vanished star. As soon at the light sphere envelopes the observer, the shell theorem says he will no longer feel the gravity of the light sphere. That explains why there should be a speed of light time delay if a hypothetical star could suddenly be converted to light equally in all directions.
In that vanishing act I would agree that the effect would dissipate at the speed of light. But the light sphere is not gravity. Light bends around gravity. If light burns out in a sun and only mass is left gravity would still exist. Light is a force it can push. Gravity pulls you down or pushes you down but you do not need light for gravity.
Which is indistinguishable from a field that remains with mass.
Newton's shell theorem, however, tacitly assumes that the speed of gravity is infinite.
Math is God? I think not. There is a deeper reality.
Sorry I have no opinion for what a God represents.
Post by: jeffreyH on 15/12/2015 13:40:53
Post by: GoC on 15/12/2015 14:23:11
Everything is speculation. Even what you think you know for certain.
Post by: Phractality on 15/12/2015 15:36:44
To find the speed of gravity you need to determine why the dimension of the entropy of a black hole does not change with the radius of the event horizon. Then you need to relate this to a Planck mass sized black hole. Otherwise you are using wild speculation.
VanFlandern calculated a lower limit on the speed of gravity (http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp) based on the lack of parallax in planetary systems. If gravity propagated at the speed of light, Earth would be pulled toward the direction where we see the Sun now, not where we saw the Sun 8 minutes ago. With the Sun's gravity pulling us forward, our orbit would move farther and farther out until we lose sight of the Sun. The existence of planetary systems proves that gravity is many times faster than light.
I realize that some of VanFlandern's theories, like spontaneously exploding planets, are pretty wild, but his reasoning on the speed of gravity is not wild speculation. I believe he got this one right.
Post by: jeffreyH on 15/12/2015 16:26:24
Post by: jeffreyH on 15/12/2015 17:10:42
Then we should be able to formulate the following equation.
Here lambda_0 is a specific wavelength of light and lambda_1 is a specific wavelength of gravitation. Finding the correct ratio will then give the speed of gravitation. Not easy. Not all the factors are taken into account by this simplistic relationship.
Post by: jeffreyH on 15/12/2015 17:13:39
EDIT: Then it would be reasonable to reformulate as
Since the relative strengths of the electromagnetic an gravitational fields are known approximately the equation could be cross checked via energy differences.
Post by: GoC on 15/12/2015 23:01:59
Post by: jeffreyH on 15/12/2015 23:25:47
Post by: GoC on 16/12/2015 13:32:25
Post by: guest39538 on 18/12/2015 10:51:10
Just no....
Post by: guest39538 on 18/12/2015 11:04:09
Considering that the wavelengths associated with gravitation are longer than the wavelengths of light then we can take c as the speed of light and g as the speed of gravitation.
Then we should be able to formulate the following equation.
Here lambda_0 is a specific wavelength of light and lambda_1 is a specific wavelength of gravitation. Finding the correct ratio will then give the speed of gravitation. Not easy. Not all the factors are taken into account by this simplistic relationship.
λ(yc)=σλ(xc)
Because the timing cross correlation synchronisation is constant the ''clear'' is not.
Post by: jeffreyH on 18/12/2015 11:36:10
Post by: GoC on 18/12/2015 13:59:23
Post by: guest39538 on 18/12/2015 16:17:40
What exactly is a timing cross correlation synchronisation? I would really like to know because it confuses the hell out of me. It might sound like a very scientific thing to say but not if it doesn't make sense.
Think an upside down capital ''T'', an intersection where Y meets X, this timing cross correlation is how spectral constants are created. Each different ''colour'' being a timing lag by the interactions ''permeable''/reflective properties of mass.
All mass is actually ''black'' and only black and Em radiation ''exist'' , colour is a perception in your brain distinguishing the constant cross correlation from the variance of ''clear'' light.
Y = variable
X = constant
added - I drew it for you.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
[ Invalid Attachment ]
and yes , time dilation, etc , all a part of this.
And the sky is blue like plasma, because the compression is by this -
''The ionosphere /aɪˈɒnɵˌsfɪər/ is a region of Earth's upper atmosphere, from about 60 km (37 mi) to 1,000 km (620 mi) altitude,[1] and includes the thermosphere and parts of the mesosphere and exosphere. It is ionized by solar radiation, plays an important part in atmospheric electricity and forms the inner edge of the magnetosphere. It has practical importance because, among other functions, it influences radio propagation to distant places on the Earth.[2]''
It is a 'plasma layer'' that is why it repels emr and protects us.
Post by: Kenyonm on 19/12/2015 20:43:28
Post by: Space Flow on 19/12/2015 23:43:32
Consider being a mass of completly uniform density, a gas, liquid or solid. Next consider being surrounded by a medium of exactly the same material stretching out in all directions infinately. Would there be any force imposed on you? if the answer to this is no, why is this? If the answer to this is yes, where is the force coming from?An even matter density throughout the entire Universe, is what I think you are trying to describe. If this was so, and also an even temperature for all this matter, then the amount of Spacetime absorbed by every bit of matter would be the same. That would mean that all forces acting on all parts of the Universe would be equal, and nothing would move. Spacetime would still expand with the passage of time, but there would be no clumps of Matter, and no Voids. The Universe would remain with an even distribution of Matter for ever.
That is what the Universe would have been like if at the time of final scattering there did not exist the small anisotropies we now measure in the CMB.
The scenario you postulate above describes an extremely fine balancing act. It would only take one small discrepancy between any two particles in the Universe to break that symmetry.
But just for your thought experiment, the answer is Yes and no.
Yes all the known forces of nature would be acting on you exactly the same as they would be acting on everything else.
No because the sum of all the forces, because they are acting on every bit of Matter exactly the same, would have a net effect of "0". The only change in such a Universe would be through expansion.
Hope that helps..
Post by: guest39538 on 20/12/2015 13:43:00
Consider being a mass of completly uniform density, a gas, liquid or solid. Next consider being surrounded by a medium of exactly the same material stretching out in all directions infinately. Would there be any force imposed on you? if the answer to this is no, why is this? If the answer to this is yes, where is the force coming from?An even matter density throughout the entire Universe, is what I think you are trying to describe. If this was so, and also an even temperature for all this matter, then the amount of Spacetime absorbed by every bit of matter would be the same. That would mean that all forces acting on all parts of the Universe would be equal, and nothing would move. Spacetime would still expand with the passage of time, but there would be no clumps of Matter, and no Voids. The Universe would remain with an even distribution of Matter for ever.
That is what the Universe would have been like if at the time of final scattering there did not exist the small anisotropies we now measure in the CMB.
The scenario you postulate above describes an extremely fine balancing act. It would only take one small discrepancy between any two particles in the Universe to break that symmetry.
But just for your thought experiment, the answer is Yes and no.
Yes all the known forces of nature would be acting on you exactly the same as they would be acting on everything else.
No because the sum of all the forces, because they are acting on every bit of Matter exactly the same, would have a net effect of "0". The only change in such a Universe would be through expansion.
Hope that helps..
Minkowski space-time is virtual, (almost or nearly as described, but not completely or according to strict definition,not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.),
Space- time does not expand or contract, it is the distance between two masses that expands or contracts, real time is dependent to mass, the 3 dimensions of mass and time being a 4 dimensional manifold in a n-dimensional timeless space.
Space is neutral ''mass'', 0 on any measuring system, then matter is positive mass and negative mass, + and minus on any measuring system.
Neutral mass is attracted to neutral mass, negative mass is attracted to positive mass and positive mass is attracted to negative mass, and neutral mass is a neutral conduit that allows all this interaction to happen while keeping everything together.
i.e The Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth, the journey time (virtual space-time) is expanding between the Earth and the Moon.
added - I drew it you
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: GoC on 20/12/2015 14:16:34
We might have two systems. An energy state that is uniform throughout the universe and mass that absorbs that energy to move. The energy system without mass would be a completely uniform constant. would there be any view of expansion? No, there would b no light. We only view expansion through red shift. If we are not completely sure what red shift represents we would not be sure about expansion or a big bang. Red shift is considered a SR cause and not a GR cause for expansion faster than the speed of light. Yet we view dilation as lensing which is a GR expansion of space if Einstein is to be believed (curvature of space). From our less dilated position in our galaxy all galaxies would appear red shifted just by position of dilation. Dilated space causes a longer jump for the electron which we assign less energy. And that is probably true if energy density is lowered by dilation. mass causes dilated space and dilated space expands mass. So the cell length used for detection of red shift changes with energy density position. it is not light changing frequency down a gravity well by increasing momentum as has been suggested. it is merely the synchronization parameters that change by position because of the change in cell length.
So gravity is the attraction of mass to a lower density energy state of dilated space. The attraction can be related to a speed of attraction in a stationary position.
Post by: guest39538 on 20/12/2015 14:22:08
pure speculation,
We might have two systems. An energy state that is uniform throughout the universe and mass that absorbs that energy to move. The energy system without mass would be a completely uniform constant. would there be any view of expansion? No, there would b no light. We only view expansion through red shift. If we are not completely sure what red shift represents we would not be sure about expansion or a big bang. Red shift is considered a SR cause and not a GR cause for expansion faster than the speed of light. Yet we view dilation as lensing which is a GR expansion of space if Einstein is to be believed (curvature of space). From our less dilated position in our galaxy all galaxies would appear red shifted just by position of dilation. Dilated space causes a longer jump for the electron which we assign less energy. And that is probably true if energy density is lowered by dilation. mass causes dilated space and dilated space expands mass. So the cell length used for detection of red shift changes with energy density position. it is not light changing frequency down a gravity well by increasing momentum as has been suggested. it is merely the synchronization parameters that change by position because of the change in cell length.
So gravity is the attraction of mass to a lower density energy state of dilated space. The attraction can be related to a speed of attraction in a stationary position.
A prism shifts light at ground state, as for the rest of it, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Simplify please, dont use science talk.
''An energy state that is uniform throughout the universe and mass that absorbs that energy to move. ''
start here
Post by: Spring Theory on 23/12/2015 11:17:36
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=57392.msg459534#msg459534\
In a nutshell, photons are traveling compressions of space. Matter is made up of trapped knots of photons and therefore compressions of space.
