The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is the gravitational field of all objects coherent?  (Read 3895 times)

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Since the geodesics inside an event horizon must be coherent since they all must point towards the singularity and follow the most direct route does this imply that the gravitational field of all objects is also coherent? Meaning that propagation follows a consistent radial direction away from the centre.
« Last Edit: 01/01/2016 10:40:20 by chris »


 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #1 on: 30/12/2015 07:15:24 »
I would have thought, before you can assume that it propagates outward from the centre of anything, that first you would have to offer some evidence that contrary to GR there exists such a thing as a Gravitational field, as opposed to Gravity being a consequence of geometry.
Last I checked no part of GR that has so far been tested, has succeeded in falsifying it. And the search for a Graviton has drawn a blank.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 125 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #2 on: 30/12/2015 10:07:04 »
If by gravitational field you mean the force and acceleration on a point test mass at any point around an object, then I can't see why it would not point to the centre of mass of the object. Unless of course there is another mass distorting the field.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #3 on: 30/12/2015 13:50:58 »
I would have thought, before you can assume that it propagates outward from the centre of anything, that first you would have to offer some evidence that contrary to GR there exists such a thing as a Gravitational field, as opposed to Gravity being a consequence of geometry.
Last I checked no part of GR that has so far been tested, has succeeded in falsifying it. And the search for a Graviton has drawn a blank.

You can have curvature AND a force carrier. When viewing stress, energy and momentum what exactly is under stress in a vacuum and what is causing that stress? Unless you believe there is no vacuum and space is filled with a perfect fluid of varying density. What then varies the density? It could just as likely be a density of force carriers operating coherently and following an inverse square distribution.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #4 on: 30/12/2015 15:21:15 »
If by gravitational field you mean the force and acceleration on a point test mass at any point around an object, then I can't see why it would not point to the centre of mass of the object. Unless of course there is another mass distorting the field.

If you think of radial geodesics then objects that start at the same elevation in a gravitational field are drawn together as they fall. Two objects following the same radial geodesic but time separated will move further apart over time. The converging radial geodesics suggest a uniform field where force carriers are in the same phase. I am still thinking through other properties.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #5 on: 30/12/2015 15:34:07 »
Around the moon probes have been lost due to unexpected gravitational anomalies. Where differences in lunar density are enough to interfere with the stability of an orbit. If an anomaly is underground then doesn't that make a nonsense of the geometry notion? Since gravity is weak the forces within the mass should easily counter any 'magic' curvature. This should never actually be able to penetrate the surface.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #6 on: 30/12/2015 19:42:12 »
You can have curvature AND a force carrier. When viewing stress, energy and momentum what exactly is under stress in a vacuum and what is causing that stress? Unless you believe there is no vacuum and space is filled with a perfect fluid of varying density. What then varies the density?
Jeffrey, It so happens that the varying density no viscosity fluid is exactly what I think all the evidence is pointing towards. What varies that density is the funnelling effect of a central body pulling in this fluid spacetime from it's surrounds. This behaves (has the same effect) for all observations and experiments so far made, exactly like curvature.
It also explains how Gravity is felt around a Black Hole, where a force carrier would have trouble propagating out of an event horizon. Unless you believe that gravity force carriers do not have to adhere to the Universes speed limit.
Gravity is not a force for exactly the above reason. If it was a force transmitted by force carrier particles it would not make it out of a Black Hole, and with no Gravity a Black Hole wouldn't exist in the first place.
It is a flow from outside Matter that exactly meets the amount of space matter demands to stay animate.
You can call that flow or you can view it as curvature.
Going back to a Newtonian view of a Universal force which would require a force carrier particle does not fit observations of it's behaviour and is not justified.
 
Around the moon probes have been lost due to unexpected gravitational anomalies. Where differences in lunar density are enough to interfere with the stability of an orbit. If an anomaly is underground then doesn't that make a nonsense of the geometry notion? Since gravity is weak the forces within the mass should easily counter any 'magic' curvature. This should never actually be able to penetrate the surface.
This needs further explaining.
Why is putting a difference in mass density underground make nonsense out of the geometry? A higher concentration of matter in any part of a compact body should be reflected in the gravity observed when orbiting such body. The Gravity effect should only be perfectly globular around a body that is both a perfect globe and has a perfect distribution of mass in it's make up. Otherwise it makes sense that the effect would be a direct reflection of the density distribution within that mass.
Why should it not be able to penetrate the surface?
I can't see the reasoning behind this statement.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4130
  • Thanked: 249 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #7 on: 30/12/2015 23:41:27 »
Quote from: jeffreyH
Around the moon probes have been lost due to unexpected gravitational anomalies.
I was wondering which probes?

