[JoeBrown (OP)]

The topic of discussion is not new.  I am not a physicist, I however I endeavor to comprehend GR and contemplate it often.

I have identified the most probable cause of GR and a singularity solution by identifying a root cause of the problem and working out many aspects of this problem on my own through my favored tool of choice: logic.

GR (General Relativity) is an oversimplified solution developed by Albert Einstein to address some issues w/gravity and mass relationships.

To ignore a problem does not make it go away. 

All application of GR that I'm aware of refer to mass as its center as a point (Center of Mass (COM) as a specific point in a spacial coordinate system to resolve spacial relationship in 3/4D space.

One simply cannot solve the problem of a singularity solution, when the problem starts with a singularity solution, when one wishes to address problem the singularity solution.

Sounds ambiguous, but its not intended to.  The problem (as I see it) is that mass size is yet another dimension of the problem, but is conveniently (or inconveniently) ignored from the start.

NOTHING NEW.   I have not invented a new thing yet!  Identifying a problem and distilling it down to its most basic "points" (sorry, couldn't resist) is something I'm fairly good at.  (Pun intended, tho I dare not contemplate it's existence. I'm trying to resolve another issue.)

Now I do have an invention (of my own) that is an extrapolation of one somebody else (dont know who) made with the rubber sheet experiment and gravity.  I will assume the reader is familiar with the concept.  I don't have a drawing readily available, tho I will remind the reader, you are on the internet, so you can find one promptly should you desire: google "rubber sheet experiment" will likely reveal the image/concept.

Example extrapolation explained, please allow me to describe it.

The rubber sheet subtracts one dimension from 3D space to equal 2D space.  Space is represented as a rubber sheet in this fashion, to afford simplification of a description of gravity  (we're so complex when we simplify).

My invention is to extend this extrapolation further by increasing the decrease from 3D to 1D now space is represented by a string (not to be confused with string theory, it has little to do with that).  The author notes a striking resemblance and wishes to avoid confusion therein.

3 dimensions of 3D space (up, left, side) all share the exact same properties (AFAIK) so this is a fair analogy.

But we're not starting w/3D space, we start with 4D of space-time.  So we require 2D space representation. (My simple invention is becoming more complex...)

Now the topic may be misleading or not I don't know.  I possess only a semi grip on where I'm going with this.  I've noted that a singular is a problem exists.  I still haven't fully come to grips with how to resolve the issue with my invention.  I've drawn three different lines based on the experiment, but I fear they do correctly identify the issue at hand, nor address it.

Size of mass is ignored by equating it to a COM (center of mass) object.  Size is another dimension completely and conveniently ignored through association of COM concept.

I don't know how to resolve it with my invention.  Knowing how math works 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2, -3 the Lorenz transformation, tensors all go away in 1D space, but to add size and time and figure out what a new 3D space represents is a problem I  have (need to give it function, to see what it forms).

Skipped adding in size as a dimention (DOH) when I drew my picture (wonder why???)  I only thought I needed to add one dimension and used divergence  from straight to represent time.

We all know size matters, you cant be a man and not worry about it, even the exceptionally gifted have issues... (punny?)

I believe my "invention" will help simplify an ongoing problem, I'd like to see rectified.  But I'm no einstein.  I put it forth for discussion.

In the attachment, I was trying to figure out a probable "correct" extrapolation of space-time.  calculation of GR breaks at a singularity point because mixing 1 negative multiple positives makes no sense.  I'm trying to conceptualize the idea through drawing it by hand.  The three lines are three different possible extrapolations I'm toss out for example.

I think the bottom line is best candidate to closest to a full extrapolation of the rubber sheet toward completion. The center of the lines are intended to be presence of potential singularity point distortion.  They are all guesstimates, I haven't run the math.  Picture is hand drawn for example purpose only.

[JoeBrown (OP)]

I'm proud of my invention.  I haven't worked out how to apply it properly, but I believe it will expedite completing another goal I've been working on.  This has arisen from a tangential problem of a different thesis.  I'm pure amateur, so I fear I might be delusional as well.

[guest39538]

The topic of discussion is not new.  I am not a physicist, I however I endeavor to comprehend GR and contemplate it often.

