0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
100 years after Albert Einstein Unveiled General Relativity, a new interpretation surfaces. One that fills in the gaps and answers the questions still unanswered in 100 years. An interpretation that provides answers even to questions we would not normally have thought in General Relativity's influence. A simple modification to what we thought General Relativity was telling us, that is going to have far reaching consequences for all of Physics, Astro Physics, Cosmology, Quantum Theory, Most of science...
I will start here at the beginning of your post, ''GRAVITY IS: Any measurable change from a state of "FREE FALL"... True''Not true, gravity is a constant force, any change in free fall is a change in acceleration,
''GRAVITY IS: An attraction of matter to matter... False''True that is false, because we say mass is attracted to mass
''GRAVITY IS: A force... False''Untrue, gravity is a force,
'GRAVITY IS: Acceleration... True''''False. acceleration is a product of force and gravity is the force.
A change in free fall is a change in acceleration? Really? Only if you consider a change from "0" acceleration at free fall.
An object falls for the first meter a9.82m/s, the second meter it falls a9.82m/s*2 , the third meter it falls at a9.82m/s*3 etc etc, until the falling object reaches terminal velocity. That is what acceleration is, Have you ever heard the expression F=ma? Force=mass * acceleration
Matter is that of physical substance (things), and you may be confusing this with the ordinary use, definition of mass, but in physics the definition and use of the word mass is different, it means a property of matter that science uses to measure force etc.
Lol you have obviously not read any of my posts, I am pretty much known has the anti-science, no need to get defensive I will come to the rest of your post in all good due time. Mass attracted to mass is experimentally proven by the Cavendish experiment, it is hard to deny this when it is hard evidence .
What? Rockets are propelled by the huge output of energy from their rear ends, its called thrust.
No I have not as yet read any of your posts. If indeed you are anti-science I would prefer that you wasted someone else's time.If you had understood what Flow Theory is saying and applied it to the Cavendish experiment, you would have got the exact same results for different reasons. The Cavendish experiment proves Flow Theory as much as it proves curved space.I will help you, consider moving an object, space itself pulls together to fill the space with space where the object was....and objects contain space and energy, energy pushes, space pulls.
Maybe I chose the wrong Forum to post this...
I prefer a good critical analysis of what I am presenting. I have been trying to make this theory fall over for a couple of years now and failed. I now want others to have a go but not with BS. Criticise with logical thinking and observational evidence.
All the other forces of nature give off energy when matter lowers potential with these. All roads lead to Rome as matter finds ways to return to the C reference, while lacking the direct path offered by anti-matter. If anti-matter appears matter will gladly take that path since this is the fast lane back to C.
Just the claim of either push or pull is useless without a mechanism to explain gravity in the first place. What is pushing?
I suspect gravity does not have a speed.
It would just be a dilation of space as a field that moves with mass when mass moves.
There are claims that the speed of gravity is the speed of light. I think that error comes from applying general relativity to a hypothetical vanishing star's gravity. Suppose the star's mass is suddenly released as a uniform sphere of light, expanding at the speed of light. Freeing the energy from its bondage in massive particles does not eliminate the the gravitational mass of the star. Instead, each photon carries away its share of gravitational mass. From Newton's shell theorem, we surmise that an observer outside the expanding shell of light will continue to feel the same gravity as before the star vanished;be he will be observing the gravity of expanding light sphere, not the gravity of the vanished star. As soon at the light sphere envelopes the observer, the shell theorem says he will no longer feel the gravity of the light sphere. That explains why there should be a speed of light time delay if a hypothetical star could suddenly be converted to light equally in all directions.
Newton's shell theorem, however, tacitly assumes that the speed of gravity is infinite.
Math is God? I think not. There is a deeper reality.
To find the speed of gravity you need to determine why the dimension of the entropy of a black hole does not change with the radius of the event horizon. Then you need to relate this to a Planck mass sized black hole. Otherwise you are using wild speculation.
Considering that the wavelengths associated with gravitation are longer than the wavelengths of light then we can take c as the speed of light and g as the speed of gravitation.Then we should be able to formulate the following equation.Here lambda_0 is a specific wavelength of light and lambda_1 is a specific wavelength of gravitation. Finding the correct ratio will then give the speed of gravitation. Not easy. Not all the factors are taken into account by this simplistic relationship.
What exactly is a timing cross correlation synchronisation? I would really like to know because it confuses the hell out of me. It might sound like a very scientific thing to say but not if it doesn't make sense.
Consider being a mass of completly uniform density, a gas, liquid or solid. Next consider being surrounded by a medium of exactly the same material stretching out in all directions infinately. Would there be any force imposed on you? if the answer to this is no, why is this? If the answer to this is yes, where is the force coming from?
