Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: alan hess on 27/02/2014 06:32:00
-
Gen. Relativity is wrong. As proof of this after the Big Bang the first force to separate was gravity. The universe didn’t cool enough for atoms to form for 380,000 years, if GR was correct gravity would have formed a big dimple in space during that time when atoms formed they would have moved toward the center of this dimple. This didn’t happen atoms spread out and formed everywhere creating galaxies throughout space.
GR is great for math in certain situations but thinking that spaces dimpled at sources of gravity is incorrect. In the early universe photons traveled throughout the universe, and gravitons travel with them, the graviton has a spin of 2 photon have a spin of 1 so they can travel together freely, both travel at the speed of light. So the reason that photons bend around gravity sources is the graviton travels with them and gravitons are affected by gravity so photons are affected by gravity. This is also the reason why light can’t escape from a black hole. Not curving around dimples in space.
-
I don't think "gravitons" are proven particles. I think what your talking about is gravitational waves right? basically the same thing. But If the universe was entirely made up of photons in the time period your talking about were did the gravitons/gravity wave come from? surly your not suggesting that photons have gravity right? did the big bang make these gravity wave along with photons? My theory correlates to yours in that respect. I'm vastly interested in these sort of things.
-
Most very say the 4 forces were one in the beginning of the universe, as the universe cooled gravity separated out 1st so it was in existence from the very beginning. As it cooled more the strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic spectrum separated out. Now you have photon photon annihilation creating electrons, and the electron electron annihilation creating photons. Somewhere during this time quarks are being created and annihilated, but it is too hot for protons to exist so there is no combination of quarks for 380,000 years then protons form and capture the electrons to create atoms. There are many theories covering these time frames also they have run computer models based on the data to see how closely it creates the universe of today given the facts we know. I find it funny that according to general relativity gravity creates a dimple in space if this is so with 380,000 years for gravity to have possession of the universe it should've created one huge dimple at the center of the explosion that was the Big Bang. This didn't happen gravity spread out throughout the universe and created galaxies everywhere cosmic microwave background shows that the universe was very smooth it does not show any heavy deposits of gravity so therefore general relativity must be wrong gravity waves must be wrong and something else must control gravity throughout the universe I believe that that substance is photons I believe graviton travels with the photon and maintains balance throughout the universe otherwise all suns would convert mass to energy increaseing the gravity in the center of the sun which would cause unstable reactions and/or collapse photons and radiation which is photons are the only thing to leave the center of the sun. If gravity waves existed we should be able to detect them as far as I know no gravity wave has ever been detected, but light(photons) leaves everyday.
-
The force of gravity, on earth, is about 9.8 meters per second per second of outward acceleration. Outward from a point is the motion of big bang then and is still the force we measure today. Gravity must have been a repulsive force in the beginning, not a dimple, just like the outward force we measure today. The focal point we think of as big bang set the motion for our visible universe, outward from a point, the only direction energy knows then and now. I think it is a trick of nature making us receivers so that we always see energy backwards as an inward motion.
-
I would disagree gravity is an attractive force not a repulsive force. Quarks were created in the beginning of the universe, there are 6 types of quarks 2 make up the atom the up quark and the down quark they create protons and neutrons a proton is 2 up quarks and one down quark. A neutron is 2 down quarks and one up quark, which will deteriorate into a proton. There are 4 other quarks charm, strange, top, and bottom these do not appear to be used in the atom I feel that some combination of them makes dark matter which deteriorates over time into dark energy which is the repulsive force. It has been noted that in the beginning of the universe dark matter was a larger amount and dark energy the smaller amount over time this is changed now dark energy is larger than dark matter I believe that given more time dark energy will increase and dark matter will decrease even more.
-
I think the big bang was huge explosion, and the singularity contained everything in the universe. that singularity was an area of super density and high pressure. when it exploded it flung everything outward creating a "dimple" of low pressure in the middle , this caused matter to be sucked in to this "dimple"
It's like when you explode an H-bomb, first there is a huge explosion, then things are sucked backward do to the area of low pressure where the bomb exploded.
-
Kinda sorry, but I need to correct you this is in the vacuum of space there is no low-pressure when you have an explosive in atmosphere the air is pushed away and then it wants to suck back into the hole that was left. It's just like lightning, lightning pushes the air away and then the thunder is the air coming back into the cavity created by lightning Like a big slap. If there were any voids or high density areas cosmic microwave background would show it. It would also show a center point for the explosion where the Big Bang started, this is not the case there is no defined center.
-
Exactly, How do you explain the fact that there is no hole were the explosion took place?
-
Exactly. Nobody can explain this. There are several theories alL of them fall apart at some point. The cosmic microwave background shows no source for this explosion. It just basically looks like the material was just there no major holes or lumps.
