Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: DLRRob on 01/06/2016 23:40:57
-
Hello all.
Below is my second group of ideas which I have finally got round to writing out and I was hoping you could help me in considering further ideas. I would appreciate any pointers that you could pass on to a non-trained mind like mine.
Thank you in advance for your help. Sorry if I have made any grammatical mistakes and also that I will be off on holiday tomorrow and may not be able to reply for a week.
Gravitational force and Matter
Introduction
We have evolved to survive in three dimensions and base our ideas on how objects move on a day today basis with regard to gravitational forces.
Gravity
Matter and anti-matter can be considered as both mass and energy which is bonded together down to a sub-atomic level.
Einstein had considered that the force of gravity was comparable to acceleration. However if we consider acceleration which comes in units of distance against time squared and that gravity can warp spacetime then should we not then consider that gravitational force is connected to a change in the rate of time with distance becoming relative to the strength of the gravitational force when those measurements are being taken? Record how long in time that light takes to travel over a kilometre of space in orbit around the Earth and then a kilometre on the Earth and you find that time moves slower (light appears to travel less in the same time on the Earth).
When a body moves through a gravitation field it experiences a slowing time effect which would be greater on the nearer side of the objects causing the smaller body to slightly spin (subject to the gravitational laws and their impact on the rate of time). Also that large masses will collect matter by slowing surrounding matter, collecting and combining it.
If I consider now why objects come together or have their direction changed when influenced by this force I have come up with the following scenarios.
In the case of a seeming stationery ball being dropped by a man onto the Earth then you still need to consider that the air between the objects is moving within this effect of gravity and also that we are moving through space (comprising of an interstellar medium and radiation field) with matter and time flowing quickest where the gravitational strength or density is weakest and dragging the surrounding matter behind it as the quickest matter’s attractively charged particles drag its neighbour’s particles along with the ball gaining momentum as it falls. Like a long lolly pop stick (to demonstrate the quickest area of space) in honey and you then drop two objects onto the surface, one of either side of the stick, and then pull the stick out. The two object will be dragged together as long as you are pulling the stick.
Or with a beam of light that keeps changing its refracting index when getting closer into the gravitational field of a massive object as it continues through space (the increasing density of the interstellar medium and radiation fields affected by the massive object, although tiny, causes its charged particles to interact with the light’s charged particles much like light refracting when light changes speed as it passes from air then through glass). Through each changing level of gravitational strength or density making it appear to bend or refract further if observed from an outside source. If greatly influenced by this force then the course of light is changed to where it can give a halo effect (later light images of the original light image) or a second copy image.
Pressure within liquid and solid matter on Earth is increased as you go towards the centre of an object due the increasing slowing effect where the deeper matter speed is slowed or paused to remain at that depth while further matter is dragged down by the fundamental forces until it balances out these forces individually as an atom and in mass.
Gravity is or has been considered to be the weakest of the fundamental forces but are we getting its strength confused as we measure an effect of gravity to make objects travel towards each other rather than by considering the mass slowing effect of a greater number of charged particle interactions (which gathers other local matter that does not have enough energy to escape). It is therefore a mass effect of the other three fundamental forces.
Could these interactions be countered by a superconductor, at low temperature, exhibiting a magnetic field and quantum locking the particles from each other? Would it affect the rate of time (quickening) inside the quantum locked area?
The Big Bang
Source matter from a flat (almost two) dimensional source explodes as built up energy, together with the initial source matter, meld with a chain reaction occurring as it becomes the three dimensions that we are used to. This energy from within the source matter may have occurred due to imperfections as it was formed and differing densities within this matter causing energy interactions at the atomic level. The resulting matter expanded into our three dimensions as the newly energised particles take on an electromagnetic charge causing atoms and sub atomic particles to repel against each other. Not all particles took on a charge and these remained neutral. Some particles took on energy to become oppositely charged (positron) but due to their similar charge and much lower mass to the proton in the nucleolus tend to have been repelled from making complex atoms.
