[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

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,,

[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

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.

[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,