[MattFaw]

Alcubierre Warp Drive.

Awesome!  That's exactly what I was thinking about.

Thanks!

matt faw

[o_O]

I happened to come across this post while frustrated that I just don't feel I have been given a complete explanation of the concept of Gravity, particularly when it comes to why matter actually distorts space-time and has an effect on it at all. While searching I discovered this post and decided to register an account just to say how compelling I find this idea of space time as a fluid directly interacting with matter. As others have mentioned good theories should have complete detailed descriptions of the entire concept and visualization that properly represents it. The steel ball on sheet of rubber, or even the visualization of space-time as a warped grid was never compelling to me. Even when only thinking on 2 dimensions this way, I never felt that this explanation ever provided any insight into how or why matter distorts space-time, as well as why matter would happen to follow the space-time it is distorting. The concept of matter attracting space-time and the subatomic process to describe the "pump" and "cycle" of this is what I find most compelling. The idea that "empty space" is in fact something that matter is directly interacting with at the sub atomic level, which leads to the large effects we can easily observe at the macro level, and at the entire scale of the universe over a long period of time. The idea that there is no part of the universe where matter or space-time is necessarily "at rest" and the variances in "pressure" and "velocity" of space-time as it interacts with matter is a fascinating idea. Humans and everything on Earth existing within this "current". Reading all of this (whether is is necessarily correct or incorrect) feels like such a breath of fresh air to me personally.

I have an extremely basic understanding of GR and the concept of Gravity overall, so I really can't speak on your model's scientific validity. I can't honestly provide any detailed critique or feedback as I consider myself simply an interested outside observer. I am an animator and spend a lot of time playing around with 3D fluid simulation in the void that is virtual 3D space where you don't really start with any rules, and to get a realistic simulation these "rules" like friction and viscosity need to be specifically considered and applied to the simulation directly. I also have a particular interest in real world fluid dynamics and it's various applications. I look at the countless amazing images taken by the Hubble and other telescopes and have always seen an incredibly fluid world of particles and gasses and vortices at all observable levels, with no real compelling (to me) explanations as to why this was happening until now.

The other aspect that makes this model of the world so compelling is all the various ways humans have utilized our understanding of fluid dynamics to create new technology. The idea that space travel might not just be what we perceive as traveling through empty space, and instead might actually be a situation we are much more familiar with in the world we can see and know on Earth, is fascinating. It would mean there is actually a "current" of space and time we might someday be able to find ways to take advantage of in the same ways we have taken advantage of the properties of our atmosphere and liquid water and gases and various other fluids. With space as this unexplainable incomprehensible void of nothing our ability to take advantage simply doesn't exist. While space-time as a dynamic fluid would obviously be very different than what we can directly observe on Earth, the effects of Gravity on a large scale so clearly seem to resemble the types of patterns and behaviors we see in fluids in our world whether in or out of our atmosphere. I think it would definitely be possible to represent this idea in a very interesting way in terms of visualization. Perhaps the common example of one mass orbiting another, representing matter as these solid spherical masses, but representing the flow of space-time as a visible and dense volume of particles in 3D space, flowing into these spherical masses. With even the most simple fluid sim visualization, say a simple fluid flowing in one direction over a spherical shape, extremely interesting patterns of vortices and waves, and overall having a large effect on the entire volume of fluid.

Anyway sorry for the rambling on. Just wanted to say thank you for presenting this idea, and apologies for not being able to offer more than acknowledgement and interest. Thanks!

[MattFaw]

While searching I discovered this post and decided to register an account just to say how compelling I find this idea of space time as a fluid directly interacting with matter.

Good to hear from you!  As you can see in this thread, this is also the first chance for Space Flow and I to find each other.  I'm glad this thread is evolving into a discussion about what's possible in this theory!

best,

matt faw

[jeffreyH]

You really need to read this before continuing down this path.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory

[Space Flow (OP)]

You really need to read this before continuing down this path.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory

Jeffrey, thank you very much for the research you have put into my ideas. It's good to know people are considering them.
I have been aware of these prior treatments of possibilities for considering movement by spacetime/ether.
Unfortunately they don't relate to what I am proposing as they are all looking at it from the Quantum fluctuation point of view, while still maintaining the curved spacetime view of relativity. Those particular views and others of similar variations happen to be part of the frustrations with all proposed concepts that I have come across, that to me fail to properly address Gravity, it's source, and observed effects at all levels.
Papers mentioned in those articles are all in some way Quantum Gravity related and fail to adequately explain observed reality.
Some points within some of them almost look like they could have headed in the right direction, but don't.
They all have one thing in common. They are all attempts with different approaches to Unify Gravity with the 3 known forces as a 4th Force and as such do not meet all the requirements of Relativity.
Mine is the only explanation I can see that is not in dispute with either QM or GR. It does not treat Gravity as a Force but gives a plausible explanation for it's Quantum origins. (I admit I am biassed).
SpaceFlow Theory can be correctly described within the framework of a fully relativistic theory.

