Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: vincevogel on 18/03/2016 22:37:41
-
The Gravitational Distortion of Space
Vincent P. Vogel
Friday, March 18, 2016
We have all seen computer graphics showing gravity as a three-dimensional grid with a star and a planet deforming the grid. This is a nice visualization of gravity, but let’s consider the real-universe implications. It means that in certain regions - according to Einstein’s theories - space itself is distorted, being compressed or expanded due to the effects of gravity.
So when we look at a distant object possessing a strong gravitational field, space away from the object is expanded while space near and within the object is compressed. The spatial expansion around an object would cause a red-shift of the light coming from the object as it travels through the expanded space between us and the object.
For singular extended objects such as the sun, planets, and moons, the stretching and compression of space mostly cancel each other out so that the object appears about the same size and shape it would otherwise appear if space were not distorted.
But for distributed objects like galaxies, there may often be a noticeable distortion where the stretched outskirts of a galaxy appear larger than the compressed interior. We may need to adjust our photos of galaxies to visualize their correct proportions! This distortion would probably be even more pronounced for larger galaxies.
Our human bodies along with everything around us is compressed since we live in the earth’s gravitational field. Of course this is difficult to measure since any normal measuring device is also affected by the same spatial distortion.
I have been pondering these thoughts recently and then I read Joe Brown’s recent topic “Dark Energy - is it a farce?” which I really appreciated.
So I ask the forum, is there any viability of these theories and has anyone seen any examples...any photographic evidence showing the gravitational distortion of space?
-
First space has no properties. It is just a measurement.The distortions of what Einstein calls space are really the compression and or expansion of the gravitational wave which exists in dark matter/ dark energy. There are three forms of energy, linear, angular, and spherical. All matter constantly radiates dark matter/energy. this is emitted in jumps.When a sphere of dark energy is radiated it kicks against the previous quanta of dark energy. The kickback causes gravity. thus the universe is full of what I call dot-waves. You cannot see them because they are spherical energy and you only see linear and angular forms of energy such as a photon.
-
We have all seen computer graphics showing gravity as a three-dimensional grid with a star and a planet deforming the grid.
Those diagrams show the relationship between radial distances and circles around a stellar object.
This is a nice visualization of gravity, but let’s consider the real-universe implications. It means that in certain regions - according to Einstein’s theories - space itself is distorted, being compressed or expanded due to the effects of gravity.
The correct term is "curved," not "distorted." E.g. you wouldn't say that the surface of a basketball "distorted" would you'd? It's said to be curved.
First space has no properties. It is just a measurement.
That's quite wrong. Space does have properties such as being curved. Saying that it is "just" a measurement does nothing but prove that point since what is t ere is what is measured.
The distortions of what Einstein calls space are really the compression and or expansion of the gravitational wave which exists in dark matter/ dark energy.
Dark matter and dark energy has nothing to do with his question.
There are three forms of energy, linear, angular, and spherical. All matter constantly radiates dark matter/energy. this is emitted in jumps.When a sphere of dark energy is radiated it kicks against the previous quanta of dark energy. The kickback causes gravity. thus the universe is full of what I call dot-waves. You cannot see them because they are spherical energy and you only see linear and angular forms of energy such as a photon.
All of those ideas are dead wrong. May I ask you where you got these ideas from?
-
The effects of gravity are very perplexing.
LIGO experiment, in a way kinda sorta, proves that gravity waves are propagated at the speed of light. There's two instruments that have agreed one instance as observed. That's not a lot of evidence, but it's the most there is and its what we have to work with, at present.
The Michelson–Morley experiment attempted to prove there's an aether quality of empty space. If there is such a quality, it's currently beyond our ability to detect it, so it's more or less agreed, negative on the aether.
General relativity predicts gravity has a cone shape distortion on space and time, but the distortion is in dilation of time and strength in the field of gravity.
Because time and gravity are coupled tightly together, it tends to make one (me) wonder if they're not the two different aspects of the same force. Einstein's General Reactivity does a good job tying it together, so we may better understand, it still doesn't seem to be the complete picture.
When you consider that both time and gravity are the only aspects of reality that function unary in fashions... Maybe anti-gravity is the only way to go back in time.
-
That's quite wrong. Space does have properties such as being curved. Saying that it is "just" a measurement does nothing but prove that point since what is t ere is what is measured.
There are two scientific points of view as I found recently while looking up Plank length on the internet. Some scientists are of the opinion that space itself has properties. Others believe that the fields and energy within space has the properties. After my aortic surgery last December I decided to rewrite my "Doppler Space time" which I self-published in 2000. From an Engineering viewpoint I believe that the universe is more of an engineering marvel rather than a mathematicians puzzle. Thus the simple solution is the preferred solution. It is strange and quite illogical to believe that there is a structure called space that contains a whole set of properties upon which the universe oscillates. The latest findings on the gravitational wave help me to understand that at the time of big bang the whole universe existed within a small ball and that beyond that ball nothing of importance to us existed. Thus now that I know that various scientists have come to that conclusion, I have to believe that space itself has no properties. It only has the ability to allow the energy of big bang to expand. Looking at the big bang as a single spherical wave for simplicity, the wave will continue to expand to a maximum and then compress again forever. everything within the energy sphere will have properties which are the properties of the gravitational wave and the electromagnetic waves themselves.
-
All of those ideas are dead wrong. May I ask you where you got these ideas from?
