The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Gravity as Variable Curvature  (Read 4491 times)

Offline Also65

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Gravity as Variable Curvature
« on: 20/07/2013 16:27:55 »
I think that gravity is a cyclically variable curvature. A gravitational field is a concave space that contracts and expands cyclically. In this view, 1 and 2 Kepler's laws are irrelevant because orbital ellipses are inexistent geometric figures that we create with our imagination when we watch planetary movements around a circular space (solar gravitational field) that expands and contracts cyclically. What do you think about it?
Thanks.


 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #1 on: 21/07/2013 04:25:18 »
I think that gravity is a cyclically variable curvature. A gravitational field is a concave space that contracts and expands cyclically. In this view, 1 and 2 Kepler's laws are irrelevant because orbital ellipses are inexistent geometric figures that we create with our imagination when we watch planetary movements around a circular space (solar gravitational field) that expands and contracts cyclically. What do you think about it?
Thanks.
Well ... since you asked ... I think that's nonsense. What you just said is basically meaningless. Nothing more than word salad.

Science isn't about sitting around dreaming things up and then announcing I think that .... Nothing in science has every come about like that and it never will. Why would you expect us to be interested in such speculations, and that's all they are, meaningless speculations.

We might have another newbie come in and suggest "I think gravity is an electromagnetic fluctuation in the vortices of the fabric of our universe." That too would mean nothing as well.
« Last Edit: 21/07/2013 04:39:43 by Pmb »
 

Offline Also65

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #2 on: 21/07/2013 09:51:05 »
Maybe are you asking for a further explanation...

Einstein's Gravity is the curvature of a perfectly symmetric space. I say that this curvature change cyclically.

We know that gravity change with distance, and planetary distances are cyclical.

I say that planetary movements are caused by the cyclical change of gravitational field that they are orbiting, not by an inertial movement.

It does make any sense for you now? 
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #3 on: 21/07/2013 11:35:00 »
Maybe are you asking for a further explanation...

Einstein's Gravity is the curvature of a perfectly symmetric space. I say that this curvature change cyclically.

We know that gravity change with distance, and planetary distances are cyclical.

I say that planetary movements are caused by the cyclical change of gravitational field that they are orbiting, not by an inertial movement.

It does make any sense for you now? 
No. It's still just a bunch of words thrown together with no reasoning behind it. In any case please define what you mean when you use the term "cyclically".
« Last Edit: 21/07/2013 11:37:56 by Pmb »
 

Offline Also65

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #4 on: 21/07/2013 12:29:37 »
Our Solar gravitational field, I think, expands and contracts cyclically. It expands each year one time and contracts each year one time.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #5 on: 21/07/2013 18:44:22 »
Our Solar gravitational field, I think, expands and contracts cyclically. It expands each year one time and contracts each year one time.
"I think" you're wrong.
 

Offline Also65

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #6 on: 21/07/2013 20:06:13 »
Thanks for you opinion. I'm glad that you finally understood something.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #7 on: 21/07/2013 22:09:10 »
Thanks for you opinion. I'm glad that you finally understood something.
Actually it's not an opinion, it's a fact. I was trying to be polite since what you've posted so far is pseudoscience and not real science. It doesn't even belong in this forum. It belongs in the New Theory forum

And why the sarcasm, anyway? It's totally uncalled for. When you come to a foum like this and right away start passing judgment on the people who have been posting here for a long time and have an understanding of another does not speak well of you.

Many of us here are real scientists. I myself am a physicist. I know exactly what I'm talking about when it comes to gravity and what you posted can't even be considered a theory.


What I wrote above are expessions of, not a lack of the intelligence to understand what is before me, the ability to understand what is before me is meaningless. I've been trying to be polite and not be rude towards you since I don't know you from a hole in the wall and you could very well be a nice fellow. It's difficult responding to comments in threads which demonstrate any understanding of science or its methodology.

A great number of professional scientists, amature scientists, science enthusiasts and layman frequent forums like this and those who don't really know science tend to post a lot of nonsense. We do our best to be polite and non-judgemental. When you start acting sarcastic like this you make being polite harder than it already is.

Anyone who has a physicists understanding of gravity knows that everything that you've posted is nonsense so it's not just me. When I asked you to state what you mean when you used the term "cyclical" you ignored it. That's one of the trademarks of a crackpot. So please don't start off here as a sarcastic crackpot. Make an attempt to learn physics. What you've said doesn't even belong in this section. It belongs in the "New Theory" section where ideas which go contrary to orthodox science is located. I'm going to suggest to the moderators that it be placed there so look for it there.
« Last Edit: 21/07/2013 22:13:02 by Pmb »
 

Offline Also65

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #8 on: 21/07/2013 22:40:18 »
While you was trying to be polite, I was trying to be patient. I have not lost my patient still.