Quote from: Kenyonm on 19/12/2015 20:43:28Consider being a mass of completly uniform density, a gas, liquid or solid. Next consider being surrounded by a medium of exactly the same material stretching out in all directions infinately. Would there be any force imposed on you? if the answer to this is no, why is this? If the answer to this is yes, where is the force coming from?An even matter density throughout the entire Universe, is what I think you are trying to describe. If this was so, and also an even temperature for all this matter, then the amount of Spacetime absorbed by every bit of matter would be the same. That would mean that all forces acting on all parts of the Universe would be equal, and nothing would move. Spacetime would still expand with the passage of time, but there would be no clumps of Matter, and no Voids. The Universe would remain with an even distribution of Matter for ever.That is what the Universe would have been like if at the time of final scattering there did not exist the small anisotropies we now measure in the CMB.The scenario you postulate above describes an extremely fine balancing act. It would only take one small discrepancy between any two particles in the Universe to break that symmetry.But just for your thought experiment, the answer is Yes and no. Yes all the known forces of nature would be acting on you exactly the same as they would be acting on everything else.No because the sum of all the forces, because they are acting on every bit of Matter exactly the same, would have a net effect of "0". The only change in such a Universe would be through expansion.Hope that helps..
pure speculation,We might have two systems. An energy state that is uniform throughout the universe and mass that absorbs that energy to move. The energy system without mass would be a completely uniform constant. would there be any view of expansion? No, there would b no light. We only view expansion through red shift. If we are not completely sure what red shift represents we would not be sure about expansion or a big bang. Red shift is considered a SR cause and not a GR cause for expansion faster than the speed of light. Yet we view dilation as lensing which is a GR expansion of space if Einstein is to be believed (curvature of space). From our less dilated position in our galaxy all galaxies would appear red shifted just by position of dilation. Dilated space causes a longer jump for the electron which we assign less energy. And that is probably true if energy density is lowered by dilation. mass causes dilated space and dilated space expands mass. So the cell length used for detection of red shift changes with energy density position. it is not light changing frequency down a gravity well by increasing momentum as has been suggested. it is merely the synchronization parameters that change by position because of the change in cell length.So gravity is the attraction of mass to a lower density energy state of dilated space. The attraction can be related to a speed of attraction in a stationary position.
Somewhat similar to my Space compression spring theory, although a bit more complicated:http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=57392.msg459534#msg459534\In a nutshell, photons are traveling compressions of space. Matter is made up of trapped knots of photons and therefore compressions of space.
Gravity is a push, not a pullWe as Humans on Planet Earth are not being pulled towards it’s centre but pushed into it’s denser than us surface, by the torrent rushing and accelerating through and past us, into the rest of the planet.
I do see spacetime as a no viscosity fluid. Although I have been toying with this idea for several years now, I have started to notice lately that more and more physicists without actually coming out and saying so, are starting to seriously consider Spacetime as an actual medium.
Our friend Michio Kaku being one of them. Unfortunately even though they might make appropriate sounding descriptive comments, when it comes down to official theory and the Mathematics used to describe situations within spacetime, they all stick to a fixed coordinate treatment of spacetime.
It seems like their subconscious is trying to tell them that Spacetime like everything else in this Universe is not static, but their conscious refuses to allow it. Michio Kaku can be excused as he has devoted most of his efforts in String Theory. I just don't understand why for 100 years no one has proposed that Spacetime might be allowed to move. After all that is the only change I am proposing to GR. Everything else seems to find it's own answers after that.
Even at the Quantum level, how many times have I heard the explanation that when an atom drops from a higher orbital to a lower one it does it instantly. It does not travel through the Spacetime in-between the two different states. Surely that is a behavior that should suggest something is happening here that needs extra explanation.
Einstein suggested it cannot move and everyone falls inline. I agree with you on the fluidic space. I believe it to be Energy because of movement. As a scientist you will receive no respect with such an understanding.
More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.
Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether.
Quote from: Space Flow on 04/12/2015 01:38:53Gravity is a push, not a pullWe as Humans on Planet Earth are not being pulled towards it’s centre but pushed into it’s denser than us surface, by the torrent rushing and accelerating through and past us, into the rest of the planet.Speaking of which, at 8:32 in this vid, Michio Kaku says exactly that: that gravity is space pushing us down toward the earth.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9-wN0tNzOM
I find it strange that anyone can ascribe a motion to spacetime and believe me this is coming from someone who others think says strange things. Time doesn't move about and follow a coordinate path and as it is a component of spacetime it makes no sense to ascribe motion to it.