-
Maybe the universe is like a big ring, but we cant see the edges of this ring because of were we stand in the universe, the hole/halo. Imagine this, compair the solar system to the big bang, the middle (were the sun is) is were the big bang took place and the asteroid belt of our solar system is like were we are, and all matter too.
this halo is rapidly expanding outward. and as it does so, thing get spread out farther away from each other
-
I have to disagree with you, because the microwave background shows that it is not a ring. They equated it to be similar to a balloon. Everything is expanding away from everything else. At the same rate of speed. There is no Centerpoint there is no lower density of material or higher density of material. The CMB shows an extreme smoothness to the universe. Since the beginning of time.
-
No place in space can be pointed to and say this is the Big Bang start point and this is the spread out debris. The most interesting era of time was the inflation era, when the universe grew faster than the speed of light. How is this possible, my theory is the graviton was separated from the photon, which allowed things to spread faster than the speed of light.
-
Ok, I see what you mean, the universe is smooth and there is no "dimple" in space and nobody really knows why. Somewhere along the lines Gravitons influenced why this is so. You mentioned spin, light with a spin of 1 (2pi) and gravitons with the spin of 2 (1pi). electrons are made up of 2 photons colliding and thus have a spin of 1/2 (4pi) which is why it has gravity? I also read that when electrons are annihilated photons are made. When scientists collided 2 electrons in a particle collider they got photons out. So then it made mathematical sense that photons colliding would produce electrons.
But Here is were things get weird, In superconductors electrons are traveling in "cooper pairs" and are made up of 2 electrons entangled, and have a spin of 0 and 1 at the same time, or something weird like that. When electrons pair up and get a spin of 1 they act a bit more like light (a wave) meaning that gravitons will travel with the cooper pairs (a lot like light). But when the electron pair gets to be in a state of 0 spin (infinite rotational basis) it behaves more like a particle or like an atom like helium or like the higgs boson which also has a spin of zero. the cooper pair can switch between the 2 simultaneously giving it a wave particle duality.
What I'm interested in is the electron pair's ability to obtain a spin of 0 "or" 1 what if the gravitons are attracted to an electron pair with a spin of one, but the gravitons behave in a different way when the electrons have a spin of zero.
I think that the curvature of space is induced when gravitons bend, when light bends around massive objects, it bends the graviton thus curving space, but you don't need a massive object to bend a cooper pair, you simply need to spin it in a ring containing cooper pairs (spinning superconductor) But to get the electron phonon interaction to be at resonance to effect the graviton then you have to create something of the order of 20,000 RPM this corresponds with the phonon resonance frequency which is around 20,000 hz.
It's like tuning the resonant sound frequency to a wine glass inorder to vibrate it intently enough to cause the glass to break, It's a very similar principle to sound resonance except in the case of gravitons, are interacting with phonons which act a bit like sound in a lot of ways. Am I right to hypothesize this:?
-
Ok, I see what you mean, the universe is smooth and there is no "dimple" in space and nobody really knows why.
Why is gravity noted as a well, attractive, if this is not a dimple in space/time. Gravity is an outward measure in time of a inward motion in space, opposites yet the same, as seen by all observers.
-
For mathematical purposes the equations work. They don't work for the beginning of the universe and there are other places that things don't work, but for general figuring the equations work. I am not faulting the equations or the math. I am saying that in physical reality, that the graviton travels with the photon, which is why the photon bends going around a gravity mass. That the photon traveling by itself would be unaffected by gravity.
-
Ok Let's say that the graviton does travel with photons, how can you prove it? how can you test it in the lab? How can you manipulate the graviton most of all. How does this effect a superconductor? which apparently effects the graviton in some odd way, according to the Eugene podklenov experiments the graviton is manipulated (eledgidly) physically/quantum-physically speaking HOW do the podklenov experiments effect the graviton? which is something you said in another post relating to this one.
-
The graviton is the exchange particles of gravity they are exchanged between the earth and all objects above the spinning superconductor blocks this will due to the fact that all motion inside the atoms is slowed down to almost nothing. Then you rotate that it creates a barrier. This can also be accomplished by a rotating electron field, which will also block gravitons. The rest of the statement is that the graviton travels with the photon when the photon hits an object it is either absorbed or reflected when it is absorbed the graviton is absorbed with it. Shining a laser through a superconductor electric field separates the gravitons from the electrons and the gravitons do strange things. Unfortunately, this probably controls the only experimental process available get a superconductor plate in a darkened room spin it, and measure the weight of the object. Now let light in and see if the weight changes. Knowledge of the graviton will come after were able to study it, and then there will be answers
-
Ok alan hess
I think I get this, sort of. The way I see it, gravity is a field like a magnetic field (which is made up of imaginary particles called gravitons, much like photons are imaginary particles that make up light) and when objects get into a gravitational field they absorb some gravity, sort of like when you bring iron near a magnet without touching the magnet, the iron absorbs some of that magnetism and the iron is temporarily magnetized until the magnet is moved away. That is not the case with superconductors, because superconductors can block magnetic fields by bending the magnetic field around the superconductor.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb5%2FEfektMeisnera.svg%2F220px-EfektMeisnera.svg.png&hash=8f0484a9924f675bbc7106a46b14a216)
When you spin a superconductor you activate a similar property of superconductivity in which gravity is bent around the superconductor. the way that works is
The electromagnetic interaction, mediated by the constant exchange of photons from one charged object to another. The magnetic field is really just a classical approximation to the photon-exchange. In a moving reference frame, a magnetic field appears instead as a combination of a magnetic field and an electric field, so electric and magnetic fields are made of the same "stuff" (photons).
