Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Yahya A.Sharif on 06/04/2023 13:54:00
-
Space-time can not be proved in the absence of mass or motion space-time does not exist, it is just vacuum or emptiness which can be defined as non-mass , it has dimensions but this is only geometry and there is not anything whatsoever to be curved, there is actually nothing to be curved there is not evidence of the existence of the space-time in the absence of mass and motion, so it is an imaginary concept to prove gravity and motion in the universe.
The definition of non-mass "vacuum" and mass:
If a mass m exists at a point A and moves to a point B, if we want to define its motion then we can say the mass existed at point A but it moved and changed its position to point B, in other words the point A became empty or non-mass and point B is not vacuum point it is a mass point.
Gravity is a unity force, all masses in the universe tends to unite and fill this non-mass or emptiness in vacuum.
Before the big bang everything in the universe whatsoever was a unity, a singularity, what happens actually or what really made the big bang is some of the energy in the singularity point transformed into rest mass and caused the explosion. Why energy-mass transformation caused the explosion? because energy can be concentrated in a singularity point but rest mass needs a non-zero volume. There is not a zero-volume mass. So a non-zero mass volume will break the singularity and cause the explosion.
Mass and energy are interchangeable but the original form is energy not rest mass which was concentrated in the singularity and we know energy can be concentrated in smaller volumes infinitely.
The universe was a unity, a singularity, when it exploded it still has this unity characteristics in form of gravity.
-
Before the big bang
That is as well defined as "North of the North pole.".
The rest of your post is word salad.
I know science can be difficult but it is also very rewarding if you actually learn about it.
You should try.
This is a good place to start.
https://www.khanacademy.org/
-
That is as well defined as "North of the North pole.".
The rest of your post is word salad.
Because you do not agree that does not mean this is not true
-
Space-time can not be proved in the absence of mass or motion space-time does not exist
This seems more a philosophical position than a scientific one, as we would not be able to do any experiments looking to detect space-time without putting something in it.
some of the energy in the singularity point transformed into rest mass
I think it's a bit of a misconception that energy and mass can be changed into each other. It's probably better to say that mass has energy or that energy has mass.
energy can be concentrated in a singularity point but rest mass needs a non-zero volume.
How do you know this?
-
That is as well defined as "North of the North pole.".
The rest of your post is word salad.
Because you do not agree that does not mean this is not true
You have yet to say anything meaningful enough to agree or disagree with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
-
Space-time can not be proved in the absence of mass or motion space-time does not exist, it is just vacuum or emptiness which can be defined as non-mass , it has dimensions but this is only geometry and there is not anything whatsoever to be curved, there is actually nothing to be curved there is not evidence of the existence of the space-time in the absence of mass and motion, so it is an imaginary concept to prove gravity and motion in the universe.
So you disagree with General Relativity. The model of space time warping is the best model of gravity that we have so it is too bad that you disagree with it.
Gravity is a unity force, all masses in the universe tends to unite and fill this non-mass or emptiness in vacuum.
I don't get why you are calling gravity a unity force. What do you mean?
Before the big bang everything in the universe whatsoever was a unity, a singularity,
What evidence do you have that universe was a singularity?
Why energy-mass transformation caused the explosion?
The big bang was not an explosion.
Why energy-mass transformation caused the explosion? because energy can be concentrated in a singularity point but rest mass needs a non-zero volume. There is not a zero-volume mass. So a non-zero mass volume will break the singularity and cause the explosion.
That is pure speculation on your part. Additionally, are you aware that there was zero mass in the early universe after the big bang?
Mass and energy are interchangeable but the original form is energy not rest mass which was concentrated in the singularity and we know energy can be concentrated in smaller volumes infinitely.
We do not know that.
The universe was a unity, a singularity, when it exploded it still has this unity characteristics in form of gravity.
Could you explain that, it makes no sense that I can see.
-
Gravity is a unity force, all masses in the universe tends to unite and fill this non-mass or emptiness in vacuum.
I don't get why you are calling gravity a unity force. What do you mean?
I suspect something of this nature:
(https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/6/65/black_hole.png)
-
Hi.
Well, I thought I'd try this approach. Some of what you ( @Yahya A.Sharif ) have said was correct.
Spacetime does not need to be and is not defined as if it is some thing with physcal properties so that you could touch it, see it or move it. However, PopSci articles do often provide diagrams and sketches where spacetime is thought of as if it was some sort of fabric. The idea of it being a fabric is just a visual aid. So it's not entirely your fault to think that it was required to be some physical thing that can be curved.