During this initial “big bang” phase there are fragments of the source matter that have not melded with the initial energy but still breaking away in the explosion, dragging and collecting the dust and gas that has expanded into three dimensional matter. These bodies momentum velocity is dependent on its mass as they fly through the expanding space. Some smaller areas of source matter continue to expand in secondary explosions during the very early hot and energetic phase resulting in additional speed of expansion and tearing and stretching of spacetime. There was only enough energy at this early stage to instantly expand the smaller splinters of this source matter into our three dimensional matter otherwise there would be seen greater variations in the CMB temperature picture profile.
During the early stage either splinters, or clusters of splinters of the source matter will begin to fall into orbit around larger splinters dragging with them the materials of gas and dust and these would go on to form our galaxies of stars and planets. Our uniform spiral speed of the galaxy is controlled not just directly by the central gravitational force but by the gravitational force of the orbiting splinters, stirring the newly formed three dimensional matter (like a spoon stirring tea in a teacup), which themselves are caught in the gravity of the larger central mass of source matter.
Black holes
These are either created when the explosive energy of massive stars can no longer balance it’s explosive energy against its own gravitational force and following a supernova (in which much of its remaining energy is used) is pulled inwards towards its centre which then rips the imploding matter apart to become almost flat dimensional matter like the source matter from the big bang, or an unexpanded remnant of source matter from the original Big Bang.
If caught in the black hole’s gravitational pull then the near side experiences a drag as spacetime slows and continues to slow the nearer side subject to its total mass and the atomic forces that bond the entire object together. As the object gets nearer still then the rate of time difference will increase to a level where the fundamental forces that bond and hold the object together will fail. At this point the atoms are being ripped off the main object and then pulled further apart into their sub-atomic particles with surrounding space acting like a conveyer belt, ever moving these particles along, as the black hole course moves relatively with the fallen object’s course. No light can escape at this point and this is the event horizon. This could be considered as a kind of cosmic mechanical sander ripping a three dimensional object apart, one layer at a time and depositing it in an ordered fashion onto a conveyer belt of space which then wraps itself over a previous belt. However as the black hole’s course through the universe means that it will come into collisions with matter traveling from various directions, speeds and also multiple collisions at the same time it will twist this conveyer belt making a kink or imperfections in the smoothness as it layers the stretched matter and space. Further inside the black hole the core is moving less in comparison to the rate of time with particles no longer able to be split further. Energy is still being produced by the interactions of the fundamental forces however the slow and almost stopped rate of time makes noticeable energy loss from the black hole to be extremely low.
Dark Energy
This is the energy which is necessary to explain the accelerating expansion by which the initial heat energy of the big bang together with the energy from matter within our three dimensional universe including stars going supernova and the creation of black holes, matter being swallowed by black holes, interactions between black holes gravitational forces pulling and stretching space, anti-matter interactions with matter, then goes on to interact with the surface of splinters of the source matter from the big bang, which are themselves spread throughout the universe, encouraging them to fizz and expand as this energy is transferred to its sub atomic particles and making them exhibit their newly energised electromagnetic forces which in turn force the universe to expand. This interaction of energy causes the surface matter to fizz outwards but is then drawn back into itself together with space diluting the density and the gravity strength in certain areas or spots of the source matter. It is by these spots that energy and the newer three dimensional matter can escape should the dilution of the initial matter be great enough. Eventually and after a significant amount of time smaller splinters of the remaining source matter may become so diluted and have absorbed enough energy where they disintegrate into three dimensional space.
My question here is how long are we going to be in an accelerating expansion phase in the universe and will this be while there are still stars burning and CMB energy?
Planetary orbits
When I consider how the planets orbit the sun and on their own axis I note that almost all of them have a relationship between their orbit around the sun and their orbit on their axis. Gravity slowing the near side to the sun and acting like a slight friction. This effect then gives it a spin on its own axis in relation to the direction of the orbit around the sun, like a child’s roundabout being spun by the adult who each time it comes round they grab the wheel and they regulate the speed of its rotation. However they continue to spin the wheel in one direction only. In the event where a planet is spinning on its own axis counter to this natural spin then the time slowing effect will gradually slow the current direction of spin until it stops and changes direction to spins correctly with relation to its orbit around the sun subject to the atmosphere, amount of molten core, planetary material and outside incidents.
