0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I would have thought, before you can assume that it propagates outward from the centre of anything, that first you would have to offer some evidence that contrary to GR there exists such a thing as a Gravitational field, as opposed to Gravity being a consequence of geometry. Last I checked no part of GR that has so far been tested, has succeeded in falsifying it. And the search for a Graviton has drawn a blank.
If by gravitational field you mean the force and acceleration on a point test mass at any point around an object, then I can't see why it would not point to the centre of mass of the object. Unless of course there is another mass distorting the field.
You can have curvature AND a force carrier. When viewing stress, energy and momentum what exactly is under stress in a vacuum and what is causing that stress? Unless you believe there is no vacuum and space is filled with a perfect fluid of varying density. What then varies the density?
Around the moon probes have been lost due to unexpected gravitational anomalies. Where differences in lunar density are enough to interfere with the stability of an orbit. If an anomaly is underground then doesn't that make a nonsense of the geometry notion? Since gravity is weak the forces within the mass should easily counter any 'magic' curvature. This should never actually be able to penetrate the surface.
Around the moon probes have been lost due to unexpected gravitational anomalies.
Jeffrey, It so happens that the varying density no viscosity fluid is exactly what I think all the evidence is pointing towards. What varies that density is the funnelling effect of a central body pulling in this fluid spacetime from it's surrounds.
This behaves (has the same effect) for all observations and experiments so far made, exactly like curvature. It also explains how Gravity is felt around a Black Hole, where a force carrier would have trouble propagating out of an event horizon. Unless you believe that gravity force carriers do not have to adhere to the Universes speed limit.Gravity is not a force for exactly the above reason. If it was a force transmitted by force carrier particles it would not make it out of a Black Hole, and with no Gravity a Black Hole wouldn't exist in the first place.
It is a flow from outside Matter that exactly meets the amount of space matter demands to stay animate.You can call that flow or you can view it as curvature. Going back to a Newtonian view of a Universal force which would require a force carrier particle does not fit observations of it's behaviour and is not justified.
Quote from: jeffreyHAround the moon probes have been lost due to unexpected gravitational anomalies.I was wondering which probes?I know the recent Grail probes studied the Moon's gravitational field in considerable detail, and they have found some gravitational anomalies (perhaps the crater from an iron meteorite, subsequently filled with lava?).The Grail probes did check the Moon's gravitational field from a very low altitude, and they were intentionally crashed into the Moon at the end of the mission. But the anomalies did not cause the crash.http://www.space.com/21364-moon-gravity-mascons-mystery.html
Since the geodesics inside an event horizon must be coherent since they all must point towards the singularity and follow the most direct route does this imply that the gravitational field of all objects is also coherent?
The question is where would the graviton come from if it cannot escape the horizon?
You have shown no justification for these views. Just a lot of wild speculation.
every time an electron shell jumps to a higher orbital it encompasses a larger volume of spacetime. By returning to it’s lower state it consumes that spacetime and outputs a global electromagnetic shockwave, at the same time as drawing in more spacetime to replace it ready for the next cycle.
“Spacetime is not nothing”. It is something. ...It apparently must also be extremely tasty to Matter.
Quote from: JeffreyHThe question is where would the graviton come from if it cannot escape the horizon?In a discussion about black holes, it was mentioned that the area of a black hole's event horizon increases proportionally to the mass of the black hole. There is a principle that information cannot be lost from the universe. It is as if a history of the three-dimensional matter entering the black hole is encoded in the two-dimensional surface of the event horizon, like a hologram. This would include the mass, charge & angular momentum of the matter inside. Perhaps this could be the source of the (hypothetical) gravitons?See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principleDiscussion near the end of: http://omegataupodcast.net/2015/12/191-string-theory/
I think a flaw in this argument is that to make an electron jump to a higher energy level, it must absorb a photon (or electromagnetic shockwave, if you prefer) which has exactly the same energy as the photon that would be released if the electron fell between these same two levels.So here we have a cycle of: Electron falls to lower level, emits photon. Photon strikes electron in lower level, it is absorbs and the electron moves to a higher level. Energy is conserved. There is no need for a consumable supply of Spacetime to provide power for the electrons or photons.
I also have a problem with this when the matter is not in the form of a solid/liquid/gas, but in the form of a plasma. In this case, there are not discrete (rare) instances where a particular atom emits or absorbs a photon of a specific frequency. - In a plasma, every time the high speed negative electrons zoom past a positive nucleus, they emit or absorb radiation over a wide range of frequencies (Bremsstrahlung radiation) - If this theory were true, the gravitational attraction of a plasma should be many times higher than for the same atoms as a gas. - As I understand it, there is no measurable difference in gravitational attraction between a gas or a plasma and the center of the Earth (you would need to take into account any change in volume of gas vs plasma).