So this section:it has dimensions but this is only geometry
is correct. Spacetime is just a mathematical tool or structure that allows us to specify the location of an event:
( 1, 2, 3, 4 ) is an event in spacetime which is located at x=1, y=2, z=3 and time, t =4.
The next section:
and there is not anything whatsoever to be curved
is then also correct. There may not be any physical thing there. The term "curvature" and the notion of a spacetime being curved developed for historical reasons only. It does not mean that there is some physical thing there which is curved.
"Curvature" is just a technical term that has a precise meaning. We just want to know about the distance between an event ( 1,2,3,4 ) and some other event like (0,1,2,3). If that distance follows conventional Euclidean geometry then we say the spacetime is flat. Euclid was an ancient Greek who developed most of the ideas of geometry, you may not have been told that the geometry you studied at school was "Euclidean" but it was. So to paraphrase the whole thing: If the geometry we learnt at school works, then that spacetime is said to be "flat".
(Actually, some people would prefer to say that 4-dimensional spacetime follows Minkowski geometry but we don't really need to worry too much about the fine details).
On the other hand, if the distance between two events did not follow the behaviour of Euclidean geometry then we say that the spacetime was curved. That is all that "curvature" means - it just tells you if distances between two events behave exactly as in Euclidean geometry, or not.
Now, if we examine the history then we can see why the term "curvature" was used. The first mathematician to study some useful geometry (usefull for developing General Relativity) was Riemann. I'm going to take some liberties here and greatly distort what he really did - but hopefully it will be easier to understand this way. This is what he did:
He imagined you had some small creatures, perhaps ants, and all they can do is crawl over the surface of some solid object. So the critical assumption is that the ants only know about 2-dimensions, they are completely unaware that their world actually exists in 3-dimensions. They cannot go straight up or straight down so as to go through or come off the surface. The only directions they can travel in are directions they may refer to as the the x-axis and the y-axis, there is no z-axis direction they can move in or are aware of.
Now, let's say that the object they are crawling over was a large and completely flat sheet of paper. Provided the paper is flat, they will have distances that make sense and follow Euclidean geometry perfectly. However if someone comes along and bends the paper so as to make a rounded hill in one place which is quite steep on average, then some things start to go wrong. The ants realise that the shortest distance between two points that are on opposite sides of that hill do not seem to be a straight line. If they tried to go straight from point A to point B that may take them over the hill. If the hill is steep, then they have travelled a long way up in the z-axis direction and also a long way down on the other side BUT they are completely unaware that such a z-axis direction exists. All they know is that going straight from point A to point B is a long distance they have to move. However, if they take a curved path, then the distance does not need to be so large. Out here in the 3-D world, we can see why - the ants have gone around the hill instead of going over the top of it. However, all the ants know is that going in this curved path does seem to be a shorter distance between points A and points B instead of trying to go in a straight line. Euclid was wrong - the shortest distance is not a straight line.
Now, we have enough to see why this sort of weird or strange geometry has been referred to as "curvature". Riemann was studying situations where Eucldiean geometry went wrong because a surface was literally curved. However, the term "curvature" is now just a technical term which means that distances don't follow a Euclidean form and that is all.
I hope that helps a bit.
Best Wishes.
-
The sun in its nuclear fusion converts its mass to energy. When all mass is converted and the sun dies, it forms a black hole, Which is also a singularity, now this singularity is intense energy in a single point it is not rest mass because the sun was a rest mass and all the rest mass converted to energy through the nuclear fusion and died. The universe was just a black hole.
In this black hole in a reverse conversion of the nuclear fusion" energy to mass" some of the energy converts to rest mass, the black hole will explode and give a bang" the same original post idea" Now if the whole black hole converted to mass and exploded with a bang it will form the sun again.
-
When all mass is converted
This will not happen.
it forms a black hole
How could that happen with all the mass gone?
it is not rest mass
What experiment would be able to tell the difference?
Now if the whole black hole converted to mass and exploded with a bang it will form the sun again.
That breaks the conservation laws.
I know science can be difficult but it is also very rewarding if you actually learn about it.
You should try.
This is a good place to start.
https://www.khanacademy.org/
-
When all mass is converted
This will not happen.
What will stop the nuclear fusion? it forms a black hole
How could that happen with all the mass gone?
The energy exists Now if the whole black hole converted to mass and exploded with a bang it will form the sun again.
That breaks the conservation laws.
E=mc² does not break the law of conservation of energy.
I know science can be difficult but it is also very rewarding if you actually learn about it.
You should try.
This is a good place to start.
https://www.khanacademy.org/
Stop replying to people you think they do not know physics.