Post by: Space Flow on 23/12/2015 12:01:11
Somewhat similar to my Space compression spring theory, although a bit more complicated:Interesting read.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=57392.msg459534#msg459534\
In a nutshell, photons are traveling compressions of space. Matter is made up of trapped knots of photons and therefore compressions of space.
You seem to rely on Photons as particles. The model I am proposing within the Space Flow theory if true (which I'm certainly not sure off) would do away with duality.
Space Flow theory is certainly not dependent on my view of EMR as a shockwave, but it seems to make sense to me.
As a shockwave within Spacetime, no particle (Photon) is needed. Kinetic energy is transferred in proportion to the part of the wave that is intercepted. As the shockwave is quite capable of doing that all by itself, no photon as a particle comes into it.
As such photons do not exist, so can not orbit each other as you speculate.
As I said I am not married to my view, and will quite happily dump it if you can find a way to test and verify yours or anyone else's for that mater.
Keep punching... :)
Post by: GoC on 23/12/2015 14:57:45
Pure speculation of course on my part. We need to think outside of the math box for cause. Mathematics is not the cause of relativity just the precision measurement in a non precise, non uniform energy state of existence. Accuracy of mechanics should follow math but first we have to understand the cause of motion (time). Time is the energy of c as a constant. We measure variations of c by positions in c.
Post by: MattFaw on 29/12/2015 20:24:31
I'm coming to this conversation late, but I just wanted to mention that I'm in complete agreement with you.
The rubber sheet metaphor for spacetime is useful at first blush, but ultimately wildly misleading. I think spacetime makes a lot more sense as being attracted to mass, so that spacetime near mass is denser than spacetime away from it (hence gravitational lensing). I think it is best thought of like a fluid, and fluid dynamics can help explain some of the phenomena we see at galactic and intergalactic scales.
For example, the fact that galaxies rotate too fast, so that we have invented dark matter to explain why the peripheral stars don't fly off. But the dark matter explanation relies upon a universe in which self-attracting matter is rotating through space.
However, if we see space as being attracted toward matter, then we can see that spacetime actually gets moved around by the matter, as it revolves around galactic center. The galaxy is a disc of spacetime, which itself revolves around galactic center, carrying all the matter within it. From our reference frame, galaxies seem to spin too fast, but that is because the reference frame of the entire galaxy is itself spinning. Like a carousel, the platter of spacetime is spinning, and all the horses ride upon that.
When we look at a spiral galaxy, we see the evidence of a galactic center that at one time did move faster than the periphery, but now the entire galaxy revolves at about the same speed. The amount of spiral may be like a stopped clock, which reveals how long it took for the entire galactic spacetime disc to start spinning.
This is where fluid dynamics may be useful. Just as different flows of fluid can ride upon each other (underwater rivers, etc.), so too does the dense (i.e. highly curved) spacetime in the galactic disc ride upon the less dense spacetime around it. As the disc spins, it twists the spacetime immediately north and south of it, creating vortexes in the spacetime. This would explain why we see spiral emissions of x-rays emerging north and south from supermassive black holes. Since electromagnetic radiation travels in straight lines, it must be the spacetime itself which spirals.
Also, as the contiguous intergalactic spacetime twists, it should also get a little choppy, forming spiraled waves north and south of the galactic disc. These waves should help shape the path of the galactic space, as it spins around center. It's like a denser fluid disc (galactic space) sandwiched and flowing between two less dense fluid layers. And indeed, matter in the galaxy follows a wavelike pattern, as it revolves around galactic center, as if it were flowing along an undulating path.
I think seeing spacetime as a fluid is a much more useful metaphor than seeing it as a fabric.
best,
matt faw
Post by: MattFaw on 29/12/2015 21:21:23
Gravity is a push, not a pullWe as Humans on Planet Earth are not being pulled towards it’s centre but pushed into it’s denser than us surface, by the torrent rushing and accelerating through and past us, into the rest of the planet.
Speaking of which, at 8:32 in this vid, Michio Kaku says exactly that: that gravity is space pushing us down toward the earth.
Post by: Space Flow on 30/12/2015 04:08:21
I do see spacetime as a no viscosity fluid.
Although I have been toying with this idea for several years now, I have started to notice lately that more and more physicists without actually coming out and saying so, are starting to seriously consider Spacetime as an actual medium.
Our friend Michio Kaku being one of them. Unfortunately even though they might make appropriate sounding descriptive comments, when it comes down to official theory and the Mathematics used to describe situations within spacetime, they all stick to a fixed coordinate treatment of spacetime.
It seems like their subconscious is trying to tell them that Spacetime like everything else in this Universe is not static, but their conscious refuses to allow it. Michio Kaku can be excused as he has devoted most of his efforts in String Theory. I just don't understand why for 100 years no one has proposed that Spacetime might be allowed to move. After all that is the only change I am proposing to GR. Everything else seems to find it's own answers after that.
Even at the Quantum level, how many times have I heard the explanation that when an atom drops from a higher orbital to a lower one it does it instantly. It does not travel through the Spacetime in-between the two different states. Surely that is a behavior that should suggest something is happening here that needs extra explanation.
Anyway enough of my frustrations and again thank you for understanding my very amateur speculations.
Post by: GoC on 30/12/2015 13:28:00
I do see spacetime as a no viscosity fluid. Although I have been toying with this idea for several years now, I have started to notice lately that more and more physicists without actually coming out and saying so, are starting to seriously consider Spacetime as an actual medium.
The true scientist has to or there is nothing to work with. On the other hand a scientist has to ignore calling for a medium because of the MMX. While the MMX was a good experiment it may have done more harm than good. While the MMX strongly suggested there was no Static Aether the fluid dynamics of an energy fluid was not disproven.
Our friend Michio Kaku being one of them. Unfortunately even though they might make appropriate sounding descriptive comments, when it comes down to official theory and the Mathematics used to describe situations within spacetime, they all stick to a fixed coordinate treatment of spacetime.
Mathematicians are generally linear thinkers and that is what makes them good at math. Mechanics including fluid mechanics is a more abstract thought process and as you know physics is weighted heavy in mathematicians while light in mechanical engineers.
It seems like their subconscious is trying to tell them that Spacetime like everything else in this Universe is not static, but their conscious refuses to allow it. Michio Kaku can be excused as he has devoted most of his efforts in String Theory. I just don't understand why for 100 years no one has proposed that Spacetime might be allowed to move. After all that is the only change I am proposing to GR. Everything else seems to find it's own answers after that.
Einstein suggested it cannot move and everyone falls inline. I agree with you on the fluidic space. I believe it to be Energy because of movement. As a scientist you will receive no respect with such an understanding.
Even at the Quantum level, how many times have I heard the explanation that when an atom drops from a higher orbital to a lower one it does it instantly. It does not travel through the Spacetime in-between the two different states. Surely that is a behavior that should suggest something is happening here that needs extra explanation.
Of course! But that would mean changing ones understanding. No one is strong enough to change the main stream view. Only maim stream view is funded. Amateurs are not funded and do not have the limitations of thought. While the disadvantage is generally a lack of understanding in observations relating to relativity.
I believe you are on the correct path for the tools we need in understanding relativity.
Post by: Space Flow on 01/01/2016 05:14:15
Quote from: GoC
Einstein suggested it cannot move and everyone falls inline. I agree with you on the fluidic space. I believe it to be Energy because of movement. As a scientist you will receive no respect with such an understanding.The strange thing is I too believed that that's what Einstein said.
On further recent investigation I found that what Einstein actually said was;
Quote from: Albert Einstein
More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.What I find Einstein is saying from several transcripts is that an Ether (Spacetime) is an esential part of relativity. His equations demanded it to be so. He did not like it, but it had to be. It was just not the static ether of the previous theories.
Not liking but having to put up with what the math was saying, he subsequently skirted the whole subject by not assigning a state of motion to spacetime/ether at all.
He said that the math said it was physical in nature as physical characteristics are assigned to it, and it couldn't be static.
So he ignored it with the most popular quoted remark on the subject
Quote from: Albert Einstein
Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether.Which statement has been used out of context for the last 100 years.
Similar to what he tried to do when the Math said the Universe couldn't be static. He got caught on that one...
Unfortunately that little sweeping under the carpet for spacetime has lasted 100 years and going.
But we have two clear assertions by the man himself; Spacetime has a physical existence, and is not static.
Surely that's enough for us to figure the rest out...
Post by: jeffreyH on 01/01/2016 05:29:03
Post by: guest39538 on 01/01/2016 07:57:25
Gravity is a push, not a pullWe as Humans on Planet Earth are not being pulled towards it’s centre but pushed into it’s denser than us surface, by the torrent rushing and accelerating through and past us, into the rest of the planet.
Speaking of which, at 8:32 in this vid, Michio Kaku says exactly that: that gravity is space pushing us down toward the earth.
Gravity is the unification of space, space always wants to unite, space pulls space together at every single point of space. ''Push'' is polarisation of mass v mass, the Universe is contracting and expanding at the same time.
Surrounding and within every existing mass exists space, space always contracts, metal expands when the atoms become positive ions, substances are no different to metal, The earth swells, but space contracts the earth, the sun pushes the earth,s core and positive ions of the earth. Galaxies push each others positive ions, hence expansion and light stretching.
Post by: Space Flow on 01/01/2016 10:27:13
I find it strange that anyone can ascribe a motion to spacetime and believe me this is coming from someone who others think says strange things. Time doesn't move about and follow a coordinate path and as it is a component of spacetime it makes no sense to ascribe motion to it.Jeffrey, thank you for taking the time to read my more than strange ramblings.
You are one of the reasons I published this ridiculous idea on this forum to start with.
You see I am not married to this theory. I have tried to falsify it for several years now and failed. I need a fresh set of eyes on it. Especially a set of eyes with a bias against the idea that spacetime can move. So you see I need you.