I know the recent Grail probes studied the Moon's gravitational field in considerable detail, and they have found some gravitational anomalies (perhaps the crater from an iron meteorite, subsequently filled with lava?).

The Grail probes did check the Moon's gravitational field from a very low altitude, and they were intentionally crashed into the Moon at the end of the mission. But the anomalies did not cause the crash.

http://www.space.com/21364-moon-gravity-mascons-mystery.html
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #8 on: 30/12/2015 23:49:02 »
Jeffrey, It so happens that the varying density no viscosity fluid is exactly what I think all the evidence is pointing towards. What varies that density is the funnelling effect of a central body pulling in this fluid spacetime from it's surrounds.

So a body like the earth is constantly pulling in this liquid spacetime. Where is it all going? Outer Mongolia? You are really saying that it just disappears magically so that you don't have to explain it. Remember 'what goes up must come down'. Why not what flows in must flow out.

This behaves (has the same effect) for all observations and experiments so far made, exactly like curvature. It also explains how Gravity is felt around a Black Hole, where a force carrier would have trouble propagating out of an event horizon. Unless you believe that gravity force carriers do not have to adhere to the Universes speed limit.Gravity is not a force for exactly the above reason. If it was a force transmitted by force carrier particles it would not make it out of a Black Hole, and with no Gravity a Black Hole wouldn't exist in the first place.

Who says gravity has to get out of a black hole? Just because it can't cross the horizon doesn't mean it cannot be present just outside the horizon where the escape velocity is lower than c. You assume that gravity is inherent to mass. Yet how can mass continually emit this 'magic' curvature continually when a separate force carrier, like the photon for electromagnetism, needs no magic at all.

It is a flow from outside Matter that exactly meets the amount of space matter demands to stay animate.You can call that flow or you can view it as curvature. Going back to a Newtonian view of a Universal force which would require a force carrier particle does not fit observations of it's behaviour and is not justified.

You have shown no justification for these views. Just a lot of wild speculation.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #9 on: 30/12/2015 23:56:08 »
Quote from: jeffreyH
Around the moon probes have been lost due to unexpected gravitational anomalies.
I was wondering which probes?

I know the recent Grail probes studied the Moon's gravitational field in considerable detail, and they have found some gravitational anomalies (perhaps the crater from an iron meteorite, subsequently filled with lava?).

The Grail probes did check the Moon's gravitational field from a very low altitude, and they were intentionally crashed into the Moon at the end of the mission. But the anomalies did not cause the crash.

http://www.space.com/21364-moon-gravity-mascons-mystery.html

I believe it was two Russian probes but It has been a while since I followed the story. I think Nasa had some details online at one point.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4130
  • Thanked: 249 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #10 on: 30/12/2015 23:58:08 »
Quote from: jeffreyH
Since the geodesics inside an event horizon must be coherent since they all must point towards the singularity and follow the most direct route does this imply that the gravitational field of all objects is also coherent?
The electric field vectors from an electric charge also point towards the electric charge.
- This is reflected in Maxwell's equations that state that the electric field is divergent.
- This reflects the fact that electric charges are monopoles
- And Masses are monopoles
- I don't think this means that they are coherent.

As I understand it, coherence is about frequency and phase of two (or more) waves. Steady-state signals cannot be coherent because the frequency is zero and there is no meaningful phase.
-An ocean wave is coherent, because it consists of many water molecules which are moving with the same frequency and phase.
- A laser is coherent, because it consists of many photons which have the same frequency and phase.
- Gravitational waves from orbiting black holes would emit coherent waves, in that gravitational waves would propagate in all directions, being received with a consistent phase and frequency*. If gravitons exist, then this would produce coherent waves of gravitons (even though we have no way to detect individual gravitons with current technology).

