[Space Flow (OP)]

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.

Interesting read.
You seem to rely on Photons as particles. The model I am proposing within the Space Flow theory if true (which I'm certainly not sure off) would do away with duality.
Space Flow theory is certainly not dependent on my view of EMR as a shockwave, but it seems to make sense to me.
As a shockwave within Spacetime, no particle (Photon) is needed. Kinetic energy is transferred in proportion to the part of the wave that is intercepted. As the shockwave is quite capable of doing that all by itself, no photon as a particle comes into it.
As such photons do not exist, so can not orbit each other as you speculate.
As I said I am not married to my view, and will quite happily dump it if you can find a way to test and verify yours or anyone else's for that mater.
Keep punching...

[GoC]

I suspect there is a material in space (Dark Mass Energy) both uniform and spinning causing electrons to rotate while moving forward. Like around a string. But the string is actually points of c rotation. Motion has to be mechanics. You do not get something for nothing. Something is moving electrons and matching photons in every frame. The cause of relativity. I agree photons are a shock wave on uniform space caused by the electron jump to a different length. This causes friction in the form of a propagation shock wave. If c is of rotating space particles (smaller than an electron) the shock wave lasts without entropy. Dark Mass Energy could propel electrons with the proper pattern of complimentary rotation. That rotation would be throughout the universe making relativity the same throughout the universe. Gravity of course being dilation of DME (Dark Mass Energy) due to moving the electrons in mass. Mass not wanting there electrons moved in the first place seek less densely packed energy particles of space with more area to move freely. So mass attracts mass to the lowest energy density by the inverse square of the distance.

Pure speculation of course on my part. We need to think outside of the math box for cause. Mathematics is not the cause of relativity just the precision measurement in a non precise, non uniform energy state of existence. Accuracy of mechanics should follow math but first we have to understand the cause of motion (time). Time is the energy of c as a constant. We measure variations of c by positions in c.

[MattFaw]

Hi Space Flow,

I'm coming to this conversation late, but I just wanted to mention that I'm in complete agreement with you.

The rubber sheet metaphor for spacetime is useful at first blush, but ultimately wildly misleading.  I think spacetime makes a lot more sense as being attracted to mass, so that spacetime near mass is denser than spacetime away from it (hence gravitational lensing).  I think it is best thought of like a fluid, and fluid dynamics can help explain some of the phenomena we see at galactic and intergalactic scales.

For example, the fact that galaxies rotate too fast, so that we have invented dark matter to explain why the peripheral stars don't fly off.  But the dark matter explanation relies upon a universe in which self-attracting matter is rotating through space. 

However, if we see space as being attracted toward matter, then we can see that spacetime actually gets moved around by the matter, as it revolves around galactic center.  The galaxy is a disc of spacetime, which itself revolves around galactic center, carrying all the matter within it.  From our reference frame, galaxies seem to spin too fast, but that is because the reference frame of the entire galaxy is itself spinning.  Like a carousel, the platter of spacetime is spinning, and all the horses ride upon that.

When we look at a spiral galaxy, we see the evidence of a galactic center that at one time did move faster than the periphery, but now the entire galaxy revolves at about the same speed.  The amount of spiral may be like a stopped clock, which reveals how long it took for the entire galactic spacetime disc to start spinning.

This is where fluid dynamics may be useful.  Just as different flows of fluid can ride upon each other (underwater rivers, etc.), so too does the dense (i.e. highly curved) spacetime in the galactic disc ride upon the less dense spacetime around it.  As the disc spins, it twists the spacetime immediately north and south of it, creating vortexes in the spacetime.  This would explain why we see spiral emissions of x-rays emerging north and south from supermassive black holes.  Since electromagnetic radiation travels in straight lines, it must be the spacetime itself which spirals.

Also, as the contiguous intergalactic spacetime twists, it should also get a little choppy, forming spiraled waves north and south of the galactic disc.  These waves should help shape the path of the galactic space, as it spins around center.  It's like a denser fluid disc (galactic space) sandwiched and flowing between two less dense fluid layers.  And indeed, matter in the galaxy follows a wavelike pattern, as it revolves around galactic center, as if it were flowing along an undulating path.