Remember that you are not alone in your opinion. The Great Albert Einstein himself, abhorred the fact that his own equations were telling him that Spacetime and the Universe are not static. In fact they told him that nothing is Universally Static. There is no such reference frame. The very idea seemed so wrong that he introduced Lambda to fix the Universe and refused to consider attributing any state of motion to spacetime. He spoke against it being static but never considered what it's movement might be or what it might mean.
So you see your view is in excellent company.
Not only that but you are also backed by every modern physicist on the planet that I have heard about.
A lot of which have even devoted their lives in trying to find the answer to Gravity in the guise of a force mediated by a force carrier particle, others that have even tried to find the answer in whole other undetectible dimensions.
But yes you are in the best position possible to refute and falsify this ridiculous claim by this total amateur who obviously is missing something that is staring him in the face.
I look forward to your analysis.
By the way, just claiming something can't be right will not be considered as evidence that it's not right.
Post by: MattFaw on 01/01/2016 19:40:47
Gravity is the unification of space, space always wants to unite, space pulls space together at every single point of space. ''Push'' is polarisation of mass v mass, the Universe is contracting and expanding at the same time.
Surrounding and within every existing mass exists space, space always contracts, metal expands when the atoms become positive ions, substances are no different to metal, The earth swells, but space contracts the earth, the sun pushes the earth,s core and positive ions of the earth. Galaxies push each others positive ions, hence expansion and light stretching.
Hi, Thebox. I agree the terms 'push' and 'pull' are not entirely accurate.
The way I understand it is: mass draws spacetime to it. If there is a less massive mass in that spacetime, it will follow the path which the spacetime provides. On earth, spacetime is being drawn radially in, toward the center of the planet (spacetime doesn't end at the earth's surface, and goes all the way down). Since we are smaller masses on the earth, we are drawn in the direction that spacetime is going, which is toward the center of the planet.
I don't have an opinion about the nature of spacetime on very small scales (ions, etc.), because electromagnetism and the other forces seem to be so much more relevant than gravity on that scale.
Post by: MattFaw on 01/01/2016 19:46:17
Matt, thank you for the encouraging appraisal of my Hypothesis, and an extra thank you for so clearly understanding what I am trying to say. Your answer and description of Galactic rotations is exactly what one of the things this Hypothesis or maybe I can call it theory as it is supported by all the evidence we have for GR, anyway it is exactly one of the things that fall out of it.
I do see spacetime as a no viscosity fluid.
Although I have been toying with this idea for several years now, I have started to notice lately that more and more physicists without actually coming out and saying so, are starting to seriously consider Spacetime as an actual medium.
Our friend Michio Kaku being one of them. Unfortunately even though they might make appropriate sounding descriptive comments, when it comes down to official theory and the Mathematics used to describe situations within spacetime, they all stick to a fixed coordinate treatment of spacetime.
It seems like their subconscious is trying to tell them that Spacetime like everything else in this Universe is not static, but their conscious refuses to allow it. Michio Kaku can be excused as he has devoted most of his efforts in String Theory. I just don't understand why for 100 years no one has proposed that Spacetime might be allowed to move. After all that is the only change I am proposing to GR. Everything else seems to find it's own answers after that.
Even at the Quantum level, how many times have I heard the explanation that when an atom drops from a higher orbital to a lower one it does it instantly. It does not travel through the Spacetime in-between the two different states. Surely that is a behavior that should suggest something is happening here that needs extra explanation.
Anyway enough of my frustrations and again thank you for understanding my very amateur speculations.
I'm likewise glad to find someone who is exploring the same territory I've been thinking about.
If you're interested, I created the following theory video, about tweaking General Relativity to get rid of the need for Dark Matter.
best,
matt faw
Not a valid vimeo URL
Post by: Space Flow on 02/01/2016 01:15:05
It was literally like hearing myself speak. We are so close to being in the same Universe it's not funny.
I love your video. That unfortunately is not something I can do. Or maybe after watching how you put it together I could try. But you my friend have a talent. And a great presentation voice.
We have to work together. The similarity in concept is uncanny. You were well on the way I reckon to finding the mechanism behind the Flowing liquid-like nature of spacetime.
I would love to see a video combining our views..
How do you go with copyright with using bits of other peoples videos?
Edit; Matt, I also watched the video on dark energy. Don't quite agree with a fair bit of that content.
We should talk.
Post by: MattFaw on 02/01/2016 05:50:11
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on Dark Energy. It's all speculation on my part, so there's plenty of room for improvement.
About copyright. In theory, my excerpting these videos should be considered "fair use", under copyright law. Fair use says that (within reason) you can excerpt in order to either lampoon or comment upon. Since there's no profit (and since it's Vimeo), I don't foresee problems with the vid.
Post by: Space Flow on 02/01/2016 05:59:00
I would love to see what you can do with adding my theory to give yours a reason behind the flows of spacetime. And tie it into the Quantum world.
I hope that's a possibility.. :-)
Together we could be greater than the sum of the parts.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/01/2016 07:19:23
Matt, thank you for the encouraging appraisal of my Hypothesis, and an extra thank you for so clearly understanding what I am trying to say. Your answer and description of Galactic rotations is exactly what one of the things this Hypothesis or maybe I can call it theory as it is supported by all the evidence we have for GR, anyway it is exactly one of the things that fall out of it.
I do see spacetime as a no viscosity fluid.
Although I have been toying with this idea for several years now, I have started to notice lately that more and more physicists without actually coming out and saying so, are starting to seriously consider Spacetime as an actual medium.
Our friend Michio Kaku being one of them. Unfortunately even though they might make appropriate sounding descriptive comments, when it comes down to official theory and the Mathematics used to describe situations within spacetime, they all stick to a fixed coordinate treatment of spacetime.
It seems like their subconscious is trying to tell them that Spacetime like everything else in this Universe is not static, but their conscious refuses to allow it. Michio Kaku can be excused as he has devoted most of his efforts in String Theory. I just don't understand why for 100 years no one has proposed that Spacetime might be allowed to move. After all that is the only change I am proposing to GR. Everything else seems to find it's own answers after that.
Even at the Quantum level, how many times have I heard the explanation that when an atom drops from a higher orbital to a lower one it does it instantly. It does not travel through the Spacetime in-between the two different states. Surely that is a behavior that should suggest something is happening here that needs extra explanation.
Anyway enough of my frustrations and again thank you for understanding my very amateur speculations.
I'm likewise glad to find someone who is exploring the same territory I've been thinking about.
If you're interested, I created the following theory video, about tweaking General Relativity to get rid of the need for Dark Matter.
best,
matt faw
Not a valid vimeo URL
I watched some of your video and stopped early on, again somebody is trying to create something more that does not exist, dark energy is space itself, dark matter is light, both of these are invisible to the eye and neutral while unified in space. Dark gravity is a no no. Electrostatic is made from energy Ke interactions . Both of your ideas are shadows of my own thoughts from has far back as 2009.
It was I who suggested space is attracted to space, it was I who recognises that when an object is displaced, space fills the ''space'' where the object was. You are welcome to all the ideas, why are you talking copy rights? science is free for all to share , there is no copy rights in science when considering space.
added - after watching further I hear more rubbish, something accounts for motion that we have not touched, incorrect, energy accounts for work. the unification of everything is EWUe.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/01/2016 08:26:53
Post by: GoC on 02/01/2016 14:19:48
You have it exactly backwards because you are not following logic. What is dilation? It is expansion. c of space move the electrons and this causes space energy to expand. Dark Mass is the micro particles and dark energy is the spin of dark matter. Two different aspects of the same thing. The spin is what makes it fluid like. We are a part of that measurement so we can never measure c spin. We would need something faster than light speed to do that. Finding dark mass energy is an exercise in futility
Mass expands space to a less dense energy per volume of space. This is what causes attraction of mass. Mass is attracted to a larger volume of space with less dense energy.
Yes mass carries its dilated space with it and has a threshold to the more dense energy of massless space. But the accumulated dilation is evident in galaxies spinning as a disk of dilated energy. Dilation is the cause of light bending around macro mass (electrons, protons and Neutrons). Space energy density increase would contract the photon path not expand it. Relativity is correct. Its just not accepted for what it really describes.
Both voyagers appeared to slow down when they reached the edge of the solar system. Why? Because the density of energy increased at the edge causing the signal time to shorten. We incorrectly judged that to be the slowing of the voyagers. In reality it was just another observation of Relativity.
Relativity rules the universe by energy c and energy density differences by GR flow of the electrons in total mass. What causes electron flow? Something!!!! and not nothing! Fundamental energy is not the electron but what moves the electrons.
Gravity is simply mass being attracted to dilated space. Potential kinetic energy is a mass energy to a more dilated micro energy. Kinetic energy is the transfer of micro space energy between macro mass objects.
All mass creates an aura around it. The universe, a galaxy, a black hole (special aura), solar system, a sun, a planet, a person and the atom. That aura is the dilation of space energy. I believe this to be just an extension of Relativity different fro the main stream interpretation.
Post by: MattFaw on 02/01/2016 17:58:57
Can I use your video to describe part of my theory?Hi Space Flow,
I would love to see what you can do with adding my theory to give yours a reason behind the flows of spacetime. And tie it into the Quantum world.
I hope that's a possibility.. :-)
Together we could be greater than the sum of the parts.
By all means, feel free to use the video as explainer; that's what I made it for. And of course, if you have disagreements and caveats to make along with it, that's fine too. I've re-purposed all the video footage in it, to make my video; so I don't see why you shouldn't use my video the same way.
I am definitely interested in collaborating. My energy is currently obsessed with a different topic: the science of consciousness, as I am 5 years into making a 3D documentary about the topic (promo below). I made the Dark Matter/Dark Energy vids as a holiday gift to myself, since I've been sitting on that theory for so long. As I'm sure you know, some ideas just want to be expressed.
But by all means, let me know how you think the theories should be tweaked, and any ideas into making the arguments more robust.
best,
matt faw
Not a valid vimeo URL
Post by: MattFaw on 02/01/2016 18:02:59
I watched some of your video and stopped early on, again somebody is trying to create something more that does not exist, dark energy is space itself, dark matter is light, both of these are invisible to the eye and neutral while unified in space. Dark gravity is a no no. Electrostatic is made from energy Ke interactions . Both of your ideas are shadows of my own thoughts from has far back as 2009.I have to admit, I'm having a hard time understanding your comment or the attached video. It doesn't sound like you're making a direct response to what I said in my vid.
