The paradox of Gravitation

  • Thread starter Tyger
  • Start date
  • #1
Tyger
398
0
More years ago then I care to think about I discovered a contradiction in the way we think about Gravity. I called it the Paradox of Gravitation, and I decided that if it could be unraveled we could gain insight into the nature of Gravity.

The paradox is this, people think of Gravity as being caused by a field, or space-time curvature produced by a gravitating body. To produce such a field, analogous to an electric field the gravitating body would have to "send something out" in the manner that an charged body sends out virtual photons. But what does a gravitating body do? It takes things in, it attracts other objects. So how can it produce such curvature or a field?

And this is my resolution to the paradox, that every gravitating body simply swallows up the space around it, and anything in that space. There is no "field", and any curvature is an accidental result of the "swallowing up" process.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Tyger
398
0
It's pretty simple

to write the equations for the "swallowing up process", anyone with moderate math skills can do them on the back of an envelope. Just as they can for many other ideas. It's the concept that is important.

There are too many papers now with ten pages of equations in search of an idea. What is needed in Astrophysics is some original thinking. There is a large and growing body of experimental data in need of interpretation, instead people work on purely abstract theories with little if any experimental support. It's the "fashionable" thing to do, I suppose. Yet I can't think of any major development in theory that wasn't achieved by staying close to the experimental picture. Nor can I think of any that didn't involve some new insight, which meant that someone had to throw out or modify the old view.

My personal view is that Astrophysics is the next growth area, if only because Particle Physics has run the experimental gamut. There are many things on the Astropysical scale which are inexplicable by today's theories but they will require "Feynman like imaginations" to solve them, and I haven't seen any in action yet.
 
  • #3
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,275
40


Originally posted by Tyger
to write the equations for the "swallowing up process", anyone with moderate math skills can do them on the back of an envelope.
Oh it's easy? Well, then perhaps you should do it for us.
It's the concept that is important.
Physicists do not deal in concepts -- they deal in the quantitative explanation of experiments. You'll never meet a physicist -- not a single one -- who will tell you that concepts are more important than rigorous models. It's simply your (apparently uneducated) opinion.
There is a large and growing body of experimental data in need of interpretation, instead people work on purely abstract theories with little if any experimental support.
In... astrophysics? Astrophysics, like particle physics, is actually one of the more grounded areas of physical research. Perhaps you're using the word 'astrophysics,' when you really mean cosmology. I can't remember the last time anyone accused the astrophysicists of being too abstract! Maybe you just don't know any astrophysicists...
It's the "fashionable" thing to do, I suppose.
Yes, that seals it -- you really don't know a single astrophysicist.
Yet I can't think of any major development in theory that wasn't achieved by staying close to the experimental picture.
How about, oh, relativity... or gauge theory...
Nor can I think of any that didn't involve some new insight, which meant that someone had to throw out or modify the old view.
Of course one must modify an old idea to make progress. This seems like a trivial statement to me.
My personal view is that Astrophysics is the next growth area, if only because Particle Physics has run the experimental gamut.
In fact, the number of experiments needed in HEP grows faster than the number of planned machines to perform those experiments. You really seem to have no connection to reality.
There are many things on the Astropysical scale which are inexplicable by today's theories but they will require "Feynman like imaginations" to solve them, and I haven't seen any in action yet.
Oh? Which things are these? And are you attempting to characterize Feynman as a man who dealt in 'concepts,' not mathematically sound theory?

- Warren
 
  • #4
Tyger
398
0
Chroot's welcome to his opinion.

And yes I did write the equations on the back of an envelope, but concepts are still important, even Feynman said that.

Something that is inexplicable by todays's theories, how about the rings of sn1987a, and did you know that the Puppis-α remnant, which is several thousand years old has rings? So the rings won't be destroyed by the blast wave after all. Sorry guys, wrong theory! Bad concepts.

Yes, there are fashions in Physics and many follow them.

Einstein knew a lot about experimental evidence, he was a patent clerk by trade.

As for gauge theory, the concept was invented by Hermann Weyl who was a pure theorist trying to develope a combined model of gravity and electromagnetism.

The HEP experiments planned are taking longer and longer, the LEP experiment for the Higgs would have taken a year and that is why the LEP director canceled it. And taxpayers aren't as willing to shell out big bucks for equipment now.

You forgot to comment about the ten pages of equations in search of an idea.