-
The sun in its nuclear fusion converts its mass to energy.
Not really. What it's doing is converting potential energy into kinetic energy. If you were to weigh all of the products of the reaction, you'd find that it weighs the same as all of the reactants.
When all mass is converted and the sun dies, it forms a black hole
The Sun isn't massive enough to become a black hole. It will become a white dwarf instead.
Which is also a singularity, now this singularity is intense energy in a single point it is not rest mass
Singularities (and thus the black holes they exist inside of) absolutely do have mass. We've measured the mass of quite a few black holes.
Now if the whole black hole converted to mass and exploded with a bang it will form the sun again.
That's not possible. Much of the Sun's mass and energy have been radiated away into space. The black hole isn't getting that back.
What will stop the nuclear fusion?
A lack of sufficient pressure and heat in the Sun's core to allow it to continue. If the Sun was heavier, it could continue to burn some of the material there and thus fusion would go on for longer.
-
E=mc² does not break the law of conservation of energy.
Nobody said it did but, as has been pointed out, this
That's not possible. Much of the Sun's mass and energy have been radiated away into space. The black hole isn't getting that back.
shows why your idea breaks the conservation laws.
Stop replying to people you think they do not know physics.
It is not a matter of me thinking you do not know physics.
It is a matter of you showing that you do not know physics.
That's why you make wrong statements like this
When all mass is converted
All the mass will not be converted.
Does anyone here think the OP understand the physics he needs to?
-
Gravity as a unity force
I don't recognise "unity" as a scientific term, apart from the mathematical concept of "1"
- Although you could say (in common language) that gravity is the unifying force that holds the Solar System together...
- Did you mean the mathematical concept of a unitary matrix which is also used in physics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_matrix
-
When all mass is converted
Hydrogen fusion (Hydrogen 1 to Helium 4) converts about 0.1% of the Hydrogen's mass into energy, leaving Helium with 99.9% of the original mass.
You can see this on a periodic table:
- Atomic Mass of Hydrogen: 1.008
- Atomic Mass of Helium: 4.0026 (the output)
- In a star, 4 Hydrogen atoms fuse to make 1 helium atom (through a complex process): inputs = 4 x 1.008 = 4.032
- "Missing Mass": 4.032 - 4.0026 = 0.0294, or 0.0294/4.032 = 0.73% of the input mass
- This missing mass is radiated off "to infinity" in the form of electromagnetic radiation (initially gamma rays), momentum (which is radiated as heat and light) and neutrinos.
- The remaining mass stays behind, in the form of a white dwarf (in the case of the Sun), a neutron star (for stars slightly heavier than the Sun) or a black hole (for much larger stars).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table#Overview
The missing mass from Hydrogen to Helium fusion (7MeV) is greater than the amount of energy released by fusing Helium into carbon (<2 MeV), as illustrated on this graph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy#Nuclear_binding_energy_curve
-
Gravity as a unity force
I don't recognise "unity" as a scientific term, apart from the mathematical concept of "1"
- Although you could say (in common language) that gravity is the unifying force that holds the Solar System together...
- Did you mean the mathematical concept of a unitary matrix which is also used in physics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_matrix
Masses tend to unify in a single whole matter, if two masses are apart they are attracted so that they touch each other and stops to be one whole mass. In the universe there are gaps between all kinds of masses, stars, planets, galaxies, etc. Think of the whole universe as just one block of matter consists of all the masses of the universe. When the universe was a singularity before the big bang, the singularity contained the universe mass with no gaps because the singularity was a point. An action of energy converting to rest mass broke the singularity and caused a bang because mass needs non-zero volume and the singularity is a point. In black holes the process is reversed the rest mass of the star converts to energy to form a singularity. Because all the universe energy was condensed in a single point, when the universe banged, all the universe masses which were contained in the singularity before, still tend to unify with gravity, towards the unified point which existed before or the singularity. A unified singularity means it is with no gaps of space between the masses it contained, it is a point. The universe is not unified, it has gaps between its masses, the masses are attracted and stop with gravity to be one whole matter. The universe still tends to this unification because it was before a unified singularity.
-
Have you started a thread just to say that masses fall towards each other?
-
Hi.
Have you started a thread just to say that masses fall towards each other?
I'd like to reformulate that question:
@Yahya A.Sharif , what would you like to hear? Seriously, what kind of reply do you want? Do you not want any reply but just a chance to write your ideas down?
Best Wishes.