It was I who suggested space is attracted to space, it was I who recognises that when an object is displaced, space fills the ''space'' where the object was. You are welcome to all the ideas, why are you talking copy rights? science is free for all to share , there is no copy rights in science when considering space.
added - after watching further I hear more rubbish, something accounts for motion that we have not touched, incorrect, energy accounts for work. the unification of everything is EWUe.
Post by: MattFaw on 02/01/2016 18:11:08
Dark matter, dark energy and spacetime are the same thing. We will never view dark matter because it is spin energy in motion of c. Spin energy of c moves the electrons. This is why in GR light and the electron always measure distance of light travel the same in every frame. It is the dilation of energy affecting space distance for light and electron movement.Hi GoC. I agree with you that relativity is probably incomplete, but not broken.
You have it exactly backwards because you are not following logic. What is dilation? It is expansion. c of space move the electrons and this causes space energy to expand. Dark Mass is the micro particles and dark energy is the spin of dark matter. Two different aspects of the same thing. The spin is what makes it fluid like. We are a part of that measurement so we can never measure c spin. We would need something faster than light speed to do that. Finding dark mass energy is an exercise in futility
Mass expands space to a less dense energy per volume of space. This is what causes attraction of mass. Mass is attracted to a larger volume of space with less dense energy.
Yes mass carries its dilated space with it and has a threshold to the more dense energy of massless space. But the accumulated dilation is evident in galaxies spinning as a disk of dilated energy. Dilation is the cause of light bending around macro mass (electrons, protons and Neutrons). Space energy density increase would contract the photon path not expand it. Relativity is correct. Its just not accepted for what it really describes.
Both voyagers appeared to slow down when they reached the edge of the solar system. Why? Because the density of energy increased at the edge causing the signal time to shorten. We incorrectly judged that to be the slowing of the voyagers. In reality it was just another observation of Relativity.
Relativity rules the universe by energy c and energy density differences by GR flow of the electrons in total mass. What causes electron flow? Something!!!! and not nothing! Fundamental energy is not the electron but what moves the electrons.
Gravity is simply mass being attracted to dilated space. Potential kinetic energy is a mass energy to a more dilated micro energy. Kinetic energy is the transfer of micro space energy between macro mass objects.
All mass creates an aura around it. The universe, a galaxy, a black hole (special aura), solar system, a sun, a planet, a person and the atom. That aura is the dilation of space energy. I believe this to be just an extension of Relativity different fro the main stream interpretation.
I also agree that my metaphors (e.g. spacetime clinging to mass, spacetime being denser around mass) are imperfect, because they describe 4D phenomena with words that are usually only meaningful in 3D.
I am curious why you think that space dilates near mass (other than the Voyagers example). It's possible that's a better way of describing spacetime's behavior, but I don't yet understand your metaphor's appeal. Maybe you can give some other examples which support this interpretation?
best,
matt faw
Post by: guest39538 on 03/01/2016 10:42:50
Hi GoC. I agree with you that relativity is probably incomplete, but not broken.
I also agree that my metaphors (e.g. spacetime clinging to mass, spacetime being denser around mass) are imperfect, because they describe 4D phenomena with words that are usually only meaningful in 3D.
I am curious why you think that space dilates near mass (other than the Voyagers example). It's possible that's a better way of describing spacetime's behavior, but I don't yet understand your metaphor's appeal. Maybe you can give some other examples which support this interpretation?
best,
matt faw
Matt, do not get wrapped up into space time, space time only exists has a concept, it only exists between two points of mass, it is a virtual navigation system to represent journeys that have not been taken.
XYZ only exists of matter and time only exists of matter, space time is a n-dimensional 5th dimension solution to a problem, no more no less.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/01/2016 10:46:34
Dark matter, dark energy and spacetime are the same thing.
No they are not,
Post by: GoC on 03/01/2016 16:01:00
Maybe you can give some other examples which support this interpretation?
Logic is the best option for understanding. Dilation in Relativity is just that dilation of space time. I say space time because I suspect time is of space and not mass. Why do you and many others suspect space as fluid? Motion of course. What is the motion of space? c of course is the motion of space. The electron is measured to be slower than a photon. How can something slower create a constant speed faster? So logically energy is of space and not mass. What moves the electrons? We measure time with electrons. Electrons from the same atoms tick at the same rate at sea level. Both mechanical and light clocks measure time equally at sea level. They are synchronized in the same frame but no longer synchronized when one changes frame. There is a constant that is adjusted by frames in both GR and SR. With GR it is dilation of space that changes the tick rate by increasing distance both the electron and photon has to travel. Dilation is strongest in the center of mass. Clocks tick slowest in the center of mass. So we have space time as energy of c to move electrons and photons. Dilation of space energy (necessary for flow) is the cause of time being measured differently between frames. Frames are both a SR and GR issue. Attraction is only a GR issue of mass being attracted to the most dilated position. Magnetism is the spin alignment of energy. Two separate issues of the same energy of what we refer to as time.
Post by: Phractality on 03/01/2016 17:31:34
Matt, do not get wrapped up into space time, space time only exists has a concept, it only exists between two points of mass, it is a virtual navigation system to represent journeys that have not been taken. XYZ only exists of matter and time only exists of matter, space time is a n-dimensional 5th dimension solution to a problem, no more no less.
X, Y, Z & T are names that we give to dimensions of the space and time that exist in our imaginations. We can carve those names into physical objects, like graph paper, in the real space-time that hosts the atoms we're made of; or we may type the names of coordinate axes into a computer program, where they control how data are stored in a microprocessor's transistors, as well as how the data are presented on a screen or in a VR helmet.
Now, if you had a VR helmet and a haptic feedback suit, you could make a pretty good match between the virtual space-time in the computer and the real space-time in which your body exists. You could even take that to the extreme and be absorbed into the Matrix. But the two space-times would still not be identical.
So we have this virtual space-time programmed into a computer, complete with Einstein's relativity, occupied by low-res digital imitations of whatever galaxies SDSS has mapped in 3D. We can zoom out to view our virtual observable universe as seen by a hypothetical viewer anywhere in the mapped region (bearing in mind that our view of distant galaxies may be a few billion years old, and an observer there would be seeing our galaxy as it was billions of years ago). We look thru our virtual Hubble space-telescope into our virtual universe; then we compare what we see there to what the real HST sees in the real universe . If we see discrepancies, we can tweak our virtual universe.
We can also zoom in on a virtual atomic nucleus in our virtual universe. But the picture in there is a blur because we can't resolve time or space that closely in the real universe. We are free to invent models which can be resolved arbitrarily small in both space and time. But we can only predict real world outcomes statistically. If the model predicts probable outcomes which are not a good statistical match to what the LHC detects, the model needs to be tweaked.
Post by: Space Flow on 03/01/2016 22:39:53
Dilation is strongest in the center of mass. Clocks tick slowest in the center of mass.GoC, Without reference to the rest of your dilation theory which in some ways sounds right and in others I am not quite following yet, I want to point out something about this comment.
When something is at the precise centre of a compact mass, it is not feeling an attraction towards anything. Because the amount of mass on all sides is exactly the same. In your description ST is dilated yes. In mine similarly, there would exist at this point the lowest ST pressure possible. But clocks are not believed to run slower there. In fact it is believed that clocks would have their max run rate in that situation, just the same as if they are situated as far away from mass as possible in the middle of the biggest void in the Universe. Well that is the popular consensus and I must admit it seems to make sense.
Post by: MattFaw on 04/01/2016 00:41:11
Hi GoC, thanks for your response.Maybe you can give some other examples which support this interpretation?Logic is the best option for understanding. Dilation in Relativity is just that dilation of space time. I say space time because I suspect time is of space and not mass. Why do you and many others suspect space as fluid? Motion of course. What is the motion of space? c of course is the motion of space. The electron is measured to be slower than a photon. How can something slower create a constant speed faster? So logically energy is of space and not mass. What moves the electrons? We measure time with electrons. Electrons from the same atoms tick at the same rate at sea level. Both mechanical and light clocks measure time equally at sea level. They are synchronized in the same frame but no longer synchronized when one changes frame. There is a constant that is adjusted by frames in both GR and SR. With GR it is dilation of space that changes the tick rate by increasing distance both the electron and photon has to travel. Dilation is strongest in the center of mass. Clocks tick slowest in the center of mass. So we have space time as energy of c to move electrons and photons. Dilation of space energy (necessary for flow) is the cause of time being measured differently between frames. Frames are both a SR and GR issue. Attraction is only a GR issue of mass being attracted to the most dilated position. Magnetism is the spin alignment of energy. Two separate issues of the same energy of what we refer to as time.
I have to go back and look at Special Relativity again. I know that clocks tick slower on fast objects than slow ones. And space contracts at high speed, so measuring rods seem shorter (as viewed from a slower frame).
I don't see why clocks would tick faster at the center of a mass, because there is where the speed is the least. Gravity should be at its weakest in the center, because it cancels itself out from all directions. (oh, now I see that Space Flow has given the same critique).
I would not say that "energy is of space and not mass". I would say rather that energy (as in Einstein's E) is equivalent to mass, and space is the path upon which both energy (e.g. photons) or mass (e.g. electrons) can travel. Spacetime, as I understand it, is basically potential. It's just potential that can also be shaped and influenced by the mass within it.
I understand that c and spacetime are intimately linked, but I don't think that the movement of spacetime itself is related to c. If, as Kip Thorne says, the earth is dragging spacetime along with it, and as Brian Greene says, the supermassive black hole is dragging even more spacetime with it, and also movement within clusters is facilitated by even larger flows of spacetime, then it seems like speed is a factor of the density of spacetime, how it fits into inertial frames that surround it, and how the adjacent spacetime is moving. I think fluid dynamics, combined with GR, will ultimately be a good way of describing the movement of spacetime.