It may seem trivial to you that people have to modify their thinking but it sure seems difficult for a lot of people.
 
  • #5
heusdens
1,736
0
Here is a link to another weird physics theory, called "Space genetics" by some russian physiscts (Dr. Dark Energy), who also has a theory in which mass "consumes" space, and radiation by stars "creates" back the space consumed by mass...

http://www.geocities.com/igorelik/index.html".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
yogi
1,525
10
Tyger - your concept of spatial inflow leads to empirical results consistent with GR - there are a number of well reasoned articles on the net based upon the idea that matter consumes space - the first time I encounted this notion was in Ted Harrisons textbook "Cosmology" in connection with black holes - the idea being that space flows in toward black holes at a speed c at the event horizon ergo, light cannot escape since it cannot travel upstream at greater than c. Tom Martin has developed the mathematical theory for a number of experiments that can be used to distinguish between the spatial inflow theory and GR.
 
  • #7
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,770
791
Originally posted by yogi
Tyger - your concept of spatial inflow leads to empirical results consistent with GR - there are a number of well reasoned articles on the net based upon the idea that matter consumes space - the first time I encounted this notion was in Ted Harrisons textbook "Cosmology" in connection with black holes - the idea being that space flows in toward black holes at a speed c at the event horizon ergo, light cannot escape since it cannot travel upstream at greater than c. Tom Martin has developed the mathematical theory for a number of experiments that can be used to distinguish between the spatial inflow theory and GR.

Yogi--you say there are a number of well-reasoned articles on the net based on spatial inflow ideas. Please give some links for those, like myself, who might be curious to know more.

Tyger--one of the PF metors, Damgo, presented a picture of a black hole event horizon which is similar to the spatial inflow
picture. This was in the thread "Black holes and singularities"
and he said it was as if the event horizon was rushing at you at speed c. You couldn't get away because, as we know from the Minkowski space of SR, you can not go faster than c. This seems at least superficially similar to the idea that space is flowing into the black hole and is flowing at speed c as it crosses the EH.

I cannot comment because I'm not sure I see how the model would work, but if you have some equations for a spatial inflow model that reproduce GR effects then you could email them to the authors of the the articles on the internet which yogi talks about. If there is a body of spatial inflow literature on the internet, it is an automatic audience of people to review and respond to your equations.

Yogi--Personally I cannot picture it, but you say spatial inflow "leads to empirical results consistent with GR". Are there empirical results, such as light-bending, which are exactly duplicated? Would be interesting to see this discussed by knowledgeable people.
 
  • #9
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,954
6
[moderator hat]
note: I've deleted all the chroot-logicalatheist argument drek from this topic. Maybe the discussion can be salvaged now.

I'm also moving this to the T.D. forum.
[/mod hat]
 
  • #10
yogi
1,525
10
hi marcus - The most analytical approach to the subject of spatial inflow that I have come across are the articles by Tom Martin ...
martin@gravityresearch.org cited above

There are also a number of qualitative approaches put forth in connection with ether theories - e.g. Caroline Thompson and others

Martin has conducted a number of experiments on hollow spheres (Cavendish type measurements) to attempt to detect differences that would occur between GR and the spatial inflow theory. He has also proposed some experiments that would validate or invalidate the spatial flow theory based upon the difference in time dilation that will occur at the sadle point of zero gravity between the Earth and Sun.

Regards

Yogi
 
  • #11
Nacho
164
0
And this is my resolution to the paradox, that every gravitating body simply swallows up the space around it, and anything in that space. There is no "field", and any curvature is an accidental result of the "swallowing up" process.

Instead of using the term "gravitating body", why not use the term "false vacumn"? Or, gravitation is the false vacumn trying to swallow up stuff outside it and return it to the false vacumn. That is, the Universe originated there (??where it belongs??)and the false vacumn is just trying to return it.

That makes it (IMO) not necessary for us to formulate any particles, like gravitons, for gravitation to work. And so Einstein's description can remain geometrical and is easier to reconcile to quantum mechanics -- i.e., it is a description of happenings above the Planck length. There would still be quantum action in gravity, in that only discrete bits of stuff could return to the false vacumn. Singularities would also be out, and not needed to be worried about -- they would just be a consequence of trying to use GR in an area that it lost any meaning, or predictive power.

It would make it to where we didn't have to find a cause of gravity in a relative Universe. I can't fathom what inertia would be then, I mean, how a cause for it could be connected to this.