so both electric and magnetic fields are the result of light interacting with electrons and when you spin a field of either or both, you increase the photon-exchange reference frame time or reduce it. and if you do that, (according to you gravitons travel with light) you increase or decrease light/gravity interaction with the field and thus the object. can get more or less heavy because of this effect. Now I see why light is so important to this equation. but you see turning off the lights wont effect anything, it doesn't work like that.
I have an Idea, to improve the experiment again. you need to get the object electrically charged and magnetically charged, it's all about the electron-photon interaction imagine this.
First we take a superconductor pancake coil and lock it in persistent mode then charge it to it's max critical current in-order to make a "super magnet"
then you need to statically charge the superconductor, with something like a van de graff generator, the coil will give the superconductor more surface area to collect charge and the conductivity of the superconductor will allow for a large charge density. then you spin it! to get a maximum effect.
you see it's like layers of defense against the graviton the light interaction will be lessened greatly by the magnetic field in motion and by the time it gets to the electric field the graviton wants to be reflected instead of being absorbed thus blocking the graviton.
It probably wouldnt hurt to have a polished mirror shell around the spinning superconductor either just for added measures.
-
Hi, you get what I've been saying, it's not so much that the experiments have been wrong, it's more that they have not eliminated all the variables from their experiments. The mirrored ball is a clever idea to keep photons out of the experiment I also like the extra electrons that you want to throw in because it takes a lot of electrons to create a barrier. That's where the superconductor actually comes in handy because they're made of lead, which is very dense. The funny thing about the electrons is they have an affinity for photons and should react as a barrier.
-
Gen. Relativity is wrong.
I disagree. There has never been an observation which contradicts GR.
As proof of this after the Big Bang the first force to separate was gravity. The universe didn’t cool enough for atoms to form for 380,000 years, if GR was correct gravity would have formed a big dimple in space ...
Unless you define the term "big dimple in space" its meaningless. Until/unless you define it I'm going to assume that you're speaking of a gravitational extremal. If you're liking it to spacetime curvature then you're confusing spacetime curvature with the gravitational force. Contrary to what you may think they are not the same thing.
...during that time when atoms formed they would have moved toward the center of this dimple.
Regardless of what a "big dimple" is, there's no basis for such an assumption.
This didn’t happen atoms spread out and formed everywhere creating galaxies throughout space.
So what? You haven't show there to be a contradiction anywhere.
GR is great for math in certain situations but thinking that spaces dimpled at sources of gravity is incorrect.
You're the one who came up with this "dimple" idea. Not Einstein.
GR is alive and well.
-
fromWikipedia
General relativity, or the general theory of relativity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916[1] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are preGeneral relativity, or the general theory of relativity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916[1]
Einstein's theory has important astrophysical implications. For example, it implies the existence of black holes—regions of space in which space and time are distorted in such a way that nothing, not even light, can escape. General relativity predicts that the path of light is bent in a gravitational field; light passing a massive body is deflected towards that body.
In my post I am not finding fault with Einstein’s equations. General relativity describes the mathematical formulation of this universe very well. I realize that they have withstood every test, the point of my post is that different things can have the same affect. Einstein took all observable facts and made the mathematical theories to fit. My point is, all material in this universe was created in less than a second after the Big Bang, gravity had separated out by this time, and was the strongest force in the universe. It was 380,000 years before the universe was cool enough for the rest of forces to separate. At this time atoms as we know them today were formed, also during this time If space-time was curved all matter should have gone to the center of this distortion, that didn’t happen matter spread out throughout the universe, as did gravity.
The graviton travels with the photon, due to the fact that the graviton is affected by gravity, this is why light bends near a strong gravitational fields, not a curvature of space time.
-
The graviton travels with the photon, due to the fact that the graviton is affected by gravity, this is why light bends near a strong gravitational fields, not a curvature of space time.
The trajectories of photons and gravitons also bend in regions of spacetime which are curved.
-
I disagree with that statement, if the graviton did not travel with the photon. It would be unaffected by a gravity field, and travel straight. As I said different things can have the same affect it gives the appearance of a curve space when the photon bends in a gravity field.
-
I disagree with that statement, if the graviton did not travel with the photon. It would be unaffected by a gravity field, and travel straight. As I said different things can have the same affect it gives the appearance of a curve space when the photon bends in a gravity field.
First off, the photon does move with the speed of light so there's no cause to consider "if" statements like that.
"It would be unaffected by a gravity field, and travel straight." - No particle has that ability, none. Not in the presence of a gravitational field.