Anyway, if you are the administrator of the forum and consider that this entry is not appropriate for it, it doesn't matter for me, don 't worry about, you can close it when you want to.

Best regards.


   
« Last Edit: 21/07/2013 22:42:33 by Also65 »
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #9 on: 21/07/2013 23:25:11 »
Quote from: Also65
While you was trying to be polite, I was trying to be patient. I have not lost my patient still.
As was I since without patience one ends up no longer being as polite. There's no reason for you not to be patient since it's your ideas that are all wrong/meaningless. Mine certainly aren't, that' for sure.

First off this is the wrong forum for such posts. There is an entire sub forum here entitled New Theories the purpose of which is to post new theories about physical phenomena and yours purports to be a new theory. Or at least thatís your goal. The purpose of that forum is stated as Got a new theory on something? Post your hypotheses here...

This forum is to discuss orthodox physics, astronomy and cosmology.

The purpose of that forum is to take away subjects that would otherwise be unwanted diversions. That is the category in which this thread lies.

In any case you specifically asked us What do you think about it? which quite literally means that you wanted us to tell you what we think about what youíre thinking. And as I said, itís all nonsense. I attempted at being more specific but that requires your cooperation and in this case it means directly answering questions which are posed to you. I asked you
Quote
please define what you mean when you use the term "cyclically".
The term cyclic has a meaning which youíre probably not aware of. From the context of your argument it almost appears as if youíre using the term as a synonym for periodic but if that was the case itís quite unclear why you didnít just use that term since its meaning is clearer, although there is nothing periodic about gravity. The term cyclic comes from analytic mechanics and refers to a specific kind of coordinate, one that does not appear in the Lagrangian of mechanical  system.

When I said it was all nonsense I quite meant it. There is nothing about your thought that makes any sense. For example; you seem to think that a gravitational field is a concave space which has no meaning from the stand point of general relativity so I assume that you must have gave it a meaning and then never explained what it means. Thatís what it means for something to be meaningless.

You then went on to say Einstein's Gravity is the curvature of a perfectly symmetric space. which really isnít true. Einstein never said that. You made the common error of mistaking the curvature of space with the curvature of spacetime. GR experts and cosmologist interpret gravity different than Einstein in that the hold that gravity is a curvature in spacetime. Einstein never said that though
and when he heard someone else say it (i.e. Max Von Laue) he stated his disagreement with him on that point. Even when space is curved, i.e. which means that tidal gradients in the gravitational field is present, it isnít necessarily periodic. You never stated why you think that space should be periodic when the space is curved. There is no reason to assume it since thatís a false statement in general

You claimed
Quote
We know that gravity change with distance, and planetary distances are cyclical.
Which also is false. And you never said why you believe that planetary distances are periodic or what it even means for distances to be periodic.

As I said, what you think is quite literally meaningless.

If you want to make an attempt at a theory you should at least learn basic physics first. Clearly you never studied physics and thatís why all your terminology usage is quite flawed.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #10 on: 21/07/2013 23:32:53 »
I think that gravity is a cyclically variable curvature. .
Is there any chance at all that you'd be willing to prove this or provide a specific example and show how your assertion is correct? E.g. provide a calculation for a specific example?

As an examle please prove that the earth's gravitational field has a cyclically variable curvature and the precise meaning of those terms as it applies to the earth's gravitational field.
 

Offline Also65

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #11 on: 22/07/2013 00:09:40 »
I can deduce that it is cyclical because of the orbital movement of its moon. I think that moon's orbital movement is not inertial but it is produced by the cyclical variation of earth's gravitational field, and it explains the different distances at perigee and apogee. If distances are different gravity is not the same. You think that gravity is not the same because distances are not the same. But I think that distances are not the same because gravity is not the same at different moments because of the cyclical variation of gravitational curvature. Obviously it is a new theory, I do not want to be an exception here, it would be better to post to the appropriate forum.
 
Thanks for your comments.
« Last Edit: 22/07/2013 00:11:26 by Also65 »
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #12 on: 22/07/2013 00:34:48 »
You're misusing the term "cyclical."

Do you really want to waste your time with all this? I can promise you that everything that you've said so far is either wrong, meaningless or illogical.

Most people who post theories there refuse to define terms and prove things by calculating them. Is that what you plan on doing as well?
 