I think seeing spacetime as a fluid is a much more useful metaphor than seeing it as a fabric.

best,

matt faw

[MattFaw]

Gravity is a push, not a pull

We 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.

[Space Flow (OP)]

Matt, thank you for the encouraging appraisal of my Hypothesis, and an extra thank you for so clearly understanding what I am trying to say. Your answer and description of Galactic rotations is exactly what one of the things this Hypothesis or maybe I can call it theory as it is supported by all the evidence we have for GR, anyway it is exactly one of the things that fall out of it.
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.
Anyway enough of my frustrations and again thank you for understanding my very amateur speculations.

[GoC]

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.

The true scientist has to or there is nothing to work with. On the other hand a scientist has to ignore calling for a medium because of the MMX. While the MMX was a good experiment it may have done more harm than good. While the MMX strongly suggested there was no Static Aether the fluid dynamics of an energy fluid was not disproven.

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.

Mathematicians are generally linear thinkers and that is what makes them good at math. Mechanics including fluid mechanics is a more abstract thought process and as you know physics is weighted heavy in mathematicians while light in mechanical engineers.

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.

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.

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.

Of course! But that would mean changing ones understanding. No one is strong enough to change the main stream view. Only maim stream view is funded. Amateurs are not funded and do not have the limitations of thought. While the disadvantage is generally a lack of understanding in observations relating to relativity.

I believe you are on the correct path for the tools we need in understanding relativity.

[Space Flow (OP)]

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.

The strange thing is I too believed that that's what Einstein said.
On further recent investigation I found that what Einstein actually said was;

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.

What I find Einstein is saying from several transcripts is that an Ether (Spacetime) is an esential part of relativity. His equations demanded it to be so. He did not like it, but it had to be. It was just not the static ether of the previous theories.
Not liking but having to put up with what the math was saying, he subsequently skirted the whole subject by not assigning a state of motion to spacetime/ether at all.
He said that the math said it was physical in nature as physical characteristics are assigned to it, and it couldn't be static.
So he ignored it with the most popular quoted remark on the subject

Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether.

Which statement has been used out of context for the last 100 years.
Similar to what he tried to do when the Math said the Universe couldn't be static. He got caught on that one...
Unfortunately that little sweeping under the carpet for spacetime has lasted 100 years and going.
But we have two clear assertions by the man himself; Spacetime has a physical existence, and is not static.
Surely that's enough for us to figure the rest out...

[jeffreyH]

The mathematics describe geometry. That is all it has to say about spacetime itself. 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. Space is said to be expanding, however that cannot be considered a motion as you cannot attribute an increase in velocity to objects that are expanding with the spacetime. Otherwise they would eventually travel at a speed greater than that of light. These are things that need to be taken into consideration if science is the aim. I don't believe science is the first consideration with the majority of posts appearing on this forum.

[guest39538]

Gravity is a push, not a pull

We 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.

Gravity is the unification of space, space always wants to unite, space pulls space together at every single point of space. ''Push'' is polarisation of  mass v mass, the Universe is contracting and expanding at the same time.


Surrounding and within  every existing mass exists space, space always contracts, metal expands when the atoms become positive ions, substances are no different to metal, The earth swells, but space contracts the earth, the sun pushes the earth,s core and positive ions of the earth. Galaxies push each others positive ions, hence expansion and light stretching. 

[Space Flow (OP)]

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.

Jeffrey, thank you for taking the time to read my more than strange ramblings.
You are one of the reasons I published this ridiculous idea on this forum to start with.
You see I am not married to this theory. I have tried to falsify it for several years now and failed. I need a fresh set of eyes on it. Especially a set of eyes with a bias against the idea that spacetime can move. So you see I need you.
Remember that you are not alone in your opinion. The Great Albert Einstein himself, abhorred the fact that his own equations were telling him that Spacetime and the Universe are not static. In fact they told him that nothing is Universally Static. There is no such reference frame. The very idea seemed so wrong that he introduced Lambda to fix the Universe and refused to consider attributing any state of motion to spacetime. He spoke against it being static but never considered what it's movement might be or what it might mean.
So you see your view is in excellent company.
Not only that but you are also backed by every modern physicist on the planet that I have heard about.
A lot of which have even devoted their lives in trying to find the answer to Gravity in the guise of a force mediated by a force carrier particle, others that have even tried to find the answer in whole other undetectible dimensions.
But yes you are in the best position possible to refute and falsify this ridiculous claim by this total amateur who obviously is missing something that is staring him in the face.
I look forward to your analysis.

