[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[ScientificSorcerer]

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.

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[petm1]

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.

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[ScientificSorcerer]

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.

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[ScientificSorcerer]

Exactly, How do you explain the fact that there is no hole were the explosion took place?

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[ScientificSorcerer]

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

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[ScientificSorcerer]

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:?

[petm1]

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.

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[ScientificSorcerer]

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.

[alan hess (OP)]

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

[ScientificSorcerer]

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.



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.

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[Pmb]

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.

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[Pmb]

      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.

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[Pmb]

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.

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[DanielB]

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 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
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,,

[dlorde]

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.

[Pmb]

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 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

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 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
See also "Einstein's gravitational field" by me at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0204044 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
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/ [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] 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/ [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
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.

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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.

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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.

[jeffreyH]

....

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.

[alan hess (OP)]

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

[jeffreyH]

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?

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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?

[jeffreyH]

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?

[jeffreyH]

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.

[alan hess (OP)]

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,

[dlorde]

... 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...

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[yor_on]

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 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

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 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[Ehsan h]

see guys , first hello to every one , I am new and I have final tests for biotech so i am a little bit busy with whole exams so i keep it simple, the thing is i have another theory which very well defines the whole picture of space time enrergy and gravity and even has answer for dark matter and dark energy but you have to be patient with this and read it and give it some thought and imagine it then try to relate it to to other definitions that we are facing , because i think einstein theory of GR is right about cuvature of spacetime but couldnt define what is spacetime becasue of quantom theory was new and einstein didint consider the role of energy in spacetime itself , he postulated his theory from a space frame work which he changed and made it dynamic which worked mathemateically to explain ralation of energy and mass and the consequent gerenal relativity is based on that framework , in string theory they give this fabric of space definition which i am not comfortable with it because it  creates more confusion and that is the most annoying problem what is string and detection and phenomona it cannot describes and just tune itselfwith eery new discovery it is like phantasy world of mathematics,  confusion is the main problem, no tangible picture of universe and these dimensions and branes  and etc, my idea is quite new so yoiu have to be patient and read it , dont accept or disagree just imagine it and think about it, it states some new definitions which maybe confuse you but it has nothing to do with the terms that has been used, so thank you guys for reading it :
think of the world as pure energy tight togheter no gravity is there just free energies, now think about enregy as dynamic particle with no mass and constant speed of light and capable of curving so it is not anything that you disagree until now so it is like they tight toghetherlike wearing tight cloths that made their size quite small when i say size dont consider mass just the capacity to fill sopaece the coat is force they act on each other so instead of dynamic space which can curve and twist and is the frame work of pysics that matter can travel through it we have just energy which cannot be slowed downbut it is trapped  it is pushing and neighbour energy ( i mean quanta of energy) so eventually it is giving the kick and the pressure of other quanta on each other will not be stable and start to expand but not by moving but by taking of that jacket (pressure of quanta of energies on each other is released) and each quanta increase in size , they can epxand without moving so the speed is not required then you can imagine this by having a baloon that expand and surface of baloon resembling the 3d expansion of universe , until now the only thing that is differ with infaltion is that space didnt expand but energy in quanta level is inflating now energy reach a size that it can move freely with the speed of light (its only speed ) until now we dont have any movement in any direction and only expansion, from now on the baloon inflate in size by movement of energy so if they are separating they create gaps in between each other so next expansion on surface of baloon will create holes (pore) on surface of the baloon resmebling the gaps between energy in 3d expansion,now for making it more simple this 2d picture of 3d energy ( i am not talking about space expasion , but energy expansion) on surface of baloon  just imagine cutting the baloon in half and looking at the line that was cut , it is a circle and say it is just begining of expansion by movement of energy next circle you draw is  a cricle around this circle with a increase in diameter of 2 plancks length it means this new circle is on top of the first one only spearated 1 planck length, this new circle have pores on the circle which resemlbe the gaps, you have to draw what i'm describing, now the size of this gapswhich we consider randomly appeared on the circle should be equal to 1 plancks length in diameter which i consider as the size of energy in quanta , now the number of thes whole should be equal to area that separate these two circle , just draw it and dont argue we have time for argue, next circle the same way and more gaps, energy wont stop this expansionbut this gaps should be filled , because of the tendency to the state they were filled with energy so these gaps can be filled or can be craete by movement of energy, but they have this force on energy to bring it back to its original place but energy has the tendency to create this gaps and it moves and help in