-
"Curvature" is just a technical term that has a precise meaning. We just want to know about the distance between an event ( 1,2,3,4 ) and some other event like (0,1,2,3). If that distance follows conventional Euclidean geometry then we say the spacetime is flat. Euclid was an ancient Greek who developed most of the ideas of geometry, you may not have been told that the geometry you studied at school was "Euclidean" but it was. So to paraphrase the whole thing: If the geometry we learnt at school works, then that spacetime is said to be "flat".
(Actually, some people would prefer to say that 4-dimensional spacetime follows Minkowski geometry but we don't really need to worry too much about the fine details).
On the other hand, if the distance between two events did not follow the behaviour of Euclidean geometry then we say that the spacetime was curved. That is all that "curvature" means - it just tells you if distances between two events behave exactly as in Euclidean geometry, or not.
Now, if we examine the history then we can see why the term "curvature" was used. The first mathematician to study some useful geometry (usefull for developing General Relativity) was Riemann. I'm going to take some liberties here and greatly distort what he really did - but hopefully it will be easier to understand this way. This is what he did:
He imagined you had some small creatures, perhaps ants, and all they can do is crawl over the surface of some solid object. So the critical assumption is that the ants only know about 2-dimensions, they are completely unaware that their world actually exists in 3-dimensions. They cannot go straight up or straight down so as to go through or come off the surface. The only directions they can travel in are directions they may refer to as the the x-axis and the y-axis, there is no z-axis direction they can move in or are aware of.
Now, let's say that the object they are crawling over was a large and completely flat sheet of paper. Provided the paper is flat, they will have distances that make sense and follow Euclidean geometry perfectly. However if someone comes along and bends the paper so as to make a rounded hill in one place which is quite steep on average, then some things start to go wrong. The ants realise that the shortest distance between two points that are on opposite sides of that hill do not seem to be a straight line. If they tried to go straight from point A to point B that may take them over the hill. If the hill is steep, then they have travelled a long way up in the z-axis direction and also a long way down on the other side BUT they are completely unaware that such a z-axis direction exists. All they know is that going straight from point A to point B is a long distance they have to move. However, if they take a curved path, then the distance does not need to be so large. Out here in the 3-D world, we can see why - the ants have gone around the hill instead of going over the top of it. However, all the ants know is that going in this curved path does seem to be a shorter distance between points A and points B instead of trying to go in a straight line. Euclid was wrong - the shortest distance is not a straight line.
Now, we have enough to see why this sort of weird or strange geometry has been referred to as "curvature". Riemann was studying situations where Eucldiean geometry went wrong because a surface was literally curved. However, the term "curvature" is now just a technical term which means that distances don't follow a Euclidean form and that is all.
I hope that helps a bit.
Best Wishes
I found this post to particularly enlightening, maybe more like an epiphany. Thanks @Eternal Student!
-
I'd like to reformulate that question:
@Yahya A.Sharif , what would you like to hear? Seriously, what kind of reply do you want? Do you not want any reply but just a chance to write your ideas down?
Best Wishes.
What do you think of this?
Suppose there is a spherical mass that has 1 m³ of volume. Now think of space-time that exists around this ball and is fractured where the mass exists" space-time does not exist where the mass exists" How this fractured space-time can represent a constant space-time of (x,y,z,t) which should always exist? If the mass exists then space-time has to not exist where the mass exists. Also from another point of view if a mass curves space-time then it has to replace it where it exists whatever the nature of this space-time is. So indeed the mass replaces space-time and fractures its geometry. It is just mass where the mass exists and vacuum around the mass. A mass fills this emptiness " vacuum" as I suggest.
-
Gravity is masses tendency to unify and fill all the gaps between them by attraction force between all the masses in the universe to form a one-block of matter with no gaps like what the masses of the universe were before, a unified singularity.
-
Gravity is masses tendency to unify and fill all the gaps between them by attraction force between all the masses in the universe to form a one-block of matter with no gaps like what the masses of the universe were before, a unified singularity.
Dear Yahya
somehow, you only focus on Gravity force.
However, please be aware that there are four forces in the nature (Gravity, the weak force, electromagnetism, and the strong force) and they all related to atoms.
https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html
Once you understand the real meaning of Atoms, you can easily understand the meaning of all those forces including gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
An atom is a particle that consists of a nucleus of protons and neutrons surrounded by a cloud of electrons.
More than 99.94% of an atom's mass is in the nucleus. The protons have a positive electric charge, the electrons have a negative electric charge, and the neutrons have no electric charge.
Neutrons and protons were found to be hadrons, or composites of smaller particles called quarks.
The quarks are held together by the strong interaction (or strong force), which is mediated by gluons.
-
Hi.
What do you think of this?......
I will answer that. Will you then consider trying to answer my question - what sort of reply did you want?