By the way, just claiming something can't be right will not be considered as evidence that it's not right.

[MattFaw]

Gravity is the unification of space, space always wants to unite, space pulls space together at every single point of space. ''Push'' is polarisation of  mass v mass, the Universe is contracting and expanding at the same time.


Surrounding and within  every existing mass exists space, space always contracts, metal expands when the atoms become positive ions, substances are no different to metal, The earth swells, but space contracts the earth, the sun pushes the earth,s core and positive ions of the earth. Galaxies push each others positive ions, hence expansion and light stretching.

Hi, Thebox.  I agree the terms 'push' and 'pull' are not entirely accurate.

The way I understand it is: mass draws spacetime to it.  If there is a less massive mass in that spacetime, it will follow the path which the spacetime provides.  On earth, spacetime is being drawn radially in, toward the center of the planet (spacetime doesn't end at the earth's surface, and goes all the way down).  Since we are smaller masses on the earth, we are drawn in the direction that spacetime is going, which is toward the center of the planet.

I don't have an opinion about the nature of spacetime on very small scales (ions, etc.), because electromagnetism and the other forces seem to be so much more relevant than gravity on that scale.

[MattFaw]

Matt, thank you for the encouraging appraisal of my Hypothesis, and an extra thank you for so clearly understanding what I am trying to say. Your answer and description of Galactic rotations is exactly what one of the things this Hypothesis or maybe I can call it theory as it is supported by all the evidence we have for GR, anyway it is exactly one of the things that fall out of it.
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.
Anyway enough of my frustrations and again thank you for understanding my very amateur speculations.

I'm likewise glad to find someone who is exploring the same territory I've been thinking about.

If you're interested, I created the following theory video, about tweaking General Relativity to get rid of the need for Dark Matter.

best,

matt faw

Not a valid vimeo URL

[Space Flow (OP)]

Matt, that is absolutely incredible.
It was literally like hearing myself speak. We are so close to being in the same Universe it's not funny.
I love your video. That unfortunately is not something I can do. Or maybe after watching how you put it together I could try. But you my friend have a talent. And a great presentation voice.
We have to work together. The similarity in concept is uncanny. You were well on the way I reckon to finding the mechanism behind the Flowing liquid-like nature of spacetime.
I would love to see a video combining our views..
How do you go with copyright with using bits of other peoples videos?

Edit; Matt, I also watched the video on dark energy. Don't quite agree with a fair bit of that content.
We should talk.

[MattFaw]

Thanks, Space Flow, nice to talk to someone who is thinking along the same lines.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on Dark Energy.  It's all speculation on my part, so there's plenty of room for improvement.

About copyright.  In theory, my excerpting these videos should be considered "fair use", under copyright law.  Fair use says that (within reason) you can excerpt in order to either lampoon or comment upon.  Since there's no profit (and since it's Vimeo), I don't foresee problems with the vid.

[Space Flow (OP)]

Can I use your video to describe part of my theory?
I would love to see what you can do with adding my theory to give yours a reason behind the flows of spacetime. And tie it into the Quantum world.
I hope that's a possibility.. :-)
Together we could be greater than the sum of the parts.

[guest39538]

Matt, thank you for the encouraging appraisal of my Hypothesis, and an extra thank you for so clearly understanding what I am trying to say. Your answer and description of Galactic rotations is exactly what one of the things this Hypothesis or maybe I can call it theory as it is supported by all the evidence we have for GR, anyway it is exactly one of the things that fall out of it.
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.
Anyway enough of my frustrations and again thank you for understanding my very amateur speculations.

 




I'm likewise glad to find someone who is exploring the same territory I've been thinking about.

If you're interested, I created the following theory video, about tweaking General Relativity to get rid of the need for Dark Matter.

best,

matt faw

Not a valid vimeo URL

I watched some of your video and stopped early on, again somebody is trying to create something more that does not exist, dark energy is space itself, dark matter is light, both of these are invisible to the eye and neutral while unified in space. Dark gravity is a no no.  Electrostatic is made from energy Ke interactions .  Both of your ideas are shadows of my own thoughts from has far back as 2009.