I have identified the most probable cause of GR and a singularity solution by identifying a root cause of the problem and working out many aspects of this problem on my own through my favored tool of choice: logic.

GR (General Relativity) is an oversimplified solution developed by Albert Einstein to address some issues w/gravity and mass relationships.

To ignore a problem does not make it go away. 

All application of GR that I'm aware of refer to mass as its center as a point (Center of Mass (COM) as a specific point in a spacial coordinate system to resolve spacial relationship in 3/4D space.

One simply cannot solve the problem of a singularity solution, when the problem starts with a singularity solution, when one wishes to address problem the singularity solution.

Sounds ambiguous, but its not intended to.  The problem (as I see it) is that mass size is yet another dimension of the problem, but is conveniently (or inconveniently) ignored from the start.

NOTHING NEW.   I have not invented a new thing yet!  Identifying a problem and distilling it down to its most basic "points" (sorry, couldn't resist) is something I'm fairly good at.  (Pun intended, tho I dare not contemplate it's existence. I'm trying to resolve another issue.)

Now I do have an invention (of my own) that is an extrapolation of one somebody else (dont know who) made with the rubber sheet experiment and gravity.  I will assume the reader is familiar with the concept.  I don't have a drawing readily available, tho I will remind the reader, you are on the internet, so you can find one promptly should you desire: google "rubber sheet experiment" will likely reveal the image/concept.

Example extrapolation explained, please allow me to describe it.

The rubber sheet subtracts one dimension from 3D space to equal 2D space.  Space is represented as a rubber sheet in this fashion, to afford simplification of a description of gravity  (we're so complex when we simplify).

My invention is to extend this extrapolation further by increasing the decrease from 3D to 1D now space is represented by a string (not to be confused with string theory, it has little to do with that).  The author notes a striking resemblance and wishes to avoid confusion therein.

3 dimensions of 3D space (up, left, side) all share the exact same properties (AFAIK) so this is a fair analogy.

But we're not starting w/3D space, we start with 4D of space-time.  So we require 2D space representation. (My simple invention is becoming more complex...)

Now the topic may be misleading or not I don't know.  I possess only a semi grip on where I'm going with this.  I've noted that a singular is a problem exists.  I still haven't fully come to grips with how to resolve the issue with my invention.  I've drawn three different lines based on the experiment, but I fear they do correctly identify the issue at hand, nor address it.

Size of mass is ignored by equating it to a COM (center of mass) object.  Size is another dimension completely and conveniently ignored through association of COM concept.

I don't know how to resolve it with my invention.  Knowing how math works 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2, -3 the Lorenz transformation, tensors all go away in 1D space, but to add size and time and figure out what a new 3D space represents is a problem I  have (need to give it function, to see what it forms).

Skipped adding in size as a dimention (DOH) when I drew my picture (wonder why???)  I only thought I needed to add one dimension and used divergence  from straight to represent time.

We all know size matters, you cant be a man and not worry about it, even the exceptionally gifted have issues... (punny?)

I believe my "invention" will help simplify an ongoing problem, I'd like to see rectified.  But I'm no einstein.  I put it forth for discussion.

In the attachment, I was trying to figure out a probable "correct" extrapolation of space-time.  calculation of GR breaks at a singularity point because mixing 1 negative multiple positives makes no sense.  I'm trying to conceptualize the idea through drawing it by hand.  The three lines are three different possible extrapolations I'm toss out for example.

I think the bottom line is best candidate to closest to a full extrapolation of the rubber sheet toward completion. The center of the lines are intended to be presence of potential singularity point distortion.  They are all guesstimates, I haven't run the math.  Picture is hand drawn for example purpose only.

You needed to post this in new theories , I have already done the singularity part, slightly different to definition , Cambridge university has already discovered this  a while back what you are saying it is not a new idea.


The real singularity is this according to me


0→1←→1←0






Quite easy and multi-dimensional

[JoeBrown (OP)]

But I do not present a new theory

You needed to post this in new theories , I have already done the singularity part, slightly different to definition , Cambridge university has already discovered this  a while back what you are saying it is not a new idea.

Quite easy and multi-dimensional

only a simplified tool that can be applied existing theory.

At first I thought it belonged in new theories.  It is not, but seems to apply to physics - astronomy and cosmology.