On the surface SpaceFlow theory appears to have a problem with SR, where spacetime, as conceived in classical physics leads to several contradictions; in particular, spacetime having a definite velocity at each space-time point will exhibit a preferred direction. This conflicts with the relativistic requirement that all directions within a light cone are equivalent. That is only because SR deals with constant relative speeds and that is not how I describe the mobile behavior of spacetime within SpaceFlow Theory. Giving spacetime the type of movement I am proposing is a purely mechanical treatment and the light cone equivalence now becomes a relativistic problem easily accounted by frequency shift within a constant light speed. It in fact builds a necessary bridge between Special and General Relativity in that it assigns a relative speed to a stationary position within a Gravity influenced situation. Like standing on the surface of a planet.
Again thank you for giving my ideas enough thought to do the research.
Also thank you for putting me in the situation of having to defend this theory from a different perspective. It gives me valuable insight for the structure and the wording of the next draft.

[Space Flow (OP)]

I happened to come across this post while frustrated that I just don't feel I have been given a complete explanation of the concept of Gravity, particularly when it comes to why matter actually distorts space-time and has an effect on it at all. While searching I discovered this post and decided to register an account just to say how compelling I find this idea of space time as a fluid directly interacting with matter.

o_O, Thank you for your kind appraisal of Space Flow Theory.
I too have shared all the frustrations with the available theories and inadequate explanations over the years.
In fact the answer seemed obvious to me since before I even knew enough about the subject to really have the right to an opinion.
That for a long time drove me to learn absolutely all I could about the subject. I was always sure that my views had to be wrong, and that I just couldn't see why because I just didn't know enough. Because there had to be a simple reason that I was missing, that would immediately and easily show, the utter stupidity of what I was thinking.
I have now been trying to falsify this theory for a number of years. I have been running it past family who look at me with blank faces. (Here he goes again). I have badgered my friends with mostly similar results. I have run it past a couple of physics teachers that I know who are convinced that it couldn't be either right or that simple but are unable to give a convincing argument why it can't be that simple and right at the same time.
The internet has been a great research tool, and the advent of MOOCs a great boon. I have taken all I could find on and around the subject, and I still haven't been able to falsify it.
In fact the more I learned, the stronger the case for this view of reality has become.
Publishing the idea here and on Facebook is an attempt to give others the opportunity to falsify it as I feel I am now too attached for a proper objective view.
Besides I find I can actually be more coherent when answering someone than when I am just trying to put an idea down.

My biggest shortfall is that as far as formal education goes I have only High school and a background of Electrical engineering that has not been practiced since the early eighties.
For a complete amateur to get a paper that is presented well enough to even get a glance is probably beyond my meager abilities. I have come to the conclusion that if this is ever going to go any further than I need help.
I have a daughter who has promised that help a couple of times but she is in the middle of her PHD in Neural Psychology at the moment and has no time for her dear old dad. (Understandably).
Finding someone like Matt Faw above has given me some hope, and some of your comments have also encouraged me. Especially this one;

I think it would definitely be possible to represent this idea in a very interesting way in terms of visualization. Perhaps the common example of one mass orbiting another, representing matter as these solid spherical masses, but representing the flow of space-time as a visible and dense volume of particles in 3D space, flowing into these spherical masses. With even the most simple fluid sim visualization, say a simple fluid flowing in one direction over a spherical shape, extremely interesting patterns of vortices and waves, and overall having a large effect on the entire volume of fluid.

I would love to talk to you more about that if you are at all interested.
Either way thank you very much for your encouraging comments, and I'm glad to have given someone else a possible answer to some very frustrating unanswered questions that I'm sure must be evident to more people than you and me.

[guest39538]

Space time is not real, and space is not a fluid, space is dark energy, dark energy is a ''rubber ball'', the ''rubber ball'' always contorts back to ''shape'', you are trying to do a concept that Jeffrey as already pointed out exists with the link.

[Space Flow (OP)]

you are trying to do a concept that Jeffrey as already pointed out exists with the link.

And this obviously upsets you some how....
Strange... Do I dare ask why?

[guest39538]

you are trying to do a concept that Jeffrey as already pointed out exists with the link.

And this obviously upsets you some how....
Strange... Do I dare ask why?

It does not upset me, I understand how much time I have wasted coming up with theories to find they already exist. It is great learning and great discussion, but if we all worked together and got serious I bet we could come up with the correct answer.  Fluid is a no go really, energy is the answer with a certainty.


I would start here -

F(a)+F(b)=F(C)

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[guest39538]

According to present information of Atoms, the electron shell should collapse and be none existence, the Proton should absorb the electron shell like a negative and positive chemical merging, is the atom model correct?

This should be our first concern, if the model is incorrect then we will never find understanding.

How can a Quark be attracted to a Quark?   where is the facts in that when we can't observe this event?


If a Proton is negative then so are quarks, so negatives are attracted to negatives? a complete opposite to what we think.

Why not a single negative particle, that absorbs light, then internally produces kE that emits an electron field?

[Space Flow (OP)]

If a Proton is negative then so are quarks, so negatives are attracted to negatives? a complete opposite to what we think.

Where in this Universe did you manage to find a negative Proton?
As for the rest; No comment.

[guest39538]

Where in this Universe did you manage to find a negative Proton?
As for the rest; No comment.

