Favorite quotes

  • Thread starter shintashi
  • Start date
112
1
hmnn...

funny haha equations.

I would like to know if that curvature of space equation takes into account that the universe is flat like a pancake and not spherical like a ball ?


Who says its flat ? I do. Nyaahh !!
 

chroot

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,166
33
When you say "flat," are suggesting the universe is two-dimensional, or are you suggesting that spacetime is not curved?

- Warren
 

Alkatran

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
942
0
Oh good, the thread went downhill since I last checked in. I'll post the same proof that push gravity can't work as I did in the other thread.

1: Neutrinos move away from the sun as if they were on an expanding sphere. The more area this sphere has, the less neutrinos in one area.
2: A certain percent of neutrinos will be absorbed for every Kg of matter they must pass through.

1 and 2 mean - things further away or with matter between them and the neutrino source will receive less neutrinos and, as a consequence, not weigh as much.


Alright, on to a hypothetical situation. We will assume the earth is flat and the neutrinos are approaching as a straight surface (eliminating the constants imposed by (1), this will prove 2 can't work for gravity).

All observers and objects are assumed to have the right mass, density, and size, for every neutrino to pass through 1 Kg of matter as it passes through them. The only exception to this will be the "Earth", which will be 1000 Kg thick instead of 1.

Observer 1 is standing outside.
Observer 2 is standing under a tree.
Observer 3 is on the opposite of the planet, directly "under" observer 1.
Observer 4 is on the opposite of the planet, directly "under" observer 2.

Now, here is how we calculate the force exerted by the neutrinos coming from the sun:
x(1-n)^y*n

where x is the number of neutrinos (per wave), n is the absorption rate (percent absorbed for each Kg of matter passed through), and y is the number of Kg already passed through. We will set x at 1000 and n at 10%.

Force on observer 1: 1000*(1-.10)^0*.10 = 1000*.10 = 100
Force on observer 2: 1000*(1-.10)^1*.10 = 1000*.9*.1 = 90
Force on observer 3: 1000*(1-.10)^1001*.10 = 1.57*10^-44
Force on observer 4: 1000*(1-.10)^1002*.10 = 1.42*10^-44

Alright, so if you're under a tree you weigh 10% less. Right, that makes a lot of sense. So let's just set n to a lower value, k? How about .001%, alright, sounds good to me too.

Force on observer 1: 1000*(1-.00001)^0*.10 = 1000*.10 = 100
Force on observer 2: 1000*(1-.00001)^1*.10 = 1000*.99999*.1 = 99.999
Force on observer 3: 1000*(1-.00001)^1001*.10 = 99.004
Force on observer 4: 1000*(1-.00001)^1002*.10 = 99.003

Alright, now we have values that make a bit more sense! I mean, now if you stand under a tree you don't lose 10% of your weight, you only lose .001% of it. But wait, those guys on the other side of the earth are being pushed OFF at the same speed we're being pushed down! Oh darn! Well, let's just compensate for that by putting another neutrino source on the other side! Alright, now since all the numbers are somewhere around 99.. well everyone weighs 1. Hurrah!

See the problem? If the absorbtion constant is low, the force is nullified (since it mught be coming in from all sides for equal gravity) but if it's high, you weight a lot less when you're under anything.

BAM! Crushed.

Oh, and I don't remember weighing less during solar eclipses. Funny.
Come to think of it, why didn't the moon come crashing down on us? I mean, all of a sudden the earth isn't being pushed away by as much (and it's being pushed on the other side, so it starts accelerating towards the moon, which is accelerating towards us...)
 
112
1
curved spacetime paper ?

neither. I'm suggesting that the universe is flat like a pancake, not two dimensional, but not a bubble. if you imagine a sombrero galaxy for instance, or the way a cyclotron toy looks, then you have the basic idea. While toying with the numbers for about a year, my assistant and I concluded that the radius of the universe seemed to correlate with our estimation of the mass, on an x^2, and not X^3 basis.

At first we thought this might be because the space was mostly empty, but now we realize that would be wrong. While space is not 2 dimensional, the vast majority of the third dimension is fractional at best, like a saucer with a central spire, and less like a big shiny ball of light.

The model we are using right now, while still eeking inbetween finer ends of equations, still mandates that we some how account for the angles of the electromagnetic field ejection from macrocosmic jets (a big ugly version of the same thing ejected from Quasars) and figuring out, geometrically, how this works together.
one possible "riptide" explanation is wave recoil, which oddly might mean, cosmically anyways, that the anti-wave of everything is recoiling, and would represent the "EM" field return of gravitational vortexes. In even more simple terms, imagine you have a pencil tip bobbing in the center of a glass of water- the wave ripples out to the rim, and then returns back to the center, and back and forth, like a dance.
Hopefully though, this isn't the model for the whole universe, and we might find that a "90 degree" angled shape could manifest itself.

- Shin
 

chroot

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,166
33
Jesus, no wonder I make it a policy not to bother to post in TD...

- Warren
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top