"As I said different things can have the same affect it gives the appearance of a curve space when the photon bends in a gravity field." - Such as?
BTW - Nothing can give the "appearance" of a curved spacetime.
-
PMB Dear Sir
Please explain to me inflationary era. Gravity has separated out, the universe is cooling, and all matter has been created. In curved space, and 380,000 years to work with matter should have collected, not spread across the universe.
-
Pmb, the appearance of curved space time is a well known fact,, called gravitational lensing,, and that is (ONLY) done through the appearance of curved spacetime around any steller object of matter and mass, and due to it's amount of spacetime displacement.
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html (http://astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
A gravitational lens refers to a distribution of plates (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant source (a background galaxy) and an observer, that is capable of bending (lensing) the light from the source, as it travels towards the observer. This effect is known as gravitational lensing and is one of the predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.
*******************************
Pmb's you quoted this: "Meaningless. There’s no such thing as “displacing spacetime.”
*******************************
According to you,, You cannot distort / displace spacetime. So we need to toss out Einsteins General Relavity? Because if spacetime cannot distort/displace, there would be no curvature around the planets, stars,moons. I can see where you would think that. After all, it would mean you dont understand General Relativity.
Alan, Pmb not once,, on any thread I have read,, has stated his (knowledge) other than he states he is a Physicist with over 30 years of experience. I don't foresee his/him every standing behind his statements with either , fact, theory or hypothesis. He will ever, start calling person names however, when you ask him to explain anything he says. LOL,,
-
According to you,, You cannot distort / displace spacetime. So we need to toss out Einsteins General Relavity? Because if spacetime cannot distort/displace, there would be no curvature around the planets, stars,moons. I can see where you would think that. After all, it would mean you dont understand General Relativity.
I think the problem was your use of unusual terminology - talking of 'displacement' of space-time instead of distortion or curvature is always likely to cause confusion. If you restrict yourself to conventional terminology (or explain precisely what you mean by any unusual terminology), your meaning will be clearer. Physics explicitly uses very specific terminology for this reason. Sloppy use of terminology suggests unfamiliarity with the subject.
-
DanielB’s nonsense above is one of the reasons why I'm won’t correspond with him. I.e. he’s incapable of understanding what people write. In this case he constantly twists my words. For example, he wrote
Pmb, the appearance of curved space time is a well known fact,,
This is the worst kind of nonsense that appears in these forums. It’s known as a straw man and is defined as follows. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a common type of argument is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument, ("knock down a straw man,") instead of the original proposition.
In this context he is implying that I don’t know that spacetime exists. I never said that of course. The term “appearance” means “a way of looking that is not true or real”. Spacetime curvature IS real. When he posted his claim about curvature being an appearance it was he who was in error because it means that spacetime curvature is not real and that’s wrong.
DanielB claimed that something “gave the appearance” of curvature. From his last response it now seems clear that he doesn’t know what word “appearance” means. I guess that his problem is Daniel’s problem is his understanding of English.
Moving on. When he made the claim
...curved space time is a well known fact,, called gravitational lensing,...
it demonstrates his poor understanding of GR. I.e. when he said "...called gravitational lensing," he was implying that spacetime curvature and gravitational lensing are one in the same thing, and they are not. Spacetime curvature is merely the relativistic term for tidal gradients. Gravitational lensing is the phenomena of light being deflected by the sun and forming an image which is an enlarged version of the original
Then he went on and misused GR terminology. E.g. he claims
...and that is (ONLY) done through the appearance of curved spacetime around any steller object of matter and mass, and due to it's amount of spacetime displacement.
He incorrectly used the term "spacetime displacement" to be synonymous with "spacetime curvature" when in fact they are very different terms. Spacetime displacement is what one would call the end result of tracing out a displacing a point in spacetime. E.g. During the time interval dt that it took to write the term "word," my computer underwent a displacement in spacetime from (t, x, y, z) => (t + dt, x, y, z) (x,y,z didn't change because my computer remain fixed in space during that time period).
(t, x, y, z) => (t + dt, x, y, z) is an example of a spacetime displacement. As anyone can see, this is not the same thing.
Then you posted this nonsense/lie
According to you,, You cannot distort / displace spacetime.
So again, either he’s unable understand/grasp what he’s writing or he’s lying.
This led you to the most ignorant comment I've seen him make to date, i.e. he wrote
[quote author = DanielB]
So we need to toss out Einsteins General Relavity?
[/quote]
I never made such statement and never would either. This is demonstrated by the fact that I proof read the original versikon of Exploring Spacetime, which is the text used at MIT in one of their courses on relativity.
I've written some tutorials on GR at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/gr.htm
See also "Einstein's gravitational field" by me at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0204044
Now he’s posting childish things such as
Alan, Pmb not once,, on any thread I have read,, has stated his (knowledge)
That’s right. Not to your knowledge. However I’ve been posting in this forum for many years and everyone in this forum knows such a thing to be false. If you wanted to know about my knowledge then all you had to do was ask. My website at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ and contains descriptions that I created of various things that I’ve had to explain to people here.