History labelled them the wrong way around, the electron is actually the positive, the protons are negative.  Positives repel positives fact, if Quarks were positive they would not ''stick'' together.

added - positive does the work of expansion

negative does the work of contraction


don't believe me?

gases
metals

Thermodynamics

[guest39538]

added- what the world does not realise is why ice floats and expands, the negative ice wants to sink to the negative of the earth, but the positive of the water below the ice keeps the ice pushed upwards, the ice does not expand internally, the ice expands by gaining externally from its surroundings, just imagine making a sandwich with a spring for the filling and pressing down on the sandwich,


added- the water needs to contract back to form and the positive needs to expand and pushes back.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

added


E=the action of compressing or being compressed.
the reduction in volume (causing an increase in pressure) of the fuel mixture in an internal-combustion engine before ignition.


kE=work

[guest39538]

cant post maths so done it in bitmap  E=<r₁


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[jeffreyH]

cant post maths so done it in bitmap  E=<r₁


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Why are you using the equation for the volume of a sphere?

[guest39538]

Why are you using the equation for the volume of a sphere?

Because a sphere is isotropic from the com/cog


squeeze a rubber ball , the energy of the ball is compressed to a greater energy, the greater energy wants to repel , so the greater energy pushes back. When the energy can't push back because the contracting force is greater than the pushing force, the energy pushes side ways, i.e oblates.

The sun maintains it spherical likeness because the positive push backs magnitude is greater than the contracting force.

[Spaskiba]

Space time is tenseless, you cannot treat it as a moveable object just because you can treat it as a fabric, sure it can be bent or stretched however there is no motion through space time yet alone motion of space time, that would imply more space and more time is being created, but this is where your "space time recycles" solution comes in right? What I understood is, if earth exists in space time and causes space time to be pulled to in its center radiantly inwards thus resulting on a push on you and explain why you're stuck on a ground and geodesics exist, it suggests more and more space time is being added to earth's center, and this is where space time is being recycled right, so in such a way no new extra space is being created right? Well the issue I have with that, letting the tenseless space time picture out of the way, is that I don't understand what mechanism you're suggesting for that recycle, you see an electron doesn't feed on space time (that's even paradoxical as electrons require time to evolve what does it even mean to absorb time) they feed on photons, if they were fed in space time that would mean you somehow convert energy from space time, and later on recycle that space time with extra energy?

Sorry I will read your thread again tomorrow as I'm too tired right now and not very well focused, it is an interesting idea, promising? Nah, but then again I enjoy well thought and well imagined ideas. I should read also the comments but again, tomorrow:)

[Space Flow (OP)]

Space time is tenseless, you cannot treat it as a moveable object just because you can treat it as a fabric, sure it can be bent or stretched however there is no motion through space time yet alone motion of space time, that would imply more space and more time is being created, but this is where your "space time recycles" solution comes in right? What I understood is, if earth exists in space time and causes space time to be pulled to in its center radiantly inwards thus resulting on a push on you and explain why you're stuck on a ground and geodesics exist, it suggests more and more space time is being added to earth's center, and this is where space time is being recycled right, so in such a way no new extra space is being created right? Well the issue I have with that, letting the tenseless space time picture out of the way, is that I don't understand what mechanism you're suggesting for that recycle, you see an electron doesn't feed on space time (that's even paradoxical as electrons require time to evolve what does it even mean to absorb time) they feed on photons, if they were fed in space time that would mean you somehow convert energy from space time, and later on recycle that space time with extra energy?

Sorry I will read your thread again tomorrow as I'm too tired right now and not very well focused, it is an interesting idea, promising? Nah, but then again I enjoy well thought and well imagined ideas. I should read also the comments but again, tomorrow:)

Spaskiba, welcome to the madhouse.
You ask questions that tells me you read this and are really trying to understand my point of view.
Whether it is right or wrong I thank you for the serious consideration.
After your re-read tomorrow and as you suggested a read through the comments where a lot of your questions may already have been answered, I would be delighted to read your further appraisal, and attempt to answer any remaining questions.
Just for now I will comment on the Electron one you brought up.
I used that as it is a more immediate picture in peoples heads but consider that to be a minor part of the equation. The major usage of spacetime is affected by the vibration of Quarks. After that everything else is minor additions to the total, including the actions of electrons and the effects of adding energy which increases the temp.
Anyway thats all for now. Till tomorrow...

[Alohascope]

Maybe I chose the wrong Forum to post this...

Flow, this is the only science forum I've found, of many, that allows free discussion.  The others adhere tightly to Consensus, so that new ideas are strictly unwelcome, and moderators on those forums seem generally psychotic.

[Alohascope]

Where in this Universe did you manage to find a negative Proton?
As for the rest; No comment.

History labelled them the wrong way around, the electron is actually the positive, the protons are negative.  Positives repel positives fact, if Quarks were positive they would not ''stick'' together.

added - positive does the work of expansion

negative does the work of contraction


don't believe me?

gases
metals

Thermodynamics

I just read somewhere of a quirky hydrogen bond which allows same charges to stick together.  In science, everything is possible, even our ability to understand, if we don't adopt Consensus.