As for your mentions of electrons, I can't comment, because AFAIK, spacetime on massive scales doesn't easily translate to the behavior of it on small scales. That's the basis of my video, that spacetime behaves differently, on different scales. I would be hard-pressed to extrapolate from my view of spacetime as fluid, and come up with a prediction for particle physics.
best,
matt faw
Post by: takso on 04/01/2016 01:37:43
Frankly speaking, everything does exist at the same time under present-dynamism only. The projectile movement of time as often experienced by our mind consciousness is purely due to relativity as well as the varying vibrational frequencies in play. As a result, we tend to perceive things a little bit linearly, thus creating the delusion of past, present and future movement of time. The conventional time that we involve ourselves with every day is a subjective and a relative time. This means the time orientation is dependent on the observer (i.e. the subject’s mind) to provide the valuation on the other side of the object or matter. As a consequence, the time conclusion varies among different observers or minds.
Present-dynamism = frequency x becoming (space x time)
In the twinkling of an eye, all events or phenomena as observed by our mind consciousness would fluctuate and renew simultaneously and continuously. Just like the gravity effects on earth for all different masses are the same (acceleration value, g = 9.80 m/s2) even though the rock strikes the ground before the feather per se. However, the common pace of spacetime or present-dynamism is unconjecturable and it is mainly due its nature of beginning-less and end-less. For example, despite the vast differences in the cultural development, the time zone and the locality, a Bushman in Africa and a modern businessman in America are both living concurrently in the 21st century under a common pace of spacetime or present-dynamism. Literally, we could not discriminate or differentiate them by saying that the Bushman is from the past time and the modern businessman is a person living in the future time. The distinguishing factor among them and their respective surroundings is merely their variable vibrational frequencies.
In fact, the circumstances of duality or multiplicity as observed by our mind consciousness would be an obvious indication of all fluctuating vibrational frequencies arising in the cosmos. This is because everything in the material Universe is made up of energy. Atoms and molecules are made up of energy. Our bodies, our clothes, our cars, our houses are all made up of energy but what makes them different is their vibration. Energy is always vibrating at a different frequency under the influence of conditional phenomena. Everything has its own vibrational frequency – our thoughts, our feelings, the rock, the table, the car, the animal, the plant, the tree, etc. Even colours are merely expressions of certain vibrational frequencies.
How does gravity work?
Visit : slideshare.net/buddhitakso/energy-web
Post by: GoC on 04/01/2016 04:32:34
I understand why you both would think acceleration has something to do with clock speed. This is incorrect acceleration just increases speed. It is the speed of mass that slows you clock right up to the speed of light where if it were possible to obtain that speed the electron flow would not move from its position in its shell. There is an equivalence between SR and GR. On the Earth surface we accelerate toward the center of Earth. The center of Earth is like an inertial ship at a constant speed So if there were a room in the center of lets say, the moon so we do not get trapped with molten rock issues, that is where the speed is the greatest, the clocks are the slowest and there is no longer any acceleration. The gravitational center represents the greatest inertial speed in equivalence with SR.
Deceleration and acceleration is indistinguishable in space but clocks tick faster towards deceleration and slower towards acceleration. As you can now determine acceleration is not the cause of clocks slowing there tick rate.
Lets take an old well for an example. Using a standard wave length like a sodium lamp. Light produced in the bottom of the well will be red shifted when detected at the top of the well because it was produced in a more dilated position of space. The experiment that proves this should remain constant to the center of mass.
This I why I suggest mass is attracted to the most dilated position of space and mass dilates space. Dilation is a reduction of energy density that mass occupies. Mass expands its electron distance traveled by the same amount light has to travel extra. This is why mechanical and light clocks tick off the same time in the same frame.
Post by: Space Flow on 04/01/2016 06:23:11
MattFaw and Space FlowGoC. somehow you have misunderstood me. I have never claimed that acceleration has something to do with clock speed. Clock speed or the rate of time is always relative speed dependent. Acceleration on the other hand is a change rate in Geodesic.
I understand why you both would think acceleration has something to do with clock speed. This is incorrect acceleration just increases speed. It is the speed of mass that slows you clock right up to the speed of light where if it were possible to obtain that speed the electron flow would not move from its position in its shell. There is an equivalence between SR and GR. On the Earth surface we accelerate toward the center of Earth. The center of Earth is like an inertial ship at a constant speed So if there were a room in the center of lets say, the moon so we do not get trapped with molten rock issues, that is where the speed is the greatest, the clocks are the slowest and there is no longer any acceleration. The gravitational center represents the greatest inertial speed in equivalence with SR.
Deceleration and acceleration is indistinguishable in space but clocks tick faster towards deceleration and slower towards acceleration. As you can now determine acceleration is not the cause of clocks slowing there tick rate.
Now there are different ways to effect the change rate of Geodesic and only one of them ends up with an increase of speed to a distant observer. You can do it by standing on the surface of a planet and allowing the spacetime to accelerate past you. This will not change your speed or your clock rate even though you are in accelerated frame.
Or you can stick a huge rocket under your feet and accelerate past your geodesic at a certain rate and that will change your speed and clock rate. To a distant observer of course.
The only other thing I find I have to point out is that standing on the Earth's surface we are not accelerating towards the centre of the Earth but in exactly the opposite direction. But to a distant observer we are not changing our speed so we are not changing our clock rate.
When you say clocks tick faster towards deceleration and slower towards acceleration. By who's frame of reference? Every change rate of Geodesic that results in a change of relative speed can be seen as an acceleration or a deceleration, depending on your frame of reference.
I'm afraid that without specifying a frame of reference none of that makes any sort of sense.
Time, space and speed are relative. Only the observed speed of light remains constant.
Post by: MattFaw on 04/01/2016 07:47:47
best,
matt faw
Post by: guest39538 on 04/01/2016 08:32:33
Matt, do not get wrapped up into space time, space time only exists has a concept, it only exists between two points of mass, it is a virtual navigation system to represent journeys that have not been taken. XYZ only exists of matter and time only exists of matter, space time is a n-dimensional 5th dimension solution to a problem, no more no less.
X, Y, Z & T are names that we give to dimensions of the space and time that exist in our imaginations. We can carve those names into physical objects, like graph paper, in the real space-time that hosts the atoms we're made of; or we may type the names of coordinate axes into a computer program, where they control how data are stored in a microprocessor's transistors, as well as how the data are presented on a screen or in a VR helmet.
Yes you understand space-time ......unlike others
Post by: GoC on 04/01/2016 13:50:49
No matter what anybody thinks they understand about relativity it is based on c as the maximum energy available for motion. Inertial speed or geodesic position is just the SR and GR equivalence. The greater your inertial speed the less energy is left in c. Your flow of electron orbitals are reduced by inertial speed and clocks slow as a fraction of available c energy left as SR. GR the distance electrons orbit increases with mass increase due to increased dilation to slow your clock rate relative to the energy of c. you must understand relativity in the context of c being constant and finite. This means all that is available. E= mass x c to move electrons and c available from space energy for motion itself. There is no motion or time without c.
When you are asked relative to what it is always relative to c. Two different positions of mass is just the geometry of mass. We can never view mass were it actually physically exists using the finite speed of light because when the image reaches our eyes the physical position of an object has changed.
There is a depth of understanding of relativity that needs to be understood to make claims about observations related to relativity. Until we are all on the same page various ideas will emerge to confuse the issue of relativity sending us down a branch on the tree of knowledge.
Post by: MattFaw on 04/01/2016 16:30:54
MattFaw and Space FlowHi GoC,
No matter what anybody thinks they understand about relativity it is based on c as the maximum energy available for motion. Inertial speed or geodesic position is just the SR and GR equivalence. The greater your inertial speed the less energy is left in c. Your flow of electron orbitals are reduced by inertial speed and clocks slow as a fraction of available c energy left as SR. GR the distance electrons orbit increases with mass increase due to increased dilation to slow your clock rate relative to the energy of c. you must understand relativity in the context of c being constant and finite. This means all that is available. E= mass x c to move electrons and c available from space energy for motion itself. There is no motion or time without c.
When you are asked relative to what it is always relative to c. Two different positions of mass is just the geometry of mass. We can never view mass were it actually physically exists using the finite speed of light because when the image reaches our eyes the physical position of an object has changed.
There is a depth of understanding of relativity that needs to be understood to make claims about observations related to relativity. Until we are all on the same page various ideas will emerge to confuse the issue of relativity sending us down a branch on the tree of knowledge.
I agree that c is an integral part of spacetime, that it is fundamental. All time and motion is relative to c, I agree.
I have never heard the suggestion that a relativistic mass increase is due to the electron orbits increasing, and I don't have any commentary on that.
I don't understand what your disagreement is. Is there something Space Flow has written or that I said in my video, that you take exception with?
best,
matt faw
Post by: Space Flow on 05/01/2016 01:08:31
The way I view it and I believe this is just another way of stating what you are saying is described best by this diagram.
[diagram=769_0]
Like Matt I have never thought about Electron orbits changing, but I imagine that in a relativistic way, if an outside observer was to look at a reference frame that to him was time dilated and space contracted, then that is what he would see. That is what relativity equations tell us after all.
On the various ways you have presented spacetime dilation close to massive objects certainly connects to me well enough with my theory of space-flow, as Matter, by sucking in Spacetime would create the equivalent of a lower pressure system in it's vicinity. That is of course what accounts for any matter moving without acceleration as all matter would move towards the lower pressure area just to balance Global spacetime intake.
Different approaches coming to similar conclusions to me says that we are converging on a truth.
Post by: MattFaw on 05/01/2016 01:17:23
Like Matt I have never thought about Electron orbits changing, but I imagine that in a relativistic way, if an outside observer was to look at a reference frame that to him was time dilated and space contracted, then that is what he would see. That is what relativity equations tell us after all.I like the way you approach issues like "low pressure area". I agree, and wonder if there may be weather-like phenomena, due to the fluid dynamics of spacetime. Are there phenomena that are roughly equivalent to 'hydrophobic' or 'hydrophilic'? Etc.