I am a problem solver. As I understand my own brain for simplicity I have an outer mind which I am using right now and I have an inner mind which is a higher part of my brain. Data flows into my outer mind and this feeds into my inner mind. My inner mind is always thinking. As I sleep various engineering and scientific problems are being worked on by my inner mind. I wake up with the answers. I am also bipolar which at various times enables me to communicate between both sections of my mind. This has always been helpful in test in school and college. It has also been helpful in solving difficult engineering problems at Sperry. Some of my fellow engineers thought I used witchcraft to solve the problems others could not solve. I am innocent of that.
So in 1981 I started to study the universe as a problem. I thought I could solve gravity in short order but now it is 35 years later and I am still working on it. I all ways had the ability to correct my textbooks as I read them and have been asked to proofread some textbooks before printing.
The question is has my inner mind produced the correct solutions to the problems of space and time and gravity? The latest gravitational wave study leads me to believe that I am correct that protons and matter continually radiate mass/energy and this causes the universe to expand and this causes a back-pressure which is our gravity.
Anyway my ideas come from me but I study the work of others as a hobby of sorts. At 77 years I like contemplating the universe and also doing handyman work and carpentry etc. So I am happy with pen and pencil and with a saw and hammer as well.
-
The Michelson–Morley experiment attempted to prove there's an aether quality of empty space. If there is such a quality, it's currently beyond our ability to detect it, so it's more or less agreed, negative on the aether.
General relativity predicts gravity has a cone shape distortion on space and time, but the distortion is in dilation of time and strength in the field of gravity.
As I see it, the substance of the aether is the gravitational waves themselves. Space is nothing but everything we measure is due to the photonic waves and the electromagnetic waves which exist within empty space. The permeability and permitivity constants are the properties of the electromagnetic waves and the visible universe constantly radiates gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves.
GR is merely an electrical theory analysis of the photonic waves. Basically it says that the photonic fields are sister fields to the electromagnetic fields and behave the same way. I agree with that but it is the fields and waves that produce the effects Einstein predicts and space itself is nothing.
-
Objects are either at rest or moving through space. Thus space can legitimately be said to have a volume. Anything with a volume has certain properties. These include the three spatial dimensions plus time. As objects are contracted by gravitation then the volume of space that they occupy cannot remain unaffected. It could be argued that space is simply an abstract concept that is useful to illustrate certain theoretical ways of modelling the universe. This is not something I personally believe.
-
It could be argued that space is simply an abstract concept that is useful to illustrate certain theoretical ways of modelling the universe. This is not something I personally believe.
If you removed all the energy and fields within a particular space, what would be left? To me it would be pure nothingness. Thus space without anything inside it has no properties or meaning. If you put a ruler inside pure nothingness then space is the ruler itself. A ticking time clock in nothingness would have a universe of only the time clock. Thus in my opinion, space by itself has no properties but once stuff is inside space, space has spatial dimensions and three small time dimensions tx, ty, and tz which also gives us a triple universe of tpast, tpresent, and tfuture where the three universes are a split nanosecond apart. this is caused by the stuff inside of the space occupied by the fields.
-
Just an update for this old post: I created a YouTube video and Facebook page with my latest ideas. Just search for "Cosmic Compression".
Cosmic Compression and Cosmic Expansion - the warping of space and time throughout the universe - may play a much more significant role than we have realized, changing our understanding of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Big Bang.
-
The effects of gravity are very perplexing.
LIGO experiment, in a way kinda sorta, proves that gravity waves are propagated at the speed of light. There's two instruments that have agreed one instance as observed. That's not a lot of evidence, but it's the most there is and its what we have to work with, at present.
The Michelson–Morley experiment attempted to prove there's an aether quality of empty space. If there is such a quality, it's currently beyond our ability to detect it, so it's more or less agreed, negative on the aether.
Comment: Every MMX done in gas-mode has detected the aetherwind, & hencely aether.
General relativity predicts gravity has a cone shape distortion on space and time, but the distortion is in dilation of time and strength in the field of gravity.
Because time and gravity are coupled tightly together, it tends to make one (me) wonder if they're not the two different aspects of the same force. Einstein's General Reactivity does a good job tying it together, so we may better understand, it still doesn't seem to be the complete picture.
When you consider that both time and gravity are the only aspects of reality that function unary in fashions... Maybe anti-gravity is the only way to go back in time.
Comment: There is no such thing as time, hencely u cant go back in time. Or, there is such a thing as time, it is the present moment, & it is universal. Aetherists know that Einstein's silly time dilation is actually ticking dilation, there is no such thing as time, but the ticking of clocks is affected by the aetherwind.
-
Just an update for this old post: I created a YouTube video and Facebook page with my latest ideas. Just search for "Cosmic Compression".
Cosmic Compression and Cosmic Expansion - the warping of space and time throughout the universe - may play a much more significant role than we have realized, changing our understanding of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Big Bang.
LIGO say that a GW stretches or compresses space, & stretches or compresses photons, but doesnt stretch or compress a solid object (eg LIGO's laser) -- & this is why they are able to see a fringeshift when a GW passes.
If a GW doesnt affect a solid objects size then we can say that an object will not change size or be seen to change size when placed near a massive object.
GR says that a massive object dilates space in a radial direction to-from the object, but apparently GR does not say that an object is compressed in that-there radial direction.
But i aint a scientist, & i dont know much about SR & GR (except that SR & GR are total krapp)(and LIGO is krapp).
Aetherists know that spacetime does not exist, hencely a bending or compression etc of spacetime cant happen. Your theory involves a compression of spacetime (ie in addition to any bending). So somehow u need to introduce a postulate or two re why a compression affects the size of an object -- ie pointing out where SR & GR & LIGO are wrong when they say that the size of an object is not affected.