Is a Euclidian Model the Solution to the Gravity=Geometry Conundrum?

[turbo]

This paper (with some actual math...surprise!) is in very close agreement with the polarized-ZPE model that I have been working on for a while. It treats gravity and inertia as emergent, not basic, qualities, and although it does not address the mechanics of vacuum polarization, I believe that it is a realistic summation of the current state of cosmology, and gives us a rational exit from the gravity=geometry conundrum that seems to plague the standard model with disconnects at galactic and cluster scales.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0310/0310007.pdf

 

[yogi]

interesting overview - i don't have reference 19 - the author states that Wheeler and Ciufolini defend the proposition that inertia is consequent to distant matter and that the reactionary force is propagated instantly - does Wheeler make that assertion?

 

[Chronos]

The idea inertia is the consequence of distant matter comes from Mach's principle. Einstein was very interested in this, but ultimately discarded the notion in formulating GR.

Turbo, the idea that gravity and inertia is emergent is attractive. The hard part is figuring out where it fits in the chain of causality. But, the ZPE field may also be emergent and difficult to position in the chain of causality. Another paper you may find interesting:

Analogue Gravity
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505065

 

[turbo]

The idea inertia is the consequence of distant matter comes from Mach's principle. Einstein was very interested in this, but ultimately discarded the notion in formulating GR.

Turbo, the idea that gravity and inertia is emergent is attractive. The hard part is figuring out where it fits in the chain of causality. But, the ZPE field may also be emergent and difficult to position in the chain of causality. Another paper you may find interesting:

Analogue Gravity
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505065

Thank you for that survey paper.

In summary and with the benefit of hindsight: An arbitrary gravitationalfield can always be represented as an equivalent optical medium, but subject to the somewhat unphysical restriction that
[magnetic permitivity] ∝ [electric permeability].

My motivation for modeling polarization of the quantum vacuum arose from my need to understand gravitational lensing in the light of classical optics. I understand the motivation of the authors, although I wish they had chosen to model optical effects rather than modeling acoustic analogues.

 

[turbo]

interesting overview - i don't have reference 19 - the author states that Wheeler and Ciufolini defend the proposition that inertia is consequent to distant matter and that the reactionary force is propagated instantly - does Wheeler make that assertion?

I have searched the 'net for similar assertions or extracts and have not found them. At over $80 for the book, I'll have to pass, and I'm a long way from any university library. Does anybody here have access to the reference?

 

[SimonA]

This paper is clearly meant to be humorous.

Look at the "basics";

1. Basics
• It explains particles as short-lived metastable states that result from WFC.
• Virtual particles have a natural explanation. They only differ from real particles in the parameters describing
the surrounding ether.
• Energy and momentum are not conserved.

and even has;

• WFC is explained dynamically as a superluminal phenomenon.

• All quantum events, real and virtual, are driven by runaway solutions.

The very title is a clue. We know full well space is not classically euclidean, and a final TOE extremely unlikely. There are some very astute observations however and so its either a joke by very smart people, or a serious paper from very smart people with very little common sense whatsoever.

 

[turbo]

This paper is clearly meant to be humorous.

Look at the "basics";



and even has;



The very title is a clue. We know full well space is not classically euclidean, and a final TOE extremely unlikely. There are some very astute observations however and so its either a joke by very smart people, or a serious paper from very smart people with very little common sense whatsoever.

Please explain why you believe that this paper was published by well-meaning idiots, or smart-alecky geniuses. I eagerly await your analysis.

 

[ohwilleke]

Arbona and most of his colleague appear to do most of their work in the area of numerical models that try to replicate general relativity. I suspect that the motivation for him to look at the possibility of a Euclidian model is to see where he can safely remove non-linear terms from his equations without doing undue damage to the model.