-
Hello all.
Before I start I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome you to the forum! :)
Below is my second group of ideas which I have finally got round to writing out and I was hoping you could help me in considering further ideas. I would appreciate any pointers that you could pass on to a non-trained mind like mine.
When someone such as yourself who tells us that (1) he has a non-trained mind and (2) is asking for help on his ideas in physics I suggest that they first try to obtain a solid understanding of the basics in physics before. Without doing that it can be difficult to impossible to give a response. A solid understanding of the basics will give you a command of the language of physics in which to frame your question. To demonstrate why I make such a suggestion I’ll comment on some of what you wrote.
Matter and anti-matter can be considered as both mass and energy which is bonded together down to a sub-atomic level.
This statement is incorrect. The term “matter” is not a well-defined term in physics. We use the term to refer to the “stuff” of the universe. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
Thus, matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept in physics today. Matter is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable physical objects.
While the term “matter” is not well-defined the terms “mass” and “energy” are. All matter has mass and since all matter has mass it also has and associated energy E = mc2. Your assertion that matter “considered as both mass and energy which is bonded together down to a sub-atomic level” is incorrect due to the fact that it’s contrary to the meaning of the terms mass and energy. I can’t say why you used the term “bounded” but I can guess that you might have an incorrect understanding of what energy is. To learn precisely what physicists mean when they use the term “energy” please read:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/cm/what_is_energy.htm
Simply put, energy is a bookkeeping system. That means that energy is a quantity that is conserved as a conservative system evolves. For example: Let r = (x, y, z) be the location of a particle having mass m. Let the particle be subject to a force which can be represented in terms of a function V(r) as F = -grad V. Define K = mv2. Then it can be shown that the sum K + V is a constant of motion. The quantity defined as E = K + V is called the energy of the particle. The quantity K is called the kinetic energy and V is called the potential energy. For E to remain constant then it’s necessary for one term to increase when the other decreases and vice versa. Kinetic energy and potential energy are said to be “forms” of energy. There are many other forms of energy such as electromagnetic energy. This is precisely what I meant when I said that energy is a bookkeeping system.
Einstein had considered that the force of gravity was comparable to acceleration.
When you learn the language of physics you’ll learn that the correct way to say this is to say that a uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference. The more general way to phrase that is a gravitational field is locally equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference. When you phrase it the way you just did a physicist, or someone versed in the language of physics, cannot be certain that what you mean is the same as what he may think that it means.
However if we consider acceleration which comes in units of distance against time squared ..
Here again you’ve chosen to phrase this in a way that is different than stated in the language of physics. We say that the units of acceleration are meters per second-squared. Your use of the term “against” is very awkward. It makes one pause to think about whether you and I have the same thing in mind.
…and that gravity can warp spacetime then should we not then consider that gravitational force is connected to a change in the rate of time with distance becoming relative to the strength of the gravitational force when those measurements are being taken?
This is a common misunderstanding about general relativity. It’s incorrect to say that gravity can warp spacetime. First off the appropriate term is “curve” not warp. The second thing to keep in mind is that only when there are gradients in the gravitational field is spacetime curved. Third, when there are such gradients present then “spacetime curvature” is merely the modern mathematical language for spacetime curvature. So gravitational tidal forces does not cause spacetime curvature, it is spacetime curvature. The rest is too convoluted for me to make any sense of.
The rest of your ideas have the same kind of errors in them. For that reason I’ll leave it at what I’ve just said and hope you choose to go back and learn physics from the beginning. I know that most people don’t want to do that because they want to jump right into theorizing but that’s why they never get anywhere. They don’t know the meaning of the ideas that they’re dealing with. Good luck.
-
Thank you for your reply.
I will read the link you gave.
Cheers.