It was I who suggested space is attracted to space, it was I who recognises that when an object is displaced, space fills the ''space'' where the object was.   You are welcome to all the ideas, why are you talking copy rights?    science is free for all to share , there is no copy rights in science when considering space.


added - after watching further I hear more rubbish, something accounts for motion that we have not touched, incorrect, energy accounts for work. the unification of everything is EWUe.

[guest39538]

[GoC]

Dark matter, dark energy and spacetime are the same thing. We will never view dark matter because it is spin energy in motion of c. Spin energy of c moves the electrons. This is why in GR light and the electron always measure distance of light travel the same in every frame. It is the dilation of energy affecting space distance for light and electron movement.

You have it exactly backwards because you are not following logic. What is dilation? It is expansion. c of space move the electrons and this causes space energy to expand. Dark Mass is the micro particles and dark energy is the spin of dark matter. Two different aspects of the same thing. The spin is what makes it fluid like. We are a part of that measurement so we can never measure c spin. We would need something faster than light speed to do that. Finding dark mass energy is an exercise in futility

Mass expands space to a less dense energy per volume of space. This is what causes attraction of mass. Mass is attracted to a larger volume of space with less dense energy.

Yes mass carries its dilated space with it and has a threshold to the more dense energy of massless space. But the accumulated dilation is evident in galaxies spinning as a disk of dilated energy. Dilation is the cause of light bending around macro mass (electrons, protons and Neutrons). Space energy density increase would contract the photon path not expand it. Relativity is correct. Its just not accepted for what it really describes.

Both voyagers appeared to slow down when they reached the edge of the solar system. Why? Because the density of energy increased at the edge causing the signal time to shorten. We incorrectly judged that to be the slowing of the voyagers. In reality it was just another observation of Relativity.

Relativity rules the universe by energy c and energy density differences by GR flow of the electrons in total mass. What causes electron flow? Something!!!! and not nothing! Fundamental energy is not the electron but what moves the electrons.

Gravity is simply mass being attracted to dilated space. Potential kinetic energy is a mass energy to a more dilated micro energy. Kinetic energy is the transfer of micro space energy between macro mass objects.

All mass creates an aura around it. The universe, a galaxy, a black hole (special aura), solar system, a sun, a planet, a person and the atom. That aura is the dilation of space energy. I believe this to be just an extension of Relativity different fro the main stream interpretation.

[MattFaw]

Can I use your video to describe part of my theory?
I would love to see what you can do with adding my theory to give yours a reason behind the flows of spacetime. And tie it into the Quantum world.
I hope that's a possibility.. :-)
Together we could be greater than the sum of the parts.

Hi Space Flow,

By all means, feel free to use the video as explainer; that's what I made it for.  And of course, if you have disagreements and caveats to make along with it, that's fine too.  I've re-purposed all the video footage in it, to make my video; so I don't see why you shouldn't use my video the same way.

I am definitely interested in collaborating.  My energy is currently obsessed with a different topic: the science of consciousness, as I am 5 years into making a 3D documentary about the topic (promo below).  I made the Dark Matter/Dark Energy vids as a holiday gift to myself, since I've been sitting on that theory for so long.  As I'm sure you know, some ideas just want to be expressed.

But by all means, let me know how you think the theories should be tweaked, and any ideas into making the arguments more robust.

best,

matt faw

Not a valid vimeo URL

[MattFaw]

I watched some of your video and stopped early on, again somebody is trying to create something more that does not exist, dark energy is space itself, dark matter is light, both of these are invisible to the eye and neutral while unified in space. Dark gravity is a no no.  Electrostatic is made from energy Ke interactions .  Both of your ideas are shadows of my own thoughts from has far back as 2009.

It was I who suggested space is attracted to space, it was I who recognises that when an object is displaced, space fills the ''space'' where the object was.   You are welcome to all the ideas, why are you talking copy rights?    science is free for all to share , there is no copy rights in science when considering space.

added - after watching further I hear more rubbish, something accounts for motion that we have not touched, incorrect, energy accounts for work. the unification of everything is EWUe.

I have to admit, I'm having a hard time understanding your comment or the attached video.  It doesn't sound like you're making a direct response to what I said in my vid.