I also proof read the text Exploring Black Holes by Taylor and Wheeler. The first version was published in 2000. I've been proof reading the second version this past year or so too. That book is online at at http://www.eftaylor.com/comments/
Then you go on with more childish nonsense like
I don't foresee his/him every standing behind his statements with either , fact, theory or hypothesis.
This is nonsense. Everyone here knows my reputation and they ALL know that's exactly what I do, i.e. I do post fact, theory, etc. Even the moderators know that. If someone wanted me to explain something, all they have to do is ask.
He will ever, start calling person names however, when you ask him to explain anything he says
This is a lie and is one of the things that make you a troller. DanielB doesn’t understand the difference between name calling and using terms which are descriptive to referring to comments he makes.
-
Well, I'd like to get down to the purpose of my post, my original intent was to prove the 4 forces are one. It has been proven that 3 of the forces are the same at higher temperatures, I believe that the photon and gravitons travel together. The photon has a spin of one, the graviton has a spin of 2. They both are massless particles capable of traveling at the speed of light. If you have any insight on this subject I would like to hear it, if you would like to know how I came to this conclusion. I'll gladly tell you. Honestly, I started this relativity thread just to catch attention, and get answers.
-
I think that the curvature of space is induced when gravitons bend, when light bends around massive objects, it bends the graviton thus curving space, but you don't need a massive object to bend a cooper pair, you simply need to spin it in a ring containing cooper pairs (spinning superconductor) But to get the electron phonon interaction to be at resonance to effect the graviton then you have to create something of the order of 20,000 RPM this corresponds with the phonon resonance frequency which is around 20,000 hz.
This is VERY interesting. Have you any sources of data for the phonon frequency and the RPM? Phonons and gravity may be intimately linked. In my research I came to the conclusion that certain virtual particles were involved in graviton exchange and the phonon was involved. Cooper pairs may be a huge clue as to the mechanism of gravity.
-
Proof is kinda complex,. I have many things that together make a compelling case. One of the biggies is superconductors can't find the guys name at the moment, if necessary, I'll dig it up. It's something like bestmeier(sorry if i'm wrong on spelling). He past a laser through a superconductor and got what he thinks were gravity waves of high-frequency. I disagree. I think that the graviton is separating out from the electromagnetic spectrum at these extremely low temperatures. There are other experiments along the same line with similar results. I don't believe that passing a laser through a superconductor is going to give a gravity wave result. Another big one that I have is the sun, a nuclear reaction is going on in the center of the sun, it is a finely balanced reaction. Too much gravity, too little gravity, too much hydrogen, or too little hydrogen, and the reaction would go out. Hydrogen is being fused into helium, this causes a loss of mass. If you have a loss of mass gravity would go up, this isn't happening so something is balancing out this problem. The only thing that leaves the center of the sun is radiation, photons, and neutrinos. Technically radiation are extremely reactive photon so therefore, photons or neutrinos are the only thing to leave the center of the sun. Mass ejection from the surface of the sun would not solve this problem besides the mass would be heavier. If it was taking away the extra gravity, not so. So back to the photons. It takes them years to get to the surface of the sun to be released. They are exchanged as one photon hits an atom it is absorbed and released till it hits the next atom, all the way to the surface. When these photons are released, then we'll hit objects. For example, the earth where they will be absorbed or reflected. The earth will also release photons as heat, which keeps everything in balance.
-
If you have a loss of mass gravity would go up, this isn't happening so something is balancing out this problem.
I really need to ask you what exactly you mean by this. It really doesn't add up.
-
....
Member Pmb has probably forgotten more than you know about physics. The reason he is irritated is that rather than studying what has gone before properly you simply pick your wisdom from popular culture. Apologies if I am doing you a disservice but that is how it appears to me.
-
Okay, I am slightly guilty, I made this particular post to try and bring attention to my theory. I am not faulting general relativity. I wish you would explain why it appears like I am inexperienced.
What I meant by the sun is If you are converting mass to energy you are losing mass, if you're losing mass. The gravity constant would go up. If the gravity constant does not go up, something is balancing out the equation. The sun has lost approximately 7% of its mass, but that gravity has remained constant
-
Okay, I am slightly guilty, I made this particular post to try and bring attention to my theory. I am not faulting general relativity. I wish you would explain why it appears like I am inexperienced.
What I meant by the sun is If you are converting mass to energy you are losing mass, if you're losing mass. The gravity constant would go up. If the gravity constant does not go up, something is balancing out the equation. The sun has lost approximately 7% of its mass, but that gravity has remained constant
What time period are you basing the 7% loss of mass on? How did you work this out?
-
I'm pretty sure it was Cambridge Encyclopedia of the sun,Am also pretty sure that the timeframe was since his birth. If necessary I can look it up and double check.
-
I'm pretty sure it was Cambridge Encyclopedia of the sun,Am also pretty sure that the timeframe was since his birth. If necessary I can look it up and double check.