On the various ways you have presented spacetime dilation close to massive objects certainly connects to me well enough with my theory of space-flow, as Matter, by sucking in Spacetime would create the equivalent of a lower pressure system in it's vicinity. That is of course what accounts for any matter moving without acceleration as all matter would move towards the lower pressure area just to balance Global spacetime intake.
Different approaches coming to similar conclusions to me says that we are converging on a truth.
Like Douglas Adam once said: "eddies in the spacetime continuum"!
Post by: Space Flow on 05/01/2016 03:56:27
I like the way you approach issues like "low pressure area". I agree, and wonder if there may be weather-like phenomena, due to the fluid dynamics of spacetime. Are there phenomena that are roughly equivalent to 'hydrophobic' or 'hydrophilic'? Etc.Matt, I am still pinching myself. In the years that I have been making a nuisance of myself by badgering family, friends, workmates, and acquaintances, with this concept, to finally find someone who not only get's it but then immediately applies it as a thought experiment to come up with almost exactly what has gone through my own head.
Like Douglas Adam once said: "eddies in the spacetime continuum"!
Absolutely mind blown.
It has been my assertion for a long time now that to properly model flows, currents, eddies, etc in spacetime, we already have super computers, running the right software. Those are the systems we currently use to model the atmosphere for weather forecasting.
As to your speculation on Hydrophobic qualities, about this time last year I spent a bit of time thinking about that. I came to the obvious conclusion that applied to spacetime that would ascribe "Anti-gravitational" qualities to anything that could display hydrophobic like behavior to ST. I therefore dismissed the idea that such a substance could exist.
However at that time it sent my thought onto an idea about anti-gravity. This idea should be very close to your initial thinking on spacetime as well as my extended flow theory. It relies on GR Frame Dragging coupled with our idea that spacetime can have movement relative to spacetime.
Spacetime as far as we know so far can only be manipulated in any way by matter. The way that matter moves dictates the way that spacetime moves and vice versa. So I thought what if we set up relativistic Gyroscopically moving superconducting plasma. We set this plasma spinning with the spin access horizontal to a massive compact objects spacetime flow, and we set up a number of these devices so the plasma going upwards is facing the inside of a ring formed by these devices. That should create a spacetime flow through the agency of Frame Dragging in the centre of such a ring flowing upwards from your compact Massive object. If you then stacked a couple of these rings on top of each other you could in theory fall off this massive body just by stepping into the ring, with absolutely no acceleration. Of course such a device can't be used on a body that has an atmosphere as you would just pump it out into space.
I don't know if I painted that picture coherently enough for you to visualise it. If not I suppose I will have to draw it.
Such a thing could of course work both ways and give a smaller mass traction on spacetime itself, just like wheels give cars traction on the ground. The only requirement is electricity.
Don't take this too seriously of course but there have been some experiments with gyroscopic devices that have allegedly shown differences in weight dependant on orientation. I don't think any of those claims have been officially confirmed, but allowing spacetime movement coupled with manipulation through frame-dragging could certainly make it possible.
All that from considering impossible seeming hydrophobic-like behavior of spacetime.
As to Hydrophilic-like behavior; Perhaps I should be asking you about that. How would you describe the interaction layers of differently (Speed wise) rotating layers within a Galaxy? There would surely have to be interface regions where strange mixing patterns would occur. Which leads me on to your Douglas Adam reference to eddies. These can and do exist all around us. We don't have to go very far to closely analyze them, and in fact we are making extensive use of such eddies at the moment. That is what La Grange points are. The differences in shape between them can best be explained hydrodynamicaly, when considering them as interfaces between the moving frame-dragged vortices that represents the planetary flows interfacing with the frame-dragged Solar flow.
If we also take the obvious different flow rates of spacetime in a galactic disk as a model and apply it at solar system level, "yes" the effect may be extremely small but it may be enough to explain part of the Pioneer anomaly, and the extra speed gained by several craft on gravity assists past the Earth. They have accounted for everything they can think of under current understanding of physics and still end up with a small extra speed component that remains unaccounted for. Could it be a difference in spacetime flow compared to ambient spacetime? Eddies caused by the Earths passing? Apparently it only shows up on certain approach angles.
Could this turn into a modelled prediction of SpaceFlow that can't be made by curvature theory?
Just speculation.
Post by: Space Flow on 05/01/2016 04:32:46
GoC, that last diagram was terrible. Here's a better attempt.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: MattFaw on 05/01/2016 17:05:24
Good point about the Lagrangian points as an eddie.
I also like your - is it an elevator? The stacked rings.
I've been playing with the idea of a space ship that is able to curve space immediately ahead of it, causing the ship to "fall forward". Just wild speculation at this point, and I don't have a mechanism for its operation, but it's fun to let my mind play with the ideas.
best,
matt faw
Post by: Space Flow on 05/01/2016 21:07:57
I've been playing with the idea of a space ship that is able to curve space immediately ahead of it, causing the ship to "fall forward". Just wild speculation at this point, and I don't have a mechanism for its operation, but it's fun to let my mind play with the ideas.Are you at all aware of the Alcubierre Metric?
If not look it up. It may be listed as the Alcubierre Warp Drive. It is exactly what you have been thinking about and I believe some testing has even been done already.
Post by: MattFaw on 06/01/2016 08:46:24
Alcubierre Warp Drive.Awesome! That's exactly what I was thinking about.
Thanks!
matt faw
Post by: o_O on 06/01/2016 13:25:23
I have an extremely basic understanding of GR and the concept of Gravity overall, so I really can't speak on your model's scientific validity. I can't honestly provide any detailed critique or feedback as I consider myself simply an interested outside observer. I am an animator and spend a lot of time playing around with 3D fluid simulation in the void that is virtual 3D space where you don't really start with any rules, and to get a realistic simulation these "rules" like friction and viscosity need to be specifically considered and applied to the simulation directly. I also have a particular interest in real world fluid dynamics and it's various applications. I look at the countless amazing images taken by the Hubble and other telescopes and have always seen an incredibly fluid world of particles and gasses and vortices at all observable levels, with no real compelling (to me) explanations as to why this was happening until now.
The other aspect that makes this model of the world so compelling is all the various ways humans have utilized our understanding of fluid dynamics to create new technology. The idea that space travel might not just be what we perceive as traveling through empty space, and instead might actually be a situation we are much more familiar with in the world we can see and know on Earth, is fascinating. It would mean there is actually a "current" of space and time we might someday be able to find ways to take advantage of in the same ways we have taken advantage of the properties of our atmosphere and liquid water and gases and various other fluids. With space as this unexplainable incomprehensible void of nothing our ability to take advantage simply doesn't exist. While space-time as a dynamic fluid would obviously be very different than what we can directly observe on Earth, the effects of Gravity on a large scale so clearly seem to resemble the types of patterns and behaviors we see in fluids in our world whether in or out of our atmosphere. I think it would definitely be possible to represent this idea in a very interesting way in terms of visualization. Perhaps the common example of one mass orbiting another, representing matter as these solid spherical masses, but representing the flow of space-time as a visible and dense volume of particles in 3D space, flowing into these spherical masses. With even the most simple fluid sim visualization, say a simple fluid flowing in one direction over a spherical shape, extremely interesting patterns of vortices and waves, and overall having a large effect on the entire volume of fluid.
Anyway sorry for the rambling on. Just wanted to say thank you for presenting this idea, and apologies for not being able to offer more than acknowledgement and interest. Thanks!
Post by: MattFaw on 06/01/2016 19:29:10
While searching I discovered this post and decided to register an account just to say how compelling I find this idea of space time as a fluid directly interacting with matter.Good to hear from you! As you can see in this thread, this is also the first chance for Space Flow and I to find each other. I'm glad this thread is evolving into a discussion about what's possible in this theory!
best,
matt faw
Post by: jeffreyH on 06/01/2016 23:53:08
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory)
Post by: Space Flow on 07/01/2016 02:32:36
You really need to read this before continuing down this path.Jeffrey, thank you very much for the research you have put into my ideas. It's good to know people are considering them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory
I have been aware of these prior treatments of possibilities for considering movement by spacetime/ether.
Unfortunately they don't relate to what I am proposing as they are all looking at it from the Quantum fluctuation point of view, while still maintaining the curved spacetime view of relativity. Those particular views and others of similar variations happen to be part of the frustrations with all proposed concepts that I have come across, that to me fail to properly address Gravity, it's source, and observed effects at all levels.
Papers mentioned in those articles are all in some way Quantum Gravity related and fail to adequately explain observed reality.
Some points within some of them almost look like they could have headed in the right direction, but don't.
They all have one thing in common. They are all attempts with different approaches to Unify Gravity with the 3 known forces as a 4th Force and as such do not meet all the requirements of Relativity.
Mine is the only explanation I can see that is not in dispute with either QM or GR. It does not treat Gravity as a Force but gives a plausible explanation for it's Quantum origins. (I admit I am biassed).
SpaceFlow Theory can be correctly described within the framework of a fully relativistic theory.
On the surface SpaceFlow theory appears to have a problem with SR, where spacetime, as conceived in classical physics leads to several contradictions; in particular, spacetime having a definite velocity at each space-time point will exhibit a preferred direction. This conflicts with the relativistic requirement that all directions within a light cone are equivalent. That is only because SR deals with constant relative speeds and that is not how I describe the mobile behavior of spacetime within SpaceFlow Theory. Giving spacetime the type of movement I am proposing is a purely mechanical treatment and the light cone equivalence now becomes a relativistic problem easily accounted by frequency shift within a constant light speed. It in fact builds a necessary bridge between Special and General Relativity in that it assigns a relative speed to a stationary position within a Gravity influenced situation. Like standing on the surface of a planet.
Again thank you for giving my ideas enough thought to do the research.
Also thank you for putting me in the situation of having to defend this theory from a different perspective. It gives me valuable insight for the structure and the wording of the next draft.
Post by: Space Flow on 07/01/2016 03:12:36
I happened to come across this post while frustrated that I just don't feel I have been given a complete explanation of the concept of Gravity, particularly when it comes to why matter actually distorts space-time and has an effect on it at all. While searching I discovered this post and decided to register an account just to say how compelling I find this idea of space time as a fluid directly interacting with matter.o_O, Thank you for your kind appraisal of Space Flow Theory.