*The frequency of gravitational waves would increase towards the end, as the black holes coalesce. Gravity wave experimenters are searching for this "chirp" signal.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #11 on: 31/12/2015 01:11:46 »
Consider two vectors u and v in the Schwarzschild geometry where both are lightlike geodesic orbits which are perpendicular. One around an assumed equator and the other crossing both poles. Then u X v = w has w as perpendicular to both. This can point either along an escape path or into the event horizon of a black hole. Since the lightlike orbit occurs in a region exterior to the horizon then light following this path CAN escape. Thus, if the speed of gravity is c then so can a graviton. The question is where would the graviton come from if it cannot escape the horizon? Since light may be considered to have relativistic mass (hypothetical) then this itself copuld be one source of the force carriers. The accretion disk moving at relativistic speed could be another. This would produce a much reduced field strength which would become more apparent with increase in black hole mass. Therefore any effects on objects orbiting the central object would be weaker than expected. Another candidate for source of gravitons would be dark matter if it can be shown to accumulate around black holes.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4130
  • Thanked: 249 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #12 on: 31/12/2015 01:36:43 »
Quote from: JeffreyH
The question is where would the graviton come from if it cannot escape the horizon?
In a discussion about black holes, it was mentioned that the area of a black hole's event horizon increases proportionally to the mass of the black hole.

There is a principle that information cannot be lost from the universe. It is as if a history of the three-dimensional matter entering the black hole is encoded in the two-dimensional surface of the event horizon, like a hologram. This would include the mass, charge & angular momentum of the matter inside.  Perhaps this could be the source of the (hypothetical) gravitons?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
Discussion near the end of: http://omegataupodcast.net/2015/12/191-string-theory/
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #13 on: 31/12/2015 03:12:22 »
You have shown no justification for these views. Just a lot of wild speculation.
Wild speculation? Maybe.
But speculation that actually fits all observational data to date.
 
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 Spacetime 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 consumes that spacetime and outputs 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. I don't know how many times I have heard the explanation that when an electron drops energy states, it does it instantaneously with out passing through the spacetime between those energy shells. That is because there is no spacetime to pass through. It is used up.
It is the same at Quark level. Quarks need a certain amount of space to vibrate and spin in. Every vibration constitutes movement and uses up space. (Literally) A quark will move one way taking up a certain amount of space. When it then moves the other way it does not vacate the space it previously took up but drags new space to the spot it just vacated. Each of these actions pumps spacetime and outputs an electromagnetic shockwave.
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 output's 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.
Treating light in this manner is not essential to Spacetime Flow theory, but it makes sense to me and gets rid of the duality attributed to light. The shockwave propagating through spacetime will deliver the right amount of Kinetic energy and information whenever and proportionate to the amount of the wave that is intercepted. No particle necessary.
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 compared with the amount of spacetime matter sucks in.

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”. I mean you only have to drop an apple to see that the Earth pulls on that apple, right?
WRONG..
It is the flow of Spacetime that is carrying that apple towards the Earth. The apple while appearing to be attracted to the Earth, is just following it's Geodesic. Unfortunately for said apple, it's Geodesic keeps going through the surface of the Earth while the apple in it's attempt to keep following it smashes into the barrier represented by the ground.
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 Geodesics. 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 Flow 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 (possibly instantaneously) 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 to vibrate in, is overcome.
Neutrons in giving up this space can no longer exist as Neutrons.
A Black Hole is born.
Black Holes are not singularities but compressed matter that has reached the maximum possible input rate. Matter that still makes use of spacetime as evidenced by the continued flow.
The event horizon may then be taken as an actual surface. A balance point between the demand of the representative mass for more space 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.
At this stage it remains possible that spacetime may be capable of flowing faster than this transmission rate.

“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)
It apparently must also be extremely tasty to Matter.
 
And any further justification you might require for why I have these views, I offer any test of General Relativity that has been done to date. Because the results would fit Space Flow Theory as well as they have ever fit Space curvature Theory.
And certainly a very simple and elegant solution don't you think? No force that can't be made to fit both primary theories that describe our understanding of reality. No force carrier particle that according to the standard model doesn't belong. No invisible undetectable strings, branes, or whatever..
And the only change to be made is to allow spacetime, this coordinate definable vacuum, the same rights as all other residents of the Universe.
Let it move. There really is no Universal static reference frame.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4130
  • Thanked: 249 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #14 on: 31/12/2015 13:11:10 »
Quote from: Space Flow
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 consumes that spacetime and outputs a global electromagnetic shockwave, at the same time as drawing in more spacetime to replace it ready for the next cycle.
I think a flaw in this argument is that to make an electron jump to a higher energy level, it must absorb a photon (or electromagnetic shockwave, if you prefer) which has exactly the same energy as the photon that would be released if the electron fell between these same two levels.

So here we have a cycle of: Electron falls to lower level, emits photon. Photon strikes electron in lower level, it is absorbs and the electron moves to a higher level. Energy is conserved. There is no need for a consumable supply of Spacetime to provide power for the electrons or photons.   

I also have a problem with this when the matter is not in the form of a solid/liquid/gas, but in the form of a plasma. In this case, there are not discrete (rare) instances where a particular atom emits or absorbs a photon of a specific frequency.
- In a plasma, every time the high speed negative electrons zoom past a positive nucleus, they emit or absorb radiation over a wide range of frequencies (Bremsstrahlung radiation
- If this theory were true, the gravitational attraction of a plasma should be many times higher than for the same atoms as a gas.
- As I understand it, there is no measurable difference in gravitational attraction between a gas or a plasma and the center of the Earth (you would need to take into account any change in volume of gas vs plasma).
 
Quote
“Spacetime is not nothing”. It is something. ...It apparently must also be extremely tasty to Matter.
If Spacetime flows into matter, and is "used up", where does new Spacetime come from?
All this Spacetime has been consumed by matter for billions of years, there must be very little of it left!
Or is this an proposed explanation for Dark Energy? There is not so much Spacetime to hold the universe together, so space expands more quickly?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #15 on: 31/12/2015 13:19:27 »
Quote from: JeffreyH
The question is where would the graviton come from if it cannot escape the horizon?
In a discussion about black holes, it was mentioned that the area of a black hole's event horizon increases proportionally to the mass of the black hole.

There is a principle that information cannot be lost from the universe. It is as if a history of the three-dimensional matter entering the black hole is encoded in the two-dimensional surface of the event horizon, like a hologram. This would include the mass, charge & angular momentum of the matter inside.  Perhaps this could be the source of the (hypothetical) gravitons?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
Discussion near the end of: http://omegataupodcast.net/2015/12/191-string-theory/

I have a way to go yet before I get to the holographic principle. I will look at the links though.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #16 on: 31/12/2015 13:31:12 »
If we think of special relativity in respect to macroscopic objects we have length contraction in the direction of motion, time dilation etc. In the case of free falling geodesics in a gravitational field we have length extension of macroscopic objects. So in this respect an accelerating frame of reference is NOT equivalent to a free falling frame under the influence of gravity. What other differences might there be? Geodesics converge towards the source of a spherical gravitational field. This causes length contraction perpendicular to the direction of the field. Should this indicate a length extension perpendicular to motion in special relativity? I don't know. Then we have gamma and what relationship it and inertia have to acceleration due to gravity. If the acceleration due to gravity increases to relativistic levels then there has to be a relationship between the density of spacetime/gravitons (take your pick) that can be treated like a conservation law of some sort. What is it conserving? Or is it simply a balance between inertia, time dilation and some unknown other? An unresolved issue I have is the role of the gamma function in all this.
« Last Edit: 31/12/2015 13:34:03 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #17 on: 01/01/2016 00:22:04 »
Quote from: evan_au
I think a flaw in this argument is that to make an electron jump to a higher energy level, it must absorb a photon (or electromagnetic shockwave, if you prefer) which has exactly the same energy as the photon that would be released if the electron fell between these same two levels.

So here we have a cycle of: Electron falls to lower level, emits photon. Photon strikes electron in lower level, it is absorbs and the electron moves to a higher level. Energy is conserved. There is no need for a consumable supply of Spacetime to provide power for the electrons or photons.   
Evan, You are right in that EM energy in equals EM energy out. The way I am viewing it and one of the things that led me to this view is that describes a lossless system. Yet work is being done in the process. The question I first asked is where is the energy coming from to power the process of absorption/re-emission, if all of the EM in exactly equals all of the EM out. An extra bit of energy seems to me to be needed just to keep Matter animated, that does not seem to be accounted for.