Then the question is how do we know gravity hasn't changed over that period? We don't know how the orbits of the planets have evolved over time. We have a small window of around a few thousand years to go by. Accurate records of positions of planets and stars were only started in the 16th century by Tycho Brahe. Even if the orbits have remained constant since then and the sun has lost 7% of its mass in its lifetime I think the effect on gravitation would be virtually undetectable. However, if it was the case that gravitation was unaffected that would be big news for physics. How do you propose testing it?
-
Or....Where does that 7% loss of mass place the earth with respect to the "goldilocks" zone over the lifetime of the sun? How does that square with the development of life?
-
To start looking at this we need some information.
Age of the Earth 4.54 + or - 0.05 billion years
Distance of the Earth from the sun 149,597,870,700 meters
Mass of the Earth 5.97219 × 10^24 kilograms
Age of the Sun araound 4.6 billion years
Mass of the Sun 1.9891 × 10^30 kilograms
Then calculate what the mass of the sun was originally. Take both mass values and calculate the gravity at the current Earth orbit. The difficult part would be working out what the orbit would have been at the original mass size. If the strength of gravity hasn't changed it's easy. It hasn't moved. Also a fly in the ointment is the collision event which created the moon.
-
It gets kinda complicated, the moon affects our orbit, as does the sun. The sun is getting brighter and hotter over time as it goes toward RGB. As far as Goldilocks band in 1 billion years, there will be no water left on this planet in our current orbit.
I don't remember the exact figure in kilograms, but I do remember that 100 earths worth of hydrogen, have been converted to helium. This is a pretty large volume and would have some effect. It is a finely tuned reaction as the amount of hydrogen in the center decreases gravity pushes more hydrogen in, the reaction then pushes against the gravity. This cycle goes back and forth.
It takes 10,000 years for the photon to reach the surface of the sun to be released. 3.7×10^38 protons are converted every second. This is a lot of mass energy conversion, something must be balance out the equation. With the amount of hydrogen that has been converted in the last 4 billion years, there would be an effect,
-
... I do remember that 100 earths worth of hydrogen, have been converted to helium. This is a pretty large volume and would have some effect.
Is that 100 Earths worth by volume at STP?
The sun is about 1.3 million times the volume of the Earth, so 100 Earth volumes is probably relatively insignificant...
-
Yes, I believe it was volume. While it may not sound like a lot, the sun has an inner core of burnable fuel. In the 4.6 billion years of its existence it has burned up half of it's fuel, so I would say it's quite a bit. Also, it is gaining brightness and heat, in a billion years, the earth won't have any water left.
-
Hard one to proof Alan. It's like Jeffery writes, we have no good historical observations to base the solar systems gravity on. "When the hydrogen fuel has all turned to helium, the stars begin to die and to produce a number of other different kinds: lower mass stars become giants, while those of higher mass (above roughly 8 or 9 solar masses) into supergiants. Giants then die as white dwarfs, while supergiants explode as supernovae. The whole process is commonly known as stellar evolution. Because higher mass stars use their hydrogen fuel much more quickly than lower mass stars, those of higher mass live shorter lives. The Sun has a 10 billion year main sequence lifetime (of which half is gone)." http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/star_intro.html
So how much mass has the sun lost?
"The mass of the Sun is indeed being reduced due to nuclear fusion processes in the Sun's core, which convert part of the mass into energy. (This energy is eventually radiated away in the form of light from the Sun's surface.) However, the effect on the orbits of the planets is very small and would not be measurable over any reasonable time period.
One way we can see that this must be a small effect is to look at the main fusion reactions which produce the Sun's energy, in which four hydrogen atoms are transformed into one helium atom. If you look at a periodic table, you will see that one helium atom has about 0.7% less mass than four hydrogen atoms combined -- this "missing mass" is what gets converted into energy. Therefore, at the absolute most, only 0.7% of the Sun's mass can get converted, and this takes place over the entire 10 billion year lifetime of the Sun. So it must be a very small effect. (In actuality, not all of the Sun's mass is hydrogen to start with, and only the mass in the inner core of the Sun gets hot enough to undergo fusion reactions, so we really only expect around 0.07% of the mass to get converted.)
It is also easy to directly calculate the rate at which the Sun converts mass to energy. Start with Einstein's famous formula:
E = M c2
where E is the energy produced, M is the mass that gets converted and c is the speed of light (3 x 108 meters/second). It is easy to extend this formula to find the rate at which energy is produced:
(rate at which E is produced) = (rate at which M disappears) x c2
The rate at which the Sun produces energy is equal to the rate at which it emits energy from its surface (its luminosity), which is around 3.8 x 1026 Watts -- this number can be determined from measurements of how bright the Sun appears from Earth as well as its distance from us. Plugging this into the above formula tells us that the Sun loses around 4,200,000,000 kilograms every second!