Offline Also65

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #13 on: 22/07/2013 00:54:55 »
Well, you asked me for a concrete example and I put it. Maybe language is an insuperable problem, I think that the example is very clear. I think that moon distances change because gravitational field of the earth change; current science think that moon distances change because of the inertial movement of the moon in the invariable gravitational field of the earth. Are we sure that planetary movements are inertial?
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #14 on: 22/07/2013 01:33:37 »
Quote from: Also65
Well, you asked me for a concrete example and I put it. Maybe language is an insuperable problem, I think that the example is very clear.
Not at all. Far from it in fact.

I think that I've been a good sport so far so please answer my question. For a while now Iíve been asking you to define the term cyclically variable curvature. Why haven't you defined it yet?

Nothing youíve posted is a proof. Youíve made a extremely vague assertion about the gravitational field generated by a body. Youíve claimed that using your theory you can describe the orbit of a planet about a larger body. But you never made a calculation. All you did is claim that your theory implies it but you've never even made an argument for it. For all we know the actual orbit predicted by your theory might be different.

All youíve done is base an argument about an undefined term ďcyclically variable curvatureĒ and make statements about it that it will give the same result upon using it. Youíve never made a calculation of anything.

For example: consider of a sphere having uniform mass density. Hollow out a spherical cavity inside the body where the center of the cavity is does not have the same center as the body. Use your theory to calculate the gravitational field inside the cavity

Have you ever formally studied any branch of science? Have you ever picked up a book on physics? Gravity? Astronomy? Relativity? Cosmology? Anything?

Do you know how to construct a logical argument? Do you know the elements of an argument? E.g. do you know what a conclusion is? A premise? A postulate? Do you know the difference between a theory and a law of nature? Have you ever studied the philosophy of science? Do you know Newton's law of gravity?

More so you've made the following assertion:

1 and 2 Kepler's laws are irrelevant because orbital ellipses are inexistent geometric figures that we create with our imagination when we watch planetary movements around a circular space (solar gravitational field) that expands and contracts cyclically.

Since when? Do you know what a geometric figure is and what it means to say that they exist? You say that the moon moves in a circle and yet you argue that circles don't exist. Or didn't you know that an circle is a special case of an ellipse?

Iíll tell you what. If in your next post there isnít a definition of the term cyclically variable curvature then I will not read anything else you have to say about this subject and thus make no other comment on it. If youíre not willing to do something as simple is that they I see no reason for me to continue. Why did you ignore all my requests so far anyway? Usually when people refuse to define a term its because they have no idea how to do it. Iím going to assume this is the case until and unless you prove me wrong. If your definition is meaningless and canít be used to describe what youíre arguing I also stop posting for that reason.
 

Offline Also65

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #15 on: 22/07/2013 02:20:42 »
You are worried about a precise term but I am going to use non precise terms to define it. If you don't like "cyclically variable curvature", maybe you could prefer to think about a field that expands and contracts periodically.

When you say that I think that our moon has a circular orbit, it show me that you are not understanding what I am saying. Because I say that our moon moves around the gravitational field of the earth. And this gravitational field is a circle. This field is existent and it has a circular area. But is a variable area, the moon follow at the field, and when it expands, the moon continues moving around a circular area, and when it contracts, the moon follow a circular area too. But the appearance is of a elliptical orbit with the earth in one of their focus. This ellipse in my view is not real.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #16 on: 22/07/2013 02:41:41 »
Also65,

I've moved this to new theories as what you're proposing is a new model of gravity.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #17 on: 22/07/2013 07:25:53 »
Since youíre refusing to answer my questions I donít see any reason to continue this conversation. Clearly you donít know what youíre talking about. You seem to believe that ďI think that gravity is a cyclically variable curvatureĒ is actually a theory when in reality itís a circular argument and therefore illogical and therefore meaningless, again. Youíve described gravity in terms of curvature and curvature in terms of gravity in essence not describing anything.

You appear to have intentionally ignored all my questions about your background education as if I never even asked them. People do this when they donít have any education beyond high school. Youíd be unable to follow the math and the physics of GR. That seems to be the problem you have understanding what the flaws are that Iím pointing out to you.

Since you refuse to answer my question Iím terminating my participation in this thread.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #18 on: 22/07/2013 09:20:27 »
I think that gravity is a cyclically variable curvature.
Here's an idea. Use this notion to show that the gravitational force is velocity dependant. Show how it can used to explain gravitational redshift. Also explain why our weight does not change periodicically when your notion implies that it should.

If you have any math skills then please use them to describe how the field changes periodically
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Gravity as Variable Curvature
« Reply #18 on: 22/07/2013 09:20:27 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums