[Mad Mark]

Everything has to have an opposite even gravity.The only problem is our understanding of gravity is so limited that until that question is fully answered we cannot begin to look for the opposite.
Is it not possible that the flow of time is the opposing force to gravity?

Tomorrow lies outside our universe without it there would be no tomorrow.

[Mad Mark]

Before energy had time to form into matter in our early universe time would have had a free run of the place and without that opposing force it ran away with itself.
Localy matter bends space in on itself but in the absence of matter time bends it outwards.
As for gravity and kenetic mass increase as you increase speed where you may expect the mass to effect gravity the opposite may happen, as the  speed of the object will slow time locally its opposing gravity will decrease accordingly.

Tomorrow lies outside our universe without it there would be no tomorrow.

[Rincewind]

I definitely think you've got an interesting theory, Mark.  Mass in increasing gravity is like light in an increasingly dense medium, yeah?  So if the mass or light is travelling perpendicular to the gravity or density gradient, it would (and does) turn towards the increase.

You're probably like me and don't know many details, just go with your gut.

unidirectional:    Gravity (only attracts)                      Time (only forward)
two way       :    Electromagnetism (attracts/repels)           Space (forward and back)

Parallels on a different scale.  Maybe the medium in which gravity travels is time, not space.  IN the same way that light doesn't experience time, gravity doesn't experience space.

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Mad Mark, you are absolutely correct! Gravity cannot simply attract, it has to repel also, just the same as a magnetic force.
With respect of gravity, the pushing force is occurring at the centre of the planet, generating the friction / reaction that maintains the heat at the Earth's core. Each atomic particle pushing against the opposing particles on the opposite side of the planet.



"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"

[Soul Surfer]

Mark, rincewind and andrew what you are saying is a total load of tripe and has no foundation in physics.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

[Rincewind]

Okay, do you concede that, though relativity talks about space-time as one thing, it also states that anything travelling at the speed of light does not experience time, it exists in an instant (from its own point of view)?

So why couldn't the inverse be true (something experiencing time but not, from its own point of view, space)?

I'm not a highly trained physicist but I got an easy A at A level and had a ****in genius teacher who took us way beyond what was necessary for the exams.  That was long ago and informal though.

I mean, gravity does not affect light's actual velocity.  It just increases the frequency of the wave. In that respect it speeds it up.  If you do the same thing to a massive body (ie increase the frequency of the wave associated with its kinetic energy), it increases its velocity.

I'm finding it hard to say what I'm trying to say.  But I'm sure if we spoke face to face you'd have a fun, if turbulent time (depends how tired I am - I'm very tired at the moment so a bit all over the place).  

It's like, 'stationary' matter can be thought of as travelling along the time axis of a space time graph.  Light travels perpendicular to it, along the space axis.  As matter accelerates, its direction (on the graph) rotates towards the direction of light.  It tends towards being energy, all that anchors it is its rest mass.  What would happen if matter turned the other way, from rest?  It becomes energy/movement rather than acquiring more.  Hmm.  So what way is light travelling on the space axis again?  Either, because time is not an issue.  It doesn't know the difference between its start and its end.

These ideas that I throw out - they may be a bit far fetched and/or undisprovable and/or they don't add anything to accepted theories.  To be honest I don't know (my maths is weak, I only got a B at A level and that was with hard work), but something I say might make a more adept physicist think along lines they wouldn't have, where they can make something useful out of it. You never know.  They do have their foundation in physics, though more advanced physics might say they're stupid.

I have to say, a lot of accepted ideas in physics are complete tripe.  Like the idea that there was 'nothing' before the big bang.  'Nothing', by definition, doesn't exist, never has, and never will.  Just as an example.


If you didn't bother reading the rest read this:


Knowledge is a barrier to understanding.  The more knowledge you have, the harder it is to understand.  A lot of graduates come out of uni chock full of knowledge but without enough understanding (I'm not including you in this).  Me and Mark, I think, understand all we know and our understanding has shot out the end of our knowledge, with momentum but no knowledge resisting it, just sparse factlets or whatever.  So we have fun stringing together what we do know.

But sorry if we're inturrupting your discussion.  I'll chill on the mad theories when I get a decent night's sleep:)

[Soul Surfer]

I agree with you in that I see that as within our universe matter and energy are conserved there is no sense in thinking that it is not conserved within all space and time ie the appearance of our universe out if nothing is silly.