Quote from: evan_au
I also have a problem with this when the matter is not in the form of a solid/liquid/gas, but in the form of a plasma. In this case, there are not discrete (rare) instances where a particular atom emits or absorbs a photon of a specific frequency.
- In a plasma, every time the high speed negative electrons zoom past a positive nucleus, they emit or absorb radiation over a wide range of frequencies (Bremsstrahlung radiation) 
- If this theory were true, the gravitational attraction of a plasma should be many times higher than for the same atoms as a gas.
- As I understand it, there is no measurable difference in gravitational attraction between a gas or a plasma and the center of the Earth (you would need to take into account any change in volume of gas vs plasma).
Here you may well have me. I am operating under the principle that if you add energy to matter as in the difference between a gas and a plasma, because of E=mc^2 the mass of the plasma can be seen as having increased. That would say that the amount of gravity in a given amount of rest Mass now a plasma would have to reflect this increase in mass/energy. If as you say this is not the case, then I have a lot more research to do, as to why the Mass/Energy has not gone up, with the addition of more energy.
Will investigate...
(EDIT); Evan this effect we call Gravity is not a strong effect when compared with the actions of the 3 Forces of nature. It becomes a very strong effect with the substantial increase in matter density. (A lot of Mass in a small area).
I have done some thinking about your claim that a rest Mass in the form of a gas cloud would have the same gravitational effect as the same mass in the form of a plasma and believe you must be mistaken. It is not just rest mass that determines the rate of flow, but the Mass/Energy equivalent. The same rest mass with more energy would have the particles at least vibrating at a faster rate and as such using up more spacetime. For my theory to be right it would have to be using spacetime at a faster rate.
This is not a huge change in flow, certainly not comparable to just adding more mass to a certain radius, but it would be there.
If it's measurable with todays technology or not I am unsure off.
There what you have done is make Space Flow Theory make a prediction that theoretically is testable.
Do you have any reference I can look up that states what you claim?
I have to look further into it and any help as to where to start would be appreciated.

Quote from: evan_au
If Spacetime flows into matter, and is "used up", where does new Spacetime come from?
All this Spacetime has been consumed by matter for billions of years, there must be very little of it left!
Or is this an proposed explanation for Dark Energy? There is not so much Spacetime to hold the universe together, so space expands more quickly?
I have no more satisfactory answer for the cause of the Accelerated Expansion of the Universe (Dark Energy) then anyone else.
The model of Gravity I propose has nothing to say about what the creation of more and more space is attributable to. It is obvious from observational evidence that the Universe is acquiring more space at an accelerating pace. That fact is as presented. I have heard of one of the latest theories that possibly vacuum energy is somehow responsible, but I can't say I understand the principle of how it manages to achieve such a feat.
So yes the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. This expansion is most noticeable in the voids between concentrations of matter. My model can explain why the expansion is not affecting the vicinity of concentrations of matter, thus restricting the viewable expansion to the large gaps between matter. That is as far as it goes. The rest of this Unsolved Mystery of the Universe is for someone else to solve as it doesn't effect or as far as I can tell is in any other way affected by this Gravity model.

Quote from: jeffreyH
If we think of special relativity in respect to macroscopic objects we have length contraction in the direction of motion, time dilation etc. In the case of free falling geodesics in a gravitational field we have length extension of macroscopic objects. So in this respect an accelerating frame of reference is NOT equivalent to a free falling frame under the influence of gravity.
Jeffrey, if we are looking at the two above scenarios with Special Relativity, from the point of view of a distant observer, then observed speed is the only consideration and not the cause of said speed.
To do such a comparison for the object with the gravity cause of this speed, we would have to compare a point in it's acceleration curve that matches the constant speed of our other object. Otherwise we can not use SR.
So if we are comparing the two objects at the same speed, then the length contraction and time dilation would be the same. It has to be.
As far as comparing an accelerated frame due to Gravity, the only equivalent comparison would be a frame of reference that is feeling the same acceleration by means other than Gravity. In that case the two frames are also equivalent except the accelerated frame due to gravity is caused by the resistance to moving with a Geodesic and consequently has no speed increase. (Like standing on the surface of a planet). 
A free fall frame is not an accelerated frame to the observer occupying that frame as that observer is on a stationary to him Geodesic. If that geodesic is itself being accelerated towards the centre of a more massive object, then yes to a distant observer it looks no different to an accelerating frame as he would see a relative increase in speed, and not seen a visible means of propulsion would assume that Gravity is the cause even if he can't detect the more massive object. Apart from that assumption there can be no difference to watching another equally accelerating frame with the huge tail of a rocket motor output.
A certain amount of confusion seems to spring from trying to compare the different scenarios (Constant relative speed of one to Accelerated relative movement of another) under either SR or GR.
Therefore you are right in saying an accelerating frame of reference is NOT equivalent to a free falling frame under the influence of gravity for the observer occupying such a frame. That observer would be accelerating past the flow of spacetime in one and feeling acceleration either by standing on the surface of a planet and letting spacetime accelerate past him, or by the use of energy to accelerate past Spacetime that is relatively not flowing. In either case that observer is changing his geodesic by the acceleration rate felt.
On the other hand a free falling observer whether in a gravitational influence or not remains Geodesic. In other words he is not moving in relation to the spacetime around him. The spacetime itself may be moving carying him along, but from his reference frame he is perfectly still. Up until that flowing spacetime slams him into the large mass that is causing it to flow in the first place.