expansion, so i consider this gaps as a force of attraction and energy a force of repellent , quanta of energy if heat each other acts like the force of coat so they dont echange any energy with each other just shape and size will be momentarily disfigure but the moometn they separate they just qoes back to original shape, the 3rd law of motion by newton works perfectly here , they are all immature assumption until now so it is just a thought but if you draw these circles on top of each other by plancks length scale and putting random gaps which are equal to increase in area separating the circles, you have increase in these gaps, because they can be filled so they dont have specific place on the circle, but just draw circle on top of them on put some of these gaps just about on top of each other, i explain now what happend here, if this gaps stay on top of each other on next circles, i means they were fixed on that place in 3 dimension expansion, so they are the same gaps as before in circles before them, i now consider these to be relatd to each other and isolated from expansion, of energy bu energy it self, so they craete holes in 2d demonstration (baloon surface ) of 3d expansion they act just like wormholes , which connect this hole to hole in last planck expansion, in the same place, why i am saying these are related and not the others, because if a gap is created by movement of quanta of energy ( from now on i call this free energies photon) it will be filled with another photon and the process cause the gaps to have random place and appearance which create in one expansion and will be filled in other expansion ( planck expansion of energy) so it is disappeared but another gap is created consequent placement of new photon in this place and movemnt of this photon brings a new same size gap in another place in 3d expansion (  i avoid space for good reason we dont have the space that is defined by classcial defintion of space it is only movement of photon ( max inflation quanta of energy) and expansion of universe through creating gaps between each other ) now if this gap is fixed in its origin place of appearanace ( guys you have to follow me in both baloon demonstraion and circles you draw) it means no photon filled this gap, and this gap has the force of attraction so it needs to be filled, so all the photons are in opposite direction of this gap  up until now, but it should be filled so it becomes strong to force some photons that are passing close to this gap to curve , even it is small it caused the phton to curve and creates a curvature now think that if this gap becomes so wide that if an photon moves in angle to this gap, vill be trapped around this empty space and the energy be stable aenough to cause his photon to circle around this small gap and by speed of light it isolate this gap so next expansion this energy and this gap will be trapped in thir place and dont get involve in expansion, in baloon surfaceexpansion they resemble this stable wormholes, creates dimple on surface of baloon , now remember space is not dimpled, it is expansion of energy that has this dimples, so in other word they are wormholes thourgh time and not space, why i say time, because when this holes start to be stable and create tunnels to it slef through expansion, actually is caused by this expansion of energy in plancks length so now we have trapped energy around these gap, that is  fixed so create an curvature in expansion  of energy so now time starts to be created, through this cruvature , photon is is not moving in straight line anymore, its is not changed to mass and it is not slowed down it is just trapped, so by time free energies expand and create more gaps and consequently more, curvature in time, but those photons that are not trapped are expanding universe, and those which are trapped are creating more curvature, now remember that circles i told you, if you connect the gaps that are fixed on top of each other, now draw circles on another paper, and this ime through expansion, connect all the fixed gaps and bring them down to their original place in direction of center, expansion goes on but this curvature increase and the baloon is not sphere any more but a distorted dimpleful everlasting expansion, so photon moving thorugh this surface of baloon has to pass more space and there will be peaks show the free photons expandin the universe, and photons that are trapped in this curvatures which the more close they are to the center of dimples the more chance of being trapped in a circle movement through space so they are semi trapped photons that actually we call as photons in our daily life, photons that are not passing in curvature of expansion and expand the universe more wil cause the curvature to separate this massive objects and the semiphotons which moves from this cruvature will be moving more surface to reach the other curve so this expansion of energy through free energy cause pseudo dark energy, and mass is photons that are hichly trapped in this gaps, so actually E=MC*2 means the curvature of photons caused by wormholes which connect present to past( not space) and dark matter is fundamental masses which will be create more through expansion, and their locations are highly around trapped energies but they are not fully connected to have a perceivable shape but their gravity effect is there ( gravity is cause by this interaction of trapped energies and wormholes through time) they cannot be seen , but they arehelping in gravitation force, if observable univere is portion of this baloons surface , we have dark matter and darke energy and mass, and if the dark energy is 70% (free photonshelping expansion) and massive objects (immature trapped energies ) and highly massive objects (close form stable trapped photons) are 30% it is fair to say that gravity in this portion of baloons surface is not strong enough to trapp this free photons or dark energies, and expansion in this portion will move on until more matter be created and more free energy be curve by new wormholes (stable gaps) now the force of attraction is is this wormholes and EMR is semi photons and strong and weak force are trapped photons, we can assume the wormholes in larger size and closer range are constitieunt of holding quarks togheter (which i have to think more about it with a lot more study on mathematics and understanding of standard model) and quarks are made of trapped photons which are less stable than fermions now i have to explain this characteristic , i start by defining how photon can have a wave characteristic if groups of photons highly tight to each other are moving there is gap between them wich this gaps create a attration force between photons so at the same time they move forward they have a movement in perpendiculardirection to their moevemnt due to these gaps, between each other, so they have a wave moevment , now one free photonfrom far source   closing to massive objects of gravity( high curvature) cause them to fill this gaps and they have higher wave length and less frequency and their potential energy decrease and now we have this gaps working as force for giving the photon its wave property , now  there are so many problems i am facing first i can understand the spin of electron by cosdiering a photon that moves around a atom that has a "moathole" around it which when photon is trapped around it always have half its wave lenght trapped in this moathole that connects to past( as time) so the other half can be filled with another photon which fill the other half , it actually make sense and if a photon is trapped around a wormhole 2/3 of it wavelenght is trapped in wormhole but moathole  can be filled with half of wavelength now they are all just imagination i have to work on it , after exams, it  even expain the reason why universe in large and small scale shapes in circle if photons are trapped in this holes, and we as beings can look back through our memories because of this capability of holes which are fixed through time, now i think i am talking a little rubbish so i just send this you think about it and give me your opinions but just think about what i said ....