If Spacetime flows into matter, and is "used up", where does new Spacetime come from?All this Spacetime has been consumed by matter for billions of years, there must be very little of it left!Or is this an proposed explanation for Dark Energy? There is not so much Spacetime to hold the universe together, so space expands more quickly?
If we think of special relativity in respect to macroscopic objects we have length contraction in the direction of motion, time dilation etc. In the case of free falling geodesics in a gravitational field we have length extension of macroscopic objects. So in this respect an accelerating frame of reference is NOT equivalent to a free falling frame under the influence of gravity.
If the acceleration due to gravity increases to relativistic levels then there has to be a relationship between the density of spacetime/gravitons (take your pick) that can be treated like a conservation law of some sort. What is it conserving? Or is it simply a balance between inertia, time dilation and some unknown other? An unresolved issue I have is the role of the gamma function in all this.
Quote from: Space Flow on 30/12/2015 07:15:24I would have thought, before you can assume that it propagates outward from the centre of anything, that first you would have to offer some evidence that contrary to GR there exists such a thing as a Gravitational field, as opposed to Gravity being a consequence of geometry. Last I checked no part of GR that has so far been tested, has succeeded in falsifying it. And the search for a Graviton has drawn a blank.You can have curvature AND a force carrier. When viewing stress, energy and momentum what exactly is under stress in a vacuum and what is causing that stress? Unless you believe there is no vacuum and space is filled with a perfect fluid of varying density. What then varies the density? It could just as likely be a density of force carriers operating coherently and following an inverse square distribution.
where is the energy coming from to power the process of absorption/re-emission, if all of the EM in exactly equals all of the EM out. An extra bit of energy seems to me to be needed just to keep Matter animated, that does not seem to be accounted for.
It is not just rest mass that determines the rate of flow, but the Mass/Energy equivalent.
You can calculate how much more mass the plasma will gain from Einsteins's E=mc2, which is roughly 1.5E-8 grams.So I maintain that the mass of 1 mole of H2 gas at room temperature = 2 grams mass cannot be measurably distinguished from the same number of Hydrogen atoms as a plasma ≈ 2.000000015 grams mass.However, the rate of electromagnetic interactions (photon absorption/emission) is far higher in a plasma than in a neutral gas. The way I read the description of Space Flow theory, the plasma should weigh thousands (or millions?) of times more than the same amount of gas at room temperature.
Electrons if they try to recombine with protons would quite quickly be knocked out again by hi energy photons. Even then most of the time it would happen so quickly they wouldn't even emit a photon.
Quote from: Space FlowElectrons if they try to recombine with protons would quite quickly be knocked out again by hi energy photons. Even then most of the time it would happen so quickly they wouldn't even emit a photon.In a fully-ionized plasma, the electrons have far more energy than the ground-state energy of the atom (around 13 eV for Hydrogen). So the electrons don't try to fall into an orbital (and emit a photon), but remain in a hot soup of electrons and protons.Every time an electron passes a proton (which is very often, since they are moving at very high velocity), the path of the electron is bent towards the proton by its proximity to the positive charge. Every time an electron passes another electron, or a proton approaches another proton, their path is bent away from the similar charge; all these events are electromagnetic interactions which generate or absorb photons.This change in behavior is shown by the fact that the plasma is opaque (all frequencies are absorbed very quickly), while Hydrogen gas at room temperature is transparent to visible frequencies (ie effectively no frequencies are absorbed).
Those greedy Quarks are responsible for so much flow everything else pales to insignificance.
Quote from: Space FlowThose greedy Quarks are responsible for so much flow everything else pales to insignificance.The proton (containing 3 quarks) has the mass of 1836 electrons. This means the electron has about .0016% of the mass of a quark (on average; I know an isolated quark is not stable).This is a fairly sizable contribution to the mass of an atom (unlike effects like heating up an atom).
But this mass also accrues to an isolated electron traveling through a dark vacuum. As I understand it, an electron has no internal structure to vibrate, and it is not interacting with other atoms or photons. So here is a case where mass happens, but there is no vibration to chew up the hypothetical Space Flow.
Perhaps Space Flow is superfluous to mass?
Since the geodesics inside an event horizon must be coherent since they all must point towards the singularity and follow the most direct route does this imply that the gravitational field of all objects is also coherent? Meaning that propagation follows a consistent radial direction away from the centre.