Quote from: jeffreyH
If the acceleration due to gravity increases to relativistic levels then there has to be a relationship between the density of spacetime/gravitons (take your pick) that can be treated like a conservation law of some sort. What is it conserving? Or is it simply a balance between inertia, time dilation and some unknown other? An unresolved issue I have is the role of the gamma function in all this.
I have no idea how any conservation law would apply to any of this and must admit it is not something that I have thought about.
As for Gamma, I see it as acting exactly as it's supposed to in any situation that involves relative speed no mater what the cause of that relative speed. Again I can not see how it could be otherwise.


Except for the gas/plasma question raised by Evan that I may have to clarify for myself, I believe you are now aware of the position that generates my comments and my justifications.
I make no claim that my view of Gravity is right, or any better than anyone else's, but it is the one that makes sense of available data to me.
Therefore to be true to myself that is the reference frame that dictates my comments.
I'm sorry That was not clear at the start and made you feel like I was making comments with no justification.
You certainly don't have to agree or respond to them, but personally I quite enjoy the fact that on this forum we can discuss how our differing concepts compare, fit in or not.
I certainly enjoy reading other's ideas and seeing how they fit into my own ever changing world view.
« Last Edit: 01/01/2016 01:05:27 by Space Flow »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 47 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #18 on: 01/01/2016 07:37:54 »
I would have thought, before you can assume that it propagates outward from the centre of anything, that first you would have to offer some evidence that contrary to GR there exists such a thing as a Gravitational field, as opposed to Gravity being a consequence of geometry.
Last I checked no part of GR that has so far been tested, has succeeded in falsifying it. And the search for a Graviton has drawn a blank.

You can have curvature AND a force carrier. When viewing stress, energy and momentum what exactly is under stress in a vacuum and what is causing that stress? Unless you believe there is no vacuum and space is filled with a perfect fluid of varying density. What then varies the density? It could just as likely be a density of force carriers operating coherently and following an inverse square distribution.


''The pressure in outer space is so low that many consider it as non-existant. It has a pressure of 1.322 × 10-11 Pa. Pressure may be detected from the molecule of air or water hitting you. Since there is very little air and hardly ever water hitting you in space, pressure is almost zero or negligible''


The pressure is almost zero but not zero, something has a ''viscosity'' in/of space.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4130
  • Thanked: 249 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field coherent?
« Reply #19 on: 01/01/2016 08:59:08 »
Quote from: Space Flow
where is the energy coming from to power the process of absorption/re-emission, if all of the EM in exactly equals all of the EM out. An extra bit of energy seems to me to be needed just to keep Matter animated, that does not seem to be accounted for.
It is true that a perpetual motion machine cannot be produced - for macroscopic objects, thermodynamics ensures that you always lose some energy in every interaction.
  • That is not necessarily so on very small scales, at the quantum level.
  • It is unclear if this is necessarily so on very large scales, such as at the level of a stellar-mass black hole, or our whole universe. 
Each photon emitted has a tiny momentum, which is shared with the emitting atom. So the energy of the photon will be a tiny bit less than the exact amount needed to promote the electron in a "stationary" atom. So a tiny amount of loss does occur in this transaction.

However, the normal motion of atoms in a gas at room temperature is quite enough to hide this effect. And this tiny loss just maintains the statistical distribution of atomic velocities in any gas above absolute zero.