I think your description of gravity is very poetic. Unlike other theories of gravity which provide equations and methods you could use to calculate something, your article focuses on the fundamental reasons why a lump of matter might be attracted to another. Science doesn't usually worry itself too much with trying to understand something on this sort of deep level. People often make the mistake of thinking that having equations and methods to model or predict something implies that you have some understanding it - but you don't. Newton had equations for gravity but openly admitted to not understanding how something seemed to be able to act at a distance.
Overall, I think your article is misplaced. It could be regarded as a work of philosophy rather than science. There are other forums for Philosophy which might offer you more discussion and their members have expertise which I lack.
Best Wishes.
-
Gravity is masses tendency to unify and fill all the gaps between them by attraction force between all the masses in the universe to form a one-block of matter with no gaps like what the masses of the universe were before, a unified singularity.
Assuming this is Correct(it's Not)...
What then Broke the Unity?
-
Gravity is masses tendency to unify and fill all the gaps between them by attraction force between all the masses in the universe to form a one-block of matter with no gaps like what the masses of the universe were before, a unified singularity.
Assuming this is Correct(it's Not)...
What then Broke the Unity?
The definition of unity is: it is one block of the universe masses with no gaps between them. What broke the singularity is that part of this singularity energy transformed to mass and because mass always has dimensions and cannot compress in a singularity an explosion happened and all the masses flied in space, part of the singularity energy became masses, planets, stars, etc, and part of the energy became kinetic energy to move the planets, etc, , but because the universe was a zero-dimensional point "a singularity" before it exploded, the universe masses still tend to be a point by gravity attraction to fill the gaps. This is similar to a spring with length L when you pull the spring it stretches to become longer but it is still tend to shrink to its original length with some potential force.
-
what sort of reply did you want?
Your answer. But you didn't answer me, you replied it is philosophy and Newton admitted he couldn't know it.
-
because mass always has dimensions
Can you supply a citation for that?
-
Hi.
Your answer. But you didn't answer me, you replied it is philosophy and Newton admitted he couldn't know it.
Actually, I probably spent about over an hour reading what had been said by various people so far, especially by yourself, then drafting my answer, editing and polishing it. I still think I accidentally left a word "of" out somewhere but that is precisely what happens when you've read and adjusted something so much. I was still reading it as if it was there. I don't know how to break it down more simply but I will try:
I don't think what you have written down is science. That's perfectly fine though. Science doesn't try to offer some profound truth, just some models.
I think you're mis-understanding the question, or motivation for the question. How can we help you? What sort of reply or response would be helpful? You have spent some time to write something down and present it in this forum but don't seem to want any discussion, value many of the replies, or take any time to consider what may important for science. As I said, that's fine, science is just one thing, it's not the law or something that is more important than some other thing.
In business it's often helpful to put actions that the other person should take on the last line, instead of leaving a piece of writing as if it was just something to read.
How can we hep you? What sort of reply do you want?
Best Wishes.
-
The definition of unity is: it is one block of the universe masses with no gaps between them.
Perhaps you meant to say ' Universe Energies ' instead of ' Universe Masses ' ?
What broke the singularity is that part of this singularity energy transformed to mass...
Coz accordingly, it was ' Energy ' at first, which later transformed into ' Mass ' .
and because mass always has dimensions and cannot compress in a singularity an explosion happened and all the masses flied in space,...
Perhaps you did Not wish to say ' Mass always has Dimensions ' ?
Obviously, you must have read about ' Rest Mass vs Relativistic Mass '.
The part that i do Not understand is, What made the ' Masses ' break apart n move away from each other, provided Gravity would be Existent.
part of the singularity energy became masses, planets, stars, etc, and part of the energy became kinetic energy to move the planets, etc, , ...
So then if the ' Primordial Energy ' was neither Mass or Kinetic...then what was it's True Nature?
Can it even be defined as Energy, in the way We understand it.
but because the universe was a zero-dimensional point "a singularity" before it exploded, the universe masses still tend to be a point by gravity attraction to fill the gaps...
Perhaps We will have to come up with another term which could replace ' Singularity '...
Coz Singularities are commonly associated with being Dimensionless & Infinite.
Sorry, but i Suck at Mathematics, i need visual cues, my brain cannot process formulae & equations.
This is similar to a spring with length L when you pull the spring it stretches to become longer but it is still tend to shrink to its original length with some potential force.
But Observable Evidence says that not only is the ' Spring ' stretching, but the speed of expansion is also accelerating.
Hence, i Wonder what the heck is pulling it from both ends?
Whatever it is, must be pretty Strong!