I've not seen space or space-time reduced to two dimensions and applied to visualize a black hole, except in my thought and one drawing.

When GR breaks at point of singularity, I would argue it would not be a simple v shape as in rubber sheet example.  The rubber sheet experiment doesn't go far enough to complete the picture.  Neither does 4D in 3D CAD renderings...  They suggest a start toward completion but GR breaks because there's to many +'s and -'s involved.  I'm trying to avoid that problem, by extending the simplification in what seems (to me) the most logical fashion. 

I did try to explain it in the ALL text you quoted.  Perhaps I did not.

[guest39538]

But I do not present a new theory

You needed to post this in new theories , I have already done the singularity part, slightly different to definition , Cambridge university has already discovered this  a while back what you are saying it is not a new idea.

Quite easy and multi-dimensional

Only a simplified tool that can be applied existing theory.

At first I thought it belonged in new theories.  But it simply is not.

I've not seen space-time reduced as one dimension and applied to visualize a black hole.

You mention singularity that is a theory, and what you mentioned Cambridge have already done this and apparently can destroy GR.

[jeffreyH]

There is no 'cause' of general relativity. It is a model of the way that spacetime is expected to behave in the presence of mass. Various experimental and observational verifications of GR have been found. The latest being the detection of gravitational waves.

[JoeBrown (OP)]

You mention singularity that is a theory, and what you mentioned Cambridge have already done this and apparently can destroy GR.

I am an amateur, so perhaps, I don't understand.

I don't recall associating singularity with theory, nor mention of Cambridge.  If singularity is a theory, it is not mine or not new?  I claimed singularity was a problem and sought visualization of break point. 

I haven't read about recent work at Cambridge.  My ignorance ensues.

[jeffreyH]

Singularities are points in the gravitational field where infinities occur in the mathematics causing undefined results in the equations. That is the simple interpretation. There are equations that can quite happily operate past these singularities. Kruskal geometry is one such instance that describe wormholes through the horizon plus 'another universe'. However the mathematics bar access to this hidden universe. Whether or not access to the wormhole is barred is anyone's guess. The other end of this wormhole is theorized to lead to a white hole.

[JoeBrown (OP)]

I haven't worked the math so I don't know at which point or why infinity occurs.  I've been working with mostly logic.  I thought +- and # of dimentions was an issue.  Black holes are mostly theory, AFAIK, tho observation suggests differing none infinity mass values. 

Imaginary numbers are funny when it comes to mixing +- and their rules.  Imaginary have a finite set of rules.  Space-time presumably does to.  If a problem with infinity arrives one must examine and with potential differing results...  infinity needs be avoided IMO.

Logic has limitations, but it is of utility.

Singularities are points in the gravitational field where infinities occur in the mathematics causing undefined results in the equations. That is the simple interpretation. There are equations that can quite happily operate past these singularities. Kruskal geometry is one such instance that describe wormholes through the horizon plus 'another universe'. However the mathematics bar access to this hidden universe. Whether or not access to the wormhole is barred is anyone's guess. The other end of this wormhole is theorized to lead to a white hole.

I've seen pictures rendered with Cambridge in the title.  I haven't read the articles, because the picture made no sense to me.  I think I need to change that.  There's a coincidence in timing of me claiming an invention and results I haven't read, TheBox, suggests I had...  I need to read to resolve an ignorance issue of my own.  I offer no expatiation for any coincidence.

I would like to indicate, while googling at a coincidental time reference overlap on GR has availed said image to be view from a multiple link frame of reference...  I negated reason to inquire further, in that, I don't comprehend a circular point of view said picture seems to imply.  It defied my logic hence completely differing drawing example(s) offered and said picture.

I would further note, I didn't follow the math, but have postulated through my vague understanding of GR, that there would likely be a specific value of mass which reached an infinitival point in calculus.  (I believe that was the query which availed the images, I don't recall.  Having invalidated the image in brief, via quick determination, of two seeming separate yet  obvious circles of picture in question.)

[JoeBrown (OP)]

There is no 'cause' of general relativity. It is a model of the way that spacetime is expected to behave in the presence of mass. Various experimental and observational verifications of GR have been found. The latest being the detection of gravitational waves.