Quote
It is not just rest mass that determines the rate of flow, but the Mass/Energy equivalent.
It takes 1312 kJ/mol to turn hydrogen gas (2g) into a plasma (2g).

You can calculate how much more mass the plasma will gain from Einsteins's E=mc2, which is roughly 1.5E-8 grams.

So I maintain that the mass of 1 mole of H2 gas at room temperature = 2 grams mass cannot be measurably distinguished from the same number of Hydrogen atoms as a plasma ≈ 2.000000015 grams mass.

However, the rate of electromagnetic interactions (photon absorption/emission) is far higher in a plasma than in a neutral gas. The way I read the description of Space Flow theory, the plasma should weigh thousands (or millions?) of times more than the same amount of gas at room temperature.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molar_ionization_energies_of_the_elements
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field of all objects coherent?
« Reply #20 on: 01/01/2016 13:08:20 »
You can calculate how much more mass the plasma will gain from Einsteins's E=mc2, which is roughly 1.5E-8 grams.

So I maintain that the mass of 1 mole of H2 gas at room temperature = 2 grams mass cannot be measurably distinguished from the same number of Hydrogen atoms as a plasma ≈ 2.000000015 grams mass.

However, the rate of electromagnetic interactions (photon absorption/emission) is far higher in a plasma than in a neutral gas. The way I read the description of Space Flow theory, the plasma should weigh thousands (or millions?) of times more than the same amount of gas at room temperature.
Thank you for doing the math on that.

I am not really convinced there is much absorption/emission happening at atomic level in a plasma. Being a Plasma your Hydrogen is ionised. Electrons if they try to recombine with protons would quite quickly be knocked out again by hi energy photons. Even then most of the time it would happen so quickly they wouldn't even emit a photon. The high energy photon bouncing of the electron and continuing on.

The total Mass/Energy inside a radius already has to take into account the energy represented by all the energetic activity happening within this radius, and not just the energy necessary to turn the gas into a plasma.
There would certainly be a Mass/energy and space flow increase, but as compared to the Energy represented by the particles themselves, that extra energy would still make up a very small fractional increase in Space-Flow/Gravity.
I say that it would still be an unmeasurable difference today.

Keep in mind that the Gravity effect due to flow is tiny as compared with the forces, when dealing with small concentrations of Mass inside any radius.
It takes a lot of mass inside a small radius to give this effect any power, that can compare with say the EM Force.
Changes due to temperature are certainly a part of this effect, but such a small part of the overall that they can mostly be ignored. Of course it would depend on how many decimal places you needed accuracy to.
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4130
  • Thanked: 249 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field of all objects coherent?
« Reply #21 on: 01/01/2016 21:11:19 »
Quote from: Space Flow
Electrons if they try to recombine with protons would quite quickly be knocked out again by hi energy photons. Even then most of the time it would happen so quickly they wouldn't even emit a photon.
In a fully-ionized plasma, the electrons have far more energy than the ground-state energy of the atom (around 13 eV for Hydrogen). So the electrons don't try to fall into an orbital (and emit a photon), but remain in a hot soup of electrons and protons.

Every time an electron passes a proton (which is very often, since they are moving at very high velocity), the path of the electron is bent towards the proton by its proximity to the positive charge. Every time an electron passes another electron, or a proton approaches another proton, their path is bent away from the similar charge; all these events are electromagnetic interactions which generate or absorb photons.

This change in behavior is shown by the fact that the plasma is opaque (all frequencies are absorbed very quickly), while Hydrogen gas at room temperature is transparent to visible frequencies (ie effectively no frequencies are absorbed).
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field of all objects coherent?
« Reply #22 on: 02/01/2016 00:32:57 »
Quote from: Space Flow
Electrons if they try to recombine with protons would quite quickly be knocked out again by hi energy photons. Even then most of the time it would happen so quickly they wouldn't even emit a photon.
In a fully-ionized plasma, the electrons have far more energy than the ground-state energy of the atom (around 13 eV for Hydrogen). So the electrons don't try to fall into an orbital (and emit a photon), but remain in a hot soup of electrons and protons.

Every time an electron passes a proton (which is very often, since they are moving at very high velocity), the path of the electron is bent towards the proton by its proximity to the positive charge. Every time an electron passes another electron, or a proton approaches another proton, their path is bent away from the similar charge; all these events are electromagnetic interactions which generate or absorb photons.