I too have shared all the frustrations with the available theories and inadequate explanations over the years.
In fact the answer seemed obvious to me since before I even knew enough about the subject to really have the right to an opinion.
That for a long time drove me to learn absolutely all I could about the subject. I was always sure that my views had to be wrong, and that I just couldn't see why because I just didn't know enough. Because there had to be a simple reason that I was missing, that would immediately and easily show, the utter stupidity of what I was thinking.
I have now been trying to falsify this theory for a number of years. I have been running it past family who look at me with blank faces. (Here he goes again). I have badgered my friends with mostly similar results. I have run it past a couple of physics teachers that I know who are convinced that it couldn't be either right or that simple but are unable to give a convincing argument why it can't be that simple and right at the same time.
The internet has been a great research tool, and the advent of MOOCs a great boon. I have taken all I could find on and around the subject, and I still haven't been able to falsify it.
In fact the more I learned, the stronger the case for this view of reality has become.
Publishing the idea here and on Facebook is an attempt to give others the opportunity to falsify it as I feel I am now too attached for a proper objective view.
Besides I find I can actually be more coherent when answering someone than when I am just trying to put an idea down.
My biggest shortfall is that as far as formal education goes I have only High school and a background of Electrical engineering that has not been practiced since the early eighties.
For a complete amateur to get a paper that is presented well enough to even get a glance is probably beyond my meager abilities. I have come to the conclusion that if this is ever going to go any further than I need help.
I have a daughter who has promised that help a couple of times but she is in the middle of her PHD in Neural Psychology at the moment and has no time for her dear old dad. (Understandably).
Finding someone like Matt Faw above has given me some hope, and some of your comments have also encouraged me. Especially this one;
I think it would definitely be possible to represent this idea in a very interesting way in terms of visualization. Perhaps the common example of one mass orbiting another, representing matter as these solid spherical masses, but representing the flow of space-time as a visible and dense volume of particles in 3D space, flowing into these spherical masses. With even the most simple fluid sim visualization, say a simple fluid flowing in one direction over a spherical shape, extremely interesting patterns of vortices and waves, and overall having a large effect on the entire volume of fluid.I would love to talk to you more about that if you are at all interested.
Either way thank you very much for your encouraging comments, and I'm glad to have given someone else a possible answer to some very frustrating unanswered questions that I'm sure must be evident to more people than you and me.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/01/2016 10:33:41
Post by: Space Flow on 07/01/2016 10:55:27
you are trying to do a concept that Jeffrey as already pointed out exists with the link.And this obviously upsets you some how....
Strange... Do I dare ask why?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/01/2016 11:00:45
you are trying to do a concept that Jeffrey as already pointed out exists with the link.And this obviously upsets you some how....
Strange... Do I dare ask why?
It does not upset me, I understand how much time I have wasted coming up with theories to find they already exist. It is great learning and great discussion, but if we all worked together and got serious I bet we could come up with the correct answer. Fluid is a no go really, energy is the answer with a certainty.
I would start here -
F(a)+F(b)=F(C)
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 07/01/2016 11:16:53
This should be our first concern, if the model is incorrect then we will never find understanding.
How can a Quark be attracted to a Quark? where is the facts in that when we can't observe this event?
If a Proton is negative then so are quarks, so negatives are attracted to negatives? a complete opposite to what we think.
Why not a single negative particle, that absorbs light, then internally produces kE that emits an electron field?
Post by: Space Flow on 07/01/2016 11:25:10
If a Proton is negative then so are quarks, so negatives are attracted to negatives? a complete opposite to what we think.Where in this Universe did you manage to find a negative Proton?
As for the rest; No comment.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/01/2016 11:27:53
Where in this Universe did you manage to find a negative Proton?
As for the rest; No comment.
History labelled them the wrong way around, the electron is actually the positive, the protons are negative. Positives repel positives fact, if Quarks were positive they would not ''stick'' together.
added - positive does the work of expansion
negative does the work of contraction
don't believe me?
gases
metals
Thermodynamics
Post by: guest39538 on 07/01/2016 11:42:02
added- the water needs to contract back to form and the positive needs to expand and pushes back.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
added
E=the action of compressing or being compressed.
the reduction in volume (causing an increase in pressure) of the fuel mixture in an internal-combustion engine before ignition.
kE=work
Post by: guest39538 on 07/01/2016 12:13:01
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/01/2016 13:24:40
cant post maths so done it in bitmap E=<r1
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Why are you using the equation for the volume of a sphere?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/01/2016 14:14:13
Why are you using the equation for the volume of a sphere?
Because a sphere is isotropic from the com/cog
squeeze a rubber ball , the energy of the ball is compressed to a greater energy, the greater energy wants to repel , so the greater energy pushes back. When the energy can't push back because the contracting force is greater than the pushing force, the energy pushes side ways, i.e oblates.
The sun maintains it spherical likeness because the positive push backs magnitude is greater than the contracting force.
Post by: Spaskiba on 10/01/2016 02:11:09
Sorry I will read your thread again tomorrow as I'm too tired right now and not very well focused, it is an interesting idea, promising? Nah, but then again I enjoy well thought and well imagined ideas. I should read also the comments but again, tomorrow:)
Post by: Space Flow on 10/01/2016 02:54:28
Space time is tenseless, you cannot treat it as a moveable object just because you can treat it as a fabric, sure it can be bent or stretched however there is no motion through space time yet alone motion of space time, that would imply more space and more time is being created, but this is where your "space time recycles" solution comes in right? What I understood is, if earth exists in space time and causes space time to be pulled to in its center radiantly inwards thus resulting on a push on you and explain why you're stuck on a ground and geodesics exist, it suggests more and more space time is being added to earth's center, and this is where space time is being recycled right, so in such a way no new extra space is being created right? Well the issue I have with that, letting the tenseless space time picture out of the way, is that I don't understand what mechanism you're suggesting for that recycle, you see an electron doesn't feed on space time (that's even paradoxical as electrons require time to evolve what does it even mean to absorb time) they feed on photons, if they were fed in space time that would mean you somehow convert energy from space time, and later on recycle that space time with extra energy?Spaskiba, welcome to the madhouse.
Sorry I will read your thread again tomorrow as I'm too tired right now and not very well focused, it is an interesting idea, promising? Nah, but then again I enjoy well thought and well imagined ideas. I should read also the comments but again, tomorrow:)
You ask questions that tells me you read this and are really trying to understand my point of view.
Whether it is right or wrong I thank you for the serious consideration.
After your re-read tomorrow and as you suggested a read through the comments where a lot of your questions may already have been answered, I would be delighted to read your further appraisal, and attempt to answer any remaining questions.
Just for now I will comment on the Electron one you brought up.
I used that as it is a more immediate picture in peoples heads but consider that to be a minor part of the equation. The major usage of spacetime is affected by the vibration of Quarks. After that everything else is minor additions to the total, including the actions of electrons and the effects of adding energy which increases the temp.
Anyway thats all for now. Till tomorrow...
Post by: Alohascope on 19/01/2016 23:28:02
Maybe I chose the wrong Forum to post this...
Flow, this is the only science forum I've found, of many, that allows free discussion. The others adhere tightly to Consensus, so that new ideas are strictly unwelcome, and moderators on those forums seem generally psychotic.
Post by: Alohascope on 19/01/2016 23:31:35
Where in this Universe did you manage to find a negative Proton?
As for the rest; No comment.
History labelled them the wrong way around, the electron is actually the positive, the protons are negative. Positives repel positives fact, if Quarks were positive they would not ''stick'' together.
added - positive does the work of expansion
negative does the work of contraction
don't believe me?
gases
metals
Thermodynamics
I just read somewhere of a quirky hydrogen bond which allows same charges to stick together. In science, everything is possible, even our ability to understand, if we don't adopt Consensus.
Post by: Space Flow on 20/01/2016 00:45:37
I just read somewhere of a quirky hydrogen bond which allows same charges to stick together. In science, everything is possible, even our ability to understand, if we don't adopt Consensus.I don't quite know if in science everything is possible is a true statement. There are relevant fields of Human endeavor that do not and can not operate under the auspices of "The Scientific Method". Philosophy coming to mind.
There is no way for science to address the concept of before time. As such science can not only have nothing to say about the instant of it's own prediction of a Big Bang, it has no framework to even start to address it.
But you are right. Until conclusively proven otherwise, everything has to be considered possible.
If consensus was the only way to better approach truth, than we may as well give up as nothing would ever have an avenue to change. That is the path to superstitious religion.
Post by: guest39538 on 20/01/2016 15:01:14
It is apparent that when we move an object, where the object was, ''turns'' into space from where a ''solid'' was, space fills the ''gap'' so space must be attracted to space and be a thing that can contract back to ''form''.
Consider this, hypothetically speaking all that exists is contraction and expansion, we know that expansion is caused by positive repelling positive, so contraction being an opposite must be the opposite , and negative attracting negative.
Now try to consider/imagine this, imagine an infinite void that had no physical body but was made of negative energy, the space itself of the void being negative, now imagine that the whole of infinite space is attracted to the whole of infinite space, but also the whole of infinite space is likewise attracted to any singular ''point'' of space.
So any point of space is the center of infinite space, and all of space is attracted to space, so centripetally at a central single point of the whole of space, space is attracted to this point. negative pressure at these point(s) creating the first kE, which is positive, then the whole of space is attracted to positive and collapses to this center point of the whole of space, and the positive expands while the space continues to contract. i,e gravity is space, distance between masses is repulsion.
Metal
gases
ice
hydrogen
helium
all show us this.
I would define it - an isotropic negative point pressure=kE
Post by: paradigm on 23/01/2016 03:39:31
stephen
Post by: Razza on 24/01/2016 02:20:58
Post by: Space Flow on 24/01/2016 08:26:20
Read ‘Physics Illusions and Revolutions’Razza, thank you very much for the reading suggestion. Although familiar with most (not all) of the content, I am really enjoying this historical read.