This sounds like a lot, but compared to the total mass of the Sun (2 x 1030 kilograms), it actually isn't that much. For example, let's say we want to measure the effect of this mass loss over 100 years. In that time, the Sun will have lost 1.3 x 1019 kilograms due to the fusion reactions, which is still a very tiny fraction of the Sun's total mass (6.6 x 10-12, or about 6.6 parts in a trillion!)." http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=563
-
I agree with you, it is very difficult to prove. I am not suggesting that the total gravitational factor of the sun is affecting the planetary orbits. The sun loses more mass by ejections than anything. What I am talking about is in the inner core of the sun, where fusion is taking place is an extremely balanced reaction, as fuel burns up more moves in to take it's place, if too much fuel is being burned radiation. Increases and prevents more fuel from coming in. My point is, if this gravitation increases in the center of the sun it will affect this reaction.
-
It appears like you are trying to create a post on dark matter, dark energy, and spatial expansion. Personally I disagree with some of your statements # 1 photons are created by electrons jumping to a higher orbit and falling back to a lower orbit. Depending on which orbit. They jumped to and fallback from controls your spectrum I have never heard of photons being created without electrons being involved as far as gaps controlling wave and frequency # 1 a laser disproves that it is a coherent beam of light.# 2, a single photon through the double slit experiment has a wave and a particle property.
-
Almost anything you can say on mass and energy is possible and not necessarily provable. On the subject of photons and gaps a photon is created one and electron jumps from a lower orbit to a higher orbit and then falls back to its proper orbit the orbit. It jumps to controls the color that it will have. One single photon can go through the double slit experiment in possess the properties of a particle and a wave. There will be no gaps in one photon. In the very early universe photons collided and formed electrons, electrons and positrons collided and formed photons, India very early universe. This is mostly radiation till things cooled. I see no basis for circles and stuff, but as I said, it's hard to prove one way or the other. As far as I know about the only experimental theater is to use a computer program your start parameters and let the program go to see how the universe turns out,(doesn't look like what we have?). If it doesn't, it's probably wrong.
-
You hit on so many concepts, it's hard to answer them all. Electrons go around the atom in circles, these are called orbits. 90% of the atom is empty space, in a black hole. Matter is so dense it collapses these empty space areas. As far as flavors are concerned whatever discovers things gets to name them. Some of these things are kind of silly, but we didn't name them. My post is related to the 4 forces I am trying to gravity in, my statement is the graviton travels with the photon, which is why the photon is affected by gravity.
-
F=m1m2/r^2 for gravity, F= q1q2 /r^2 for electromagnetic force. m1=q1, m2=q2.
The attraction force between mass 1 and mass 2 as we called gravity is nothing but the four forces net sum:
1. all positive charges in mass 1 attract all negative charges in mass 2.
2. all positive charges in mass 2 attract all negative charges in mass 1.
3. all positive charges in mass 1 repell all postive charges in mass 2.
4. all negative charges in mass 1 repell all negative charges in mass 2.
Because my math sucks, I can't prove it yet. But I prove my weed is good.
-
Of your 4 statements these are proven rules of magnetism like charges repel opposite charges attract, gravity attracts all
-
In saying that the graviton travels with photon, there is no interaction just for example, the photon travels. It has no interaction with anything unless it hits something, the same with the graviton unless it hits something is neither absorbed were repelled. When a laser is passed through a superconductor there is graviton activity, say the photon is releasing the graviton in the low temperatures.
-
The force carrier of gravity is the boson(graviton), which to date has never been detected
-
Gravity is what attracts particles to each other for example Suns and planets attract each other. The statement on lasers and superconductors is as follows. I think that at extremely low temperatures. The graviton will separate from the photon, which is displayed by passing a laser through a superconductor. Current theory is that this is detecting gravity waves I disagree. In the very early universe. The 4 forces were one, strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravity. Gravity separated 1st at extremely high temperatures, then the electromagnetic spectrum, strong and weak separated and we have the current standard model. It has been proven that at higher temperatures, the strong, weak, and electromagnetic are one. Gravity existed in the universe before there was any matter with which to work.
-
As far as mass and energy are concerned mass is energy, energy is mass. In the very early universe the electron and positron collided and formed photons of extremely high-energy, which collided and formed electrons. This continued until the universe cooled and cannot form high-energy photons anymore. The same thing happened with quarks. It was 380,000 years before the 1st atoms were formed and able to exist due to the high heat of the early universe
-
I am not trying to be argumentative,I understand the relationship of mass and energy, in your theory of circles causing universal expansion. I honestly can't say, although it is illogical to me. Dark matter has properties that have been calculated by the spin of our galaxy and the amount of visible matter. Dark energy is then calculated by the expansion of the universe. As I said you are proposing an alternate theory the only method I know of proving it is to generate a computer model and letting it run to current times and comparing the result.These Planck scale circles of yours must have the same mass as dark matter has or it's invalid
-
I am not calling your proposal wrong, all I am saying is that it needs to take into account all current known facts. The biggest problem I have with planks circles is there needs to be mass associated with them to equal the amount of dark matter and from your description, I don't see where that's at. As far as the simulator program is concerned, I have never looked for it so I honestly don't know where it's at.My best suggestion would be to open a form describing your thoughts and ask if anyone is familiar with the computer programs. As I have told you, and you can read from my post I am in disagreement with some of the early models, but they still runs close to standard.