This change in behavior is shown by the fact that the plasma is opaque (all frequencies are absorbed very quickly), while Hydrogen gas at room temperature is transparent to visible frequencies (ie effectively no frequencies are absorbed).
Evan that's kind of what I was getting at. The total Mass/Energy of that plasma is higher than the Mass/Energy of the non-ionised Hydrogen gas and that in large is because of those interactions and as such that plasma would weigh proportionately more than the equivalent Hydrogen atoms.
In proportion to the rest Mass of the Hydrogen atoms this would still be an incredibly small increase in Mass. Therefore an incredibly small increase in Space Flow.
The main intake of spacetime happens at the fundamental particle level. "Quarks" with electrons adding a very small fraction to this. Increases due to energy added is again a much smaller part of the total Mass/Flow.
Those greedy Quarks are responsible for so much flow everything else pales to insignificance.
I reckon that's what Black Holes must be made off.
We talk about Neutron degeneracy holding a size of star just outside the same star's event horizon, but a neutron is not a fundamental particle. Quarks are. I don't believe there is a degeneracy pressure for Quarks as they are fundamental particles and can not be brocken into smaller pieces. Their vibrations use up the more space than all other processes combined. The Mass attributed to Matter can go up fractionally through the addition of Energy but the mass is always dominated by the amount of Space used by Quarks.
It is this demand for Space that makes up what we call the gravity well of a Black Hole.
That is how Gravity get's out of a Black Hole. Because nothing actually get's out. No Force, no Field, no Particles and no Singularity. Just spacetime flowing into a Quark Star's surface at the maximum possible supply rate. It is also why if you add any matter, the event horizon will increase proportionately. The supply rate is already at maximum for the amount of matter demanding it. by adding matter you increase the demand in a radius that can't increase supply. The radius has to increase to compensate.
Am I telling fairy tales?
It seems to make a very coherent picture to me..

 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4130
  • Thanked: 249 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field of all objects coherent?
« Reply #23 on: 02/01/2016 01:37:15 »
Quote from: Space Flow
Those greedy Quarks are responsible for so much flow everything else pales to insignificance.
The proton (containing 3 quarks) has the mass of 1836 electrons. This means the electron has about .0016% of the mass of a quark (on average; I know an isolated quark is not stable).

This is a fairly sizable contribution to the mass of an atom (unlike effects like heating up an atom).

But this mass also accrues to an isolated electron traveling through a dark vacuum. As I understand it, an electron has no internal structure to vibrate, and it is not interacting with other atoms or photons.

So here is a case where mass happens, but there is no vibration to chew up the hypothetical Space Flow.

Perhaps Space Flow is superfluous to mass?
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is the gravitational field of all objects coherent?
« Reply #24 on: 02/01/2016 02:29:09 »
Quote from: Space Flow
Those greedy Quarks are responsible for so much flow everything else pales to insignificance.
The proton (containing 3 quarks) has the mass of 1836 electrons. This means the electron has about .0016% of the mass of a quark (on average; I know an isolated quark is not stable).

This is a fairly sizable contribution to the mass of an atom (unlike effects like heating up an atom).
Exactly.
But this mass also accrues to an isolated electron traveling through a dark vacuum. As I understand it, an electron has no internal structure to vibrate, and it is not interacting with other atoms or photons.

So here is a case where mass happens, but there is no vibration to chew up the hypothetical Space Flow.
An electron may or not have a vibration rate but it has spin. Spin is a physical movement requiring space. The space required by spin is tiny compared to the space required by a Quark vibration but it is still a requirement.

Perhaps Space Flow is superfluous to mass?
Perhaps.
Perhaps there is a better way to look at all the pieces we have of this giant jigsaw puzzle.
Perhaps all these pieces can be arranged to form a more coherent picture than the one I'm painting.
And perhaps not.
All I can say is that to me it is the one that seems to leave the least unanswered questions.
If your interested Matt Faw has put something together that brilliantly describes this Space Flow on larger scales.
 Why I Dont Believe in Dark Matter, By Matt Daw
« Last Edit: 02/01/2016 03:29:37 by Space Flow »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is the gravitational field of all objects coherent?
« Reply #24 on: 02/01/2016 02:29:09 »

 

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