Very well put together.
Now back to it... [:-)]
Post by: guest39538 on 24/01/2016 14:15:34
The attraction between bodies called gravity and the attraction between particles called the nuclear forces are both caused by the absorption of emission.
stephen
No its not, the absorbing of EMR creates kE in the nucleus of the atom that produces +q positive ions that produces the work of expansion. It is only positive that repels positive. Gravity and the attraction between bodies is negative is attractive to negative. If quarks were positive they could not join to form a Proton. Protons emit a positive field. Protons are attracted to protons,
A(neg)+hf=+kE=+q=+W
Space is mass, negative is mass, negative is matter,
positive is anti matter.
Post by: MattFaw on 25/02/2016 08:33:02
Yes there is an anti-universe inhabited by antiparticles which can be forced to briefly flip over into this place and appear as positrons, antineutrons etc.Hi Razza, thanks for commenting. I'm very curious about your idea. Can you say more?
Post by: Kenyonm on 02/04/2016 03:14:52
I have at last created the formula for the Sorting Force. The core of this that the force that we call gravity is made by the relation of a object or a medium to the medium or object around it.
Lets just look at an object and the medium around it. We are told the mass bends the space time. I have a similar theory that the object and medium create the force together.
The different densities come together and with different Molecular masses change places in the space time. This happens in all directions where there is free movement only.
What is also important is that it is the situation that causes the force. If you are on an airliner and take a bath, you will move up when you inhale as at a density of 970 Kg/ m cubed the Sorting force has the direction up. When you exhale your density is 1030 Kg/m cubed and you move down. The Sorting force direction is down. Water has a density of
1000 Kg/m cubed.
So the Sorting Force has magnitude and direction. It is not always downwards towards the centre of Earth.
In the above example if we remove the airliner and the bath in an instant, the person will still feel no force on average as the water and the person in it fall towards their same natural density layer that is the water. As we know water that falls as rain always makes it back to the sea again due to the Sorting Force created when it is away from the natural density layer, the sea.
Now lets look at the situation of a person falling from height such as a sky diver.
The air density varies with height as does the g value , the air density decreases using a formula that invovles the density = density at sea level x e -1.507749445 x 10 -4 x Altitude. This is devired from the standard formula for air density. The term for g(alt) can be inserted to refine the accuracy with the correct value of g for the height.
The liquids and solids of the Earth are the major contributors of the gravity force which is at it's peak at the surface of the Earth/any other planet/star. g at altitude(x) can be worked out from standard formulae. NB altitude in this formula is from the centre of the earth but in the density formula it is from the surface.
alt = altitude(x)
So these g(alt) and density(alt) are fed into the Sorting force equation. What this shows is that as the air density is very low say at 120 Km in Altitude it is 2 x 10 to the power -8
The value of g has fallen to 9.80665 x (6370/6491) squared = 9.444444 meters per second squared.
The object density and the air desnity at 120Km altitude are subtracted and this leaves the balanced density as almost the same as the object.
This gives the volume of the object x the balanced density x g at the 120Km Altitude to equal 9.44444 x 0.0728(a typical persons volume) x 1000 (The density of the object)-2x10 to the power -8 (The air density at 120Km) = Sorting Force =687.55555 N
The planet density x radius of the planet x the uvgc = g value at the surface 9.80665 The universal gravity constant is related to Newtons big G value but is more accurate as we know the density and radii of the sun and the planets in a greater accuracy than the masses.
So the Sorting Force formula has three sections in this situation. The g calculator at sea level, the divider that reduces this to be correct at a Altitude, the Volume of the object and the density of the object-the density of the medium, the air at the altitude)
The air as it changed place with the person over and over again causes friction with the relationship between the object and the medium. This resistance is similar to Ohms equation V=I.R so the V is the force created by the friction, I is the velocity of the person and R is the air /person friction.
A person falling flat will have 1 resistance value, another tumbling and anothe if curled up in a ball. Each has a K value lets say.
The Force opposing the Sorting force is F air resistance = K x velocity.
The acceleration due to the sorting force = sorting force/density x volume
The net acceleration = Sorting Force-Air resistance / density x volume object
Velocity = net acceleration x time, this can be shown on a spreadsheet with 1 second intervals showing the forces, net acceleration and velocity. It shows that a terminal velocity as never reached, the acceleration constantly slows down to it's minimum at ground level where the air density is 1,225 Kg/m cubed.
note volume medium = volume object as the object changes places with the same volume of the medium.
Now lets look at a person again in water which has a density of 1000 Kg per m cubed.
The Sorting force is proportional to the 970-1000 Kg/m cubed balance when exhaled which creates a force of 21.4 N downwards and 1020-1000 Kg/m cubed which creates a Sorting force of 14.2784 N downwards. When the object is less dense than the medium, the sorting force is upwards.
Wood is another classic case, at a density od 500 Kg/m cubed, it is half our density and I have a theory of why this is - see below.
Wood in water. The balanced density is (500-1000), lets suppose the log is the same volume us. The Sorting force is -356 N upwards.
Wood in air. The balanced density is (500-1,225), the sorting force is 356.0875 N downwards
Person in air at sea level , the balanced desnity =(1000-1.225), the sorting force is 713.049 N downwards. Twice the force on the wood. Wood will fall at 1/2 the rate we do.
This is because it has air trapped within it's structure.
A person on the ground still has the 713.049 N sorting force applied to them. The journey to the natural density level for us, which is the water of a lake or the sea is being blocked by the solid land or the seat you are sitting on. The upward force opposing the Sorting force is what you feel pressing against you.
If you could complete the journey by getting in you car and travelling to the sea side and floating in the sea you would stay in the same level, no force would be felt as no force is applied when the density of the object equals the density of the medium.
This is very important as it clearly says that the gravity is not there all the time and only come in play when the object / medium or the medium/another medium are of different densities.
We are in the density field of the Earth with the densest mediums/objects in the centre and the least dense, the gasses at the outside. When objects are in the wrong place in this density field they are subject to a sorting force to put them back to the right layer. The force comes from the less dense medium moving around you and pushing you down/up.
Why do we have the same desnity as water on average during our breathing cycle?
We were once aquatic and lived in the sea/ inland lake. Perhaps we were amphibians with gills and lungs. Over a long long time our densities evolved to match the density of water. Too dense ones wood not swim as best as the ones with the same density as water.
We came out of the water where we felt no force and onto land. As soon as we did a sorting force was created to pull us back into the water. We finally wriggled out of the water and somehow evolved legs from our tails and arms from our fins. As we stood up our bones had to grow and that is why we have to tread water when in asat up position in water, our legs are more dense than water and it is our lungs that provide the air inside our structure like wood has.
Our density is still roughly the same as water, it can be conclude therefore that we were in water for a much longer time than we have been out of it. The wood is slowly evolving to closer and clear to the mediums density of 1,225 Kg/meters cubed.
Lets set the clock running at 1000 years per second and see what happens. We will see our chests expanding to two times then three times the size now. We will see our skin being able to absorb air into it and have flaps on our skins surface that trap air. At this point we may have reached the density of 500 Kg/m cubed that wood is at now.
We would fall in the air at half the rate as now and be able to jump twice as far. Our legs would have grown and we would be a lot higher,being able to run much faster. The 100 meters time could be as low as 4 seconds.
This man or woman would make Ussain Bolt look like a caveman.
I hope you embrace this formula and the Theory that shows how history supports it as well as the insight of how older plants such as wood are changing density to match the medium.
I have asked the editor Chris Smith to help be publish this theory and Martin Tajmar at Dresden University to do experiments to back up the calculations.
The equation works in space and the single earths density field, expanded to all the planets and the sun, each body creating a density field. The strength of the fields is related to the g value for each heavenly body. The positions in space of these are all added together to create the net balanced density to the object and a sorting force and direction of travel is calculated If this is done for all the planets individually and the Sun the system will be in balance I am sure. The force to create the rotation may have been done in the big bang. The Earth's rotation is slowing down slowly we know. So the orbit around the sun will be slowing very slowly down over time.
Mike Kenyon MKForce 3am Sat 2nd April 2016
Post by: IAMREALITY on 13/06/2016 21:08:19
Why would this flow you propose slow a clock in a region of higher mass vs one in a region of lower mass?
Taking a neutron star as an example, with its immense density, that density would require a tremendous amount of spacetime to be eaten within an incredibly small footprint no? How would the flow possibly be fast enough? For every meter of a neutron star, think of how much spacetime would require to be consumed? With this rate, how would deeper areas of that mass possibly get fed? And the feeding is obviously constant, since particles are constantly in motion and would require constant flow. But I fail to see how spacetime could possibly flow that fast to feed all the particles of a neutron star, from surface to center, with constancy. For if that much spacetime was available for consumption, and the flow of spacetime was able to be that mind blazingly fast, then how could a vacuum or funnel of spacetime ever possibly exist around standard masses through the universe, since if spacetime could flow with such immense speeds as would be required to have a constant feeding of a neutron star, those 'gaps' would be filled around normal masses pretty much instantaneously. Or am I totally missing something? Hope you understand the gist of that question and what I mean overall.
And lastly, if spacetime is being eaten by matter, where does this new spacetime come from? You seemed to imply (or maybe even directly state, as you didn't go into enough detail) that it eats it, then creates new spacetime in the form of a lightwave. So are you saying photons are spacetime? Were you saying that new spacetime is created in addition to the photon? And how could something eat something (consume something) and have an equal amount of that something newly created and sent on its way? Wouldn't that just mean spacetime merely passed through it? Just need a bit more clarification on that aspect.
Post by: IAMREALITY on 13/06/2016 21:17:20
I have thought some more on the mechanism of gravity and I am IMO 99.9% sure I know what the mechanism is, the mechanism being space itself.
It is apparent that when we move an object, where the object was, ''turns'' into space from where a ''solid'' was, space fills the ''gap'' so space must be attracted to space and be a thing that can contract back to ''form''.
Am I correct that you're trying to say that spacetime does not occupy the space where any given mass resides? How can this possibly be true? Spacetime is not only around things but also within them.