[Ehsan h]

and yes by the way i say i dont consider energy transformation to mass as slowing down the photon, photon cannot be slowed down it can only be trapped which causes curvature and now we have mass by that , so i am hping nobody gives me that response about slowing down the photn experiment, which has nothing to do with photons speed characteristic so i am against higs boson, even if it is found , this is just a misconception of the universe, and dont give me the response that your comment was too long and boring to read , if you read it fully thought about it ten give me a response if no then that's fine, anyway thanks guys ...

[Ehsan h]

higgs

[Ehsan h]

for solving the puzzle between standard model and general relativity you should redifine the aspect of world we have specifically towards our understanding of gravity and time  and their effect on universe , the answer in simplified manner is : gravity is made of curvature of expansion of energy that is caused by wormholes and later moatholes (which act upon time and not space) , which are created by  expansion of energy from its maximum stability and space is not elastic there is no space in way we think of in normal manner it is interactions of energy  which create space. and time is consequent result of creation of stable holes though time being isolated by energy which curves them, it is energy that is capable of curving and twisting and going under all states of movement which still moves by speed of light and no less , so it is not energy that slows down but this energies are trapped , and initial unstable gaps between photons gives the wave characteristic ... so here the summary of what i said now if you are interested read the whole thing and gives it some thought ... thanks again

[alan hess (OP)]

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.

[Ehsan h]

okk yes i started with expansion , then it goes to dark matter and dark energy, so in case of electronwe are dealing with begining of universe, and matter creation not annhilition , higgs boson gives the possibility of matter creation , we dont see it in our daily life because we are not living inside the expansion portion of universe but the curve energy state of energy , so matter creation is already happened hear and there is not a suitable condition for matter creation as daily life, but in expansion portion it happens specially in portions in between matter creation ( curving of energy)and expansion ( free energy with no gap and no curvature) i think of it as in case of trapped photon, still have to think about the number of quanta but we know photon is poisitve and negative so if it moves around a wormhole, with its negativity outside of hole, it can have mass because it is curved to repeat its pattern of movement which give mass and create time) and the whole complex of trapped photons and wormhole makes an electron and they ( one electron) moving around an orbit that is separated from neighbour orbital by another gap which is moathole ( i imagined it in 2d as moat which is connected to its past in simple atom structure like hydrogen the gap of  first orbital and atom resembled that way but i have to improvise because orbitals shape are more complex...)  so when electrons moving in that space which is an isolated space with negative portion of photons outside they are moving around the centre of positive nuclease by charge  , now this complex as electron can pass through this gaps between orbitals too, and comeback which explain the heisenberg's uncertainty now when a photon is absorbed by an electron it gives higher energy to complex and electron can jump to other orbital which all know the description but this state of electron in combination with atom  is not stable and the photon has to give back the extra photon it absorbed , so i think electrons are not fundamental but they are made of photon and a hole and in case of a positron electron annhilition give 2 photon i think probably one trapped photon is probably give rise to electron or positron, different in how it is trapped by the hole but your point of coherent current of photons  doesnt mean the photons are tightly attached to each other and move in streight direction, as i said the gaps create the wave property of photon other wise photon goes streaight without any wave characteristic but in laser the wave characteristic still present it is just minimum possibility so minimum gap variety which result in minimum range of wave dicrepancy (homogenous light), the coherent current of photons gives them specific color or wavelength , so the gap still present , so laser dosnt disprove gaps, because these gaps are causing wave feature of particle photons,   in laser they are polarised ( not always ... ) so they are more fixed in direction together, the double slit experiment bugs me first the detector can be influential on experiment but in case without detector realy shows a pattern of the begining motion which are seems fixed in distance of experiment if you move the screen in more distance the result will be more random, and the effect of gaps can be seen, but in small distant experiment the effect is caused by intial state of energy the photon was emmited and in groups are quite the same in comparison to single experiment with aggregation of results ... ,and surely the slits themselve are influential too even so they reduce the effect, i mean in case of photon from electron if what you are saying is true then we shouldnt have any photon in begining of universe it was electron positron annhilition which gave rise to photons in that period and in case of wave and the role of gap i am mentioning is seen in cosmic microwave background which originally wasnt microwave, so mostly i am talking about the effect of gap in redusing the frequenywhich is perceivable, now my whole point of discussion goes back to gerneral relativity , , all i am saying is that einstein under influence of special relativity defined space but what i am saying is that energy wont slow down to gain mass as einstein special relativity , but when energy  curves creates mass, and subsequently time in case of nucleus of atom, the energy is so curved and moves around a point that it re[eat it self and even cause gape in space around it also so this creat tie in expansion of universe by energy and curve the expansion to its original state and gravity also present in this curvature ...