-
The graviton is listed in the standard model, it is the exchange particle for gravity. Large bodies attract smaller bodies to them, i.e. the planet Earth and us, there must be a force at work to do this I believe this is the graviton.My only problem with this is there must be a balancing feature to keep everything in harmony, so my theory runs that the graviton travels with the photon, which allows balancing of gravity between different bodies. An example is the sun there is a nuclear reaction going on in the core, which converts hydrogen into helium, with a loss of mass. This would cause the gravity of the suns core to increase, and change the dynamics of the reaction. For example, if the gravity increases it should burn more fuel as time goes on. Our son is a main sequence star and fuel consumption is consistent so therefore, something must be balancing out the gravitational forces. The only thing to leave the center of the sun is photons as radiation, heat, and light.
-
Gravity is a known fact, general relativity and the math Therein do a very good job of explaining all phenomena. The problem I have is one in the beginning of the universe. Gravity was in existence, matter didn't come into existence for 380,000 years. During this time you look at it from the point of gravity curving space all matter should have accumulated in one spot, It spread out throughout the universe, also the sun creates a problem for me with the gravity, I realize her sons is a smaller star, but there are larger main sequence stars. They all continue to consume their fuel at a set rate, something must be balancing out the gravity.And yes I do realize some of your theories are in conflict with mine, I am trying to get a grasp on your theory so that we can discuss it.
-
Collider experiments prove the existence quarks they are particles and have properties. If this free energy existed in the atom. It would show itself in these collider experiments when the atom is broken apart. I have never heard of any such free energy showning itself.
-
As far as the CMB is concerned from what I understand the original universe was extremely hot, as it cools, it left the CMB footprint, which is the temperature of the universe today. I have never heard of any free energy associated with the CMB?
-
I agree with you to the extent that mass and energy are the same mass is energy. Energy is mass. They're just different forms of the same thing. I don't know that I agree that mass can be free energy is seems to me when it is mass, it's mass, when it's energy is energy. What I see of your thinking. If you was to open up and get a bucket of space, you would have a bucket of energy. I don't see it that way. It does however take energy to hold the mass together if that's what you're referring to and I say, okay.
-
Hi, alan I'm back, I have to say I'm impressed with how long this post has stayed active and with the wide range of subjects that this post has touched upon. But I think you guys are getting ahead of your selves a little bit.
I think that what you guys really want to know is why mass has gravity. GR tells us what gravity does (distort and curve space) But it doesn't really tell us why gravity is associated with mass to begin with. I think that if we knew why mass is always accompanied by gravity then all of this would become more clear.
I think I may have a logical theory as to why mass always comes with gravity. Here is my theory first off I want you to imagine an atom like billiard ball and space as the air around the ball. You see no air can exist were the ball is. In a similar way empty space can't exist were matter is and as a result space is moved out of the way. it's like this picture below.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftoday.slac.stanford.edu%2Fimages%2F2011%2Fmeissner-effect.jpg&hash=3381df58e802452c6e7380ed43f557aa)
ignore the picture to the right and focus on the picture to the left. This diagram is supposed to represent how superconductors bend magnetic fields around them. But I want to use it to represent how massive particles can bend space around them and push space out of the way concentrating space around the object in a gravitational field. I hope that makes sense.
try hard to visualize this concept, and you will know it to be true. it's just like the billiard ball concept just on an extremely small scale. just give that some thought.
Also on an unrelated note, alan hess could you read my post on "simple quantum entangler" in the theories section and give me your opinion on it? your commentary is usually very insightful and helpful.
you never know maybe quantum entanglement is the balancing force.
also imagine this, if laser light carried gravitons which your thory suggests, then wouldnt that mean that thouse gravitons would interact with each-other and break up the laser?
-
Hi, I'm glad you're back. I miss our interaction. Last things 1st. no a laser beam will not have a gravitational problem, it is a coherent beam all entities in it are the same frequency, so it will be affected, and affect things as a unit. I will read your post give me a couple days, as I had my 1st surgery and am still experiencing nausea, so it's hard to sit and read the computer screen. All went well. 2nd surgery is scheduled around the 4 of July. something else you may be interested in, the photon is thought to carry mass when it hits an object. I am wondering if the graviton traveling with the photon is the actual mass carrier when the photon hits something. The photon and gravitons will either be absorbed or reflected
-
Alan, I remember you told me a wile back that you were having health issues associated with your leg. I hope all goes well with your surgery and you feel better too.
I know it sucks to be sick, I ones spent over a year in the hospital fighting off antibiotic resistant staphylococcus resulting in my appendix bursting [:(]. Man is a resilient creature and can survive a great many ordeals and injuries if someone can survive an exploded appendix then I'm shore you'll be ok [8D]