So the multiverse (everything there is including our universe and anything that may be outside of it) is of undifined (or infinite if you prefer it) space and time by definition.  our universe is clearly defined in that it appears to have a dense hot and very smooth beginning and a cool quiet end.  It appears to me and many other people that this is the simplest and most probable final cosmology. ie our universe is just one of many universes which start live for a while and then die (just like everything else) These are not parallel universes related to our own but totally independant and unknowable.

We are already aware of other "universes" spawning off from within our universe in the form of black holes the inside of which we cannot observe.  These also have defined lives.

I realise the attraction that there must be a repulsive force to balance gravity but stop and think for a moment, gravity attracts very weakly at our scale but quite strongly when you think of stars and galaxies.  Why don't they collapse immediately?  what is the opposing force that stops them?  The opposing force is angular momentum this is the reason why the universe continues to exist and in the words of a presentation that I am currently working on  "Angular momentum the strongest force in the universe".

Look up and learn about the Virial theorem which describes how the conservation of angular momentum affects any distributed material that is trying to collapse under gravity.  This has been known about and applied for more than 100 years

Also look up and learn about rotating black holes.   Most of the descriptions of black holes talk about non rotating ones and it is just about impossible to create one of these.  Rotating black holes are very different and much more complex.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

[Rincewind]

I'd be interested in reading/hearing your presentation (depending on who you're presenting it to cos it might go way over my head) because angular momentum is something that has recently started confusing me.

Why is linear movement apparently completely relative while angular movement seems to be absolute?  What's the frame of reference?  What are particles/planets/whatever rotating relative to?

Rotation, or a mismeasurement thereof, seems like another likely candidate for the reason behind dark matter/energy to me.

Do dark matter and energy seem just silly to anyone else?  It really seems to me there must be a simple explanation for the gaps between theory and observation.  It seems far more likely there's a problem with the theory rather than there's a load of matter and energy that we can't see for some reason.  


Your summary of the lifetime of our universe made me think; space must have been/must be/must be going to be much bigger than what's in it, if you see what I mean.  The cool end that you talk about is the ultimate heat death, right?  Everything is much more spread out (obviously) than it was in the beginning.  My question is, what's it growing in?  What's it growing relative to?  Because if it was hot in the very beginning when there was just energy, how can it be cool at the end, when it has all returned to energy.  Where's the extra space come from?  You say a black hole is a seperate universe from ours.  The only way a black hole gets bigger is if we drop something into it, ay?  The event horizon only expands because we've added to the mass and the internal density (presumably, insofar as we can say it exists) remains the same.

[ukmicky]

quote:Do dark matter and energy seem just silly to anyone else? It really seems to me there must be a simple explanation for the gaps between theory and observation. It seems far more likely there's a problem with the theory rather than there's a load of matter and energy that we can't see for some reason.

http://www.physorg.com/news9830.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/09_warp.shtml
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/2/14  
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7056

[Rincewind]

Cheers for those links Mickey, but I still think we're all gonna be laughed at by physicists of the future for this dark matter invention.

What evidence have we got that G, the 'universal' gravitational constant, is indeed universal and completely constant (for example, that's not my favourite possible explanation though)?

I'm gonna carry on reading (I got as far as the second one then branched off into MOND)

[Andrew K Fletcher]

Soul, what we are saying has no foundation in your interpretation of the literature. Gravity can not simply attract, the atomic particles that make up gravity have a repelling and attracting force. You cannot get rid of energy, so where has the repelling force gone?

quote:Originally posted by Soul Surfer

Mark, rincewind and andrew what you are saying is a total load of tripe and has no foundation in physics.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"

[Soul Surfer]

I am quite happy with the concept that Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) may represent some or all of the dark matter anomalies obseved altough it appears to many that the balance of probabilities are against it.  I have in fact posed questions relating to this elsewhere in these pages.  I posted "Is there a lower limit to quantum interactions?"  back on 29 dec 2005.  this could be a physical justification for MOND type limitations

You are still making a big mistake in the roots of your thinking though. No energy exists in an electrical, magnetic gravitational or any other field itself of right.  The only energy exists in the interaction of other objects with the source of the field via the field mediating bosons.

You are all thinking of a gravitating source as emitting gravitons like a light source emits photons.  This is definitely not the case.  You need to have two bodies orbiting each other or a non uniform object rotating before you start generating gravitational waves.  Most normal objects of any size will redistribute themselves to become uniform and minimise the radiation they generate hence the reason why large planets are approximately spherical.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!