One might argue, some thing caused young Albert to develop it....  But that sounds like a new theory.

I thought absence of mass size use in GR might have something to do with completing a visualization.  If  infinity or worm-hole is postulation or result, something is missing IMO.  I'm trying to figure out what, using logic and my understanding of established theory.

If one is permitted postulation; one might be too smart for ones own good; one might not be able to reason what to say.

[evan_au]

infinitival point in calculus

I had to look it up, but "infinitival" seems to be a grammatical term (associated with infinitives), rather than a mathematical term associated with infinities (...or did I miss the pun?).

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/infinitival

You could try "singularity", "infinite" or "approaches infinity"?

[JoeBrown (OP)]

You could try "singularity", "infinite" or "approaches infinity"?

I knew what I meant, tho, I didn't study the word, instead relied on spellcheck to verify order of letters.

"of infinite property" is basically what I meant.  However, I haven't referred to what I said, I believe recall.

Perhaps I'm working a new theory here.  "TheBox" said NO. (My summation, he suggested otherwise).  He said I didn't have a "new" tool either (again my summation) based on not evaluating the facts.

I still have not read the article... Funny, I like logic a lot.  I've thought about reading it after the "NO" response.  But it boils down to this.  The picture associated with the article looks nothing like a string in my drawings.   If there is an V or funnel shape as in rubber sheet, the association is not self evident, based on my brief interpretation of the picture that accompanies the Cambridge publication.

Based on logic and necessity to dismiss in brief, to date, I've neglected to read the article, because I believe I must address other concerns, to resolve issues that are more directly related to me.  Further, I saw Cambridge, GR (I think was partly my search term) and proved false, or something like breaks GR....

AFAIK, GR was already broken at the SINGULARITY point.  My brief observation says that article proves nothing new.  But I didn't see the funnel or string I expected, so I really have little other clue about the article.  Tho this board is associated with Cambridge and I fear my lack of further investigation to date leaves me in a questionable frame of state.

The singularity problem I'd like to address is this:

Black holes can be resolved to have a finite like mass based on observation.  This simply cannot be calculated by GR because it is brakes at or near the single point.  Infinity is calculated, and moving beyond that point, space-time values will not have finite value because they resolve to infinite values.

I don't believe the flaw is in relativity (the equation itself) I suspect it's in the route of application with imaginary -+ issues.  Its not a theory, its something that needs to be clarified and resolved (IMO).  My goal, not prove GR broken, fix the problem, with logic, the best I can. 

I've come to liken myself to that of a person who likes to debug things.  It's quite often necessary when you find a problem, you must first locate its cause.

I've postulated a theory.  I posted it on this board.  It was moved to "New Theories" in the a fashion similiar to "TheBox"  suggests for this thread.  I understand that cause/effect and what happened.

Already understand boundaries are subjective limits... but I have not proposed a theory, to my understanding.


Its left me with quite the dilemma.  I've determined I'm on the right track to resolving issues with Lambda-CDM and cosmic redshift.   I've produced one prediction attached to the thread "Is Dark Energy a Farce?" which was previously relocated from this forum.

I don't want to state "New Theories" is a place for whack jobs like me.  But...  That's a subjective assessment which each reader should assess for them self.

Dark Energy, to my understand is not explained.  I'm working toward an explanation.   I've postulated one theory to date.  I'm working toward clarification and proof.  Much of what I've done to date strays from standard Lambda-CDM acceptance.   This injects a problem toward validity of solution via direct and indirect consequences of the method I've chosen.

Now I'm not a scientist of any certification.  Discovering any "thing" or idea is not easy when so much has already been discovered.  We all face that issues with discovery and possibilities of something "new" being done.  Their are numerous facets to the problem at hand and a large volume of questions that I simply cannot answer.   Going against standard Lambda-CDM practice has presented itself with more challenges than I can come to terms with.   

ARGH!  I'm not that smart.  I know it.  Trouble is ppl point out I don't know a lot of things, then conclude the argument is over.    ?   I go back to ARGH!

As long as I don't get stuck in the ARGH loop too long, I'll keep learning what I don't know and work toward avoiding the loop.

Fear that I've diverged off topic so far, this thread will end in a philosophical tangent, I had hoped to avoid from its beginning.