I think it was the poster "marcus" that has a topic about what has happened to the energy of the CMBR as it has cooled down over time. I've read articles that indicate it has been converted to gravitational potential energy. Why not believe that energy has been returned to the false vacumn VIA this description? To me that should mean though that there is no quantum of action in returning stuff to the false vacumn.

Just my musings ... I'm sure there are all kinds of holes in it.
 
  • #12
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
Probably the best and simplest responce I can tell you is from line spectrography.

The spectral absorption lines that are observed, and used to adjudicate Doppler shift of light, PROVE conclusivly that matter absorbs EMS, and the next simple step is to find the place in the universe that has NO EMR, well, it is the inside of the event horizon of a Black Hole. (The rest of the universe is FULL of EMR)

Matter absorbs EMR, space is full of EMR, gravity is simply the absorption of EMR, at low wavelength levels, long low wavelength levels.

From there you need to figure out what the planet does with the Absorbed EMR (after all, the planet is made up of the same kind of stuff, atoms, and we KNOW they absorb EMR) which would be to bring it to it's center, wave shift it, and re-emit it as heat.

It is pretty simple, just to get some people to believe it, OYE!
 
  • #13
jeff
Science Advisor
658
1
Originally posted by Tyger
The paradox is this, people think of Gravity as being caused by a field, or space-time curvature produced by a gravitating body. To produce such a field, analogous to an electric field the gravitating body would have to "send something out" in the manner that an charged body sends out virtual photons. But what does a gravitating body do? It takes things in, it attracts other objects. So how can it produce such curvature or a field?

The correct explanation of this is unfortunately not intuitive because of it's quantum theoretic origin. Briefly, elementary particles are classified in terms of spin, mass and charge, and only massless even-spin particles can mediate attractive forces between like charged bodies: suffice it to say that gravitons are spin-2 and, like photons (which are spin-1, consistent with electromagnetic repulsion between like charged bodies), are massless.
 
  • #14
Tyger
398
0


Originally posted by steinitz
The correct explanation of this is unfortunately not intuitive because of it's quantum theoretic origin. Briefly, elementary particles are classified in terms of spin, mass and charge, and only massless even-spin particles can mediate attractive forces between like charged bodies: suffice it to say that gravitons are spin-2 and, like photons (which are spin-1, consistent with electromagnetic repulsion between like charged bodies), are massless.

The only problem with this picture is that Gravity doesn't act between two bodies the way that other forces do. It acts on the space around a massive body. So the picture of the spin-2 graviton may not even apply in Nature. I think we're still looking for a competent quantum theory of Gravity and it would be unwise to close our minds to any viable possibilities.
 
  • #15
jeff
Science Advisor
658
1


Originally posted by Tyger
The only problem with this picture is that Gravity doesn't act between two bodies the way that other forces do. It acts on the space around a massive body. So the picture of the spin-2 graviton may not even apply in Nature. I think we're still looking for a competent quantum theory of Gravity and it would be unwise to close our minds to any viable possibilities.

First you need a mind open enough to want to understand the current state of theory and be honest about how it reflects on your own ideas.

Full QG isn't needed to understand gravity's behaviour at lower energies where GR, and hence it's linearization describing a self-interacting massless spin-2 field - the graviton- applies. This means that whatever gravity's true nature, the graviton will remain an indispensable concept.

More generally, the modern concept of particle itself holds up only as a group theoretic approximation: Briefly, particles are defined in terms of their mass and spin which label - and this is their real significance - the representations of the poincare group under which their states must transform to preserve invariances related to the local geometry of spacetime. However, it is only in minkowski space that poincare symmetry holds globally. Since curved spacetimes are only locally flat, the particle concept only holds as an approximation in regions over which curvature varies sufficiently slowly.

Let me describe in schematic terms how the gravitational field is viewed in terms of spacetime curvature and it's relation to the particle viewpoint at lower energies where GR holds.

Begin by representing the connection between spacetime curvature and energy density in general relativity schematically by the relation

(spacetime curvature) = G x (mass-energy density)

where G is the gravitational constant which thus characterizes how much spacetime curvature would be created in the presence of some given mass-energy density. We can understand why mass-energy density, rather than just mass-energy, appears in the above relation by noting the basic inverse square law (curvature has units of inverse distance squared) behaviour of gravitational force it implies, and then observing that if a planet's density were increased by gradually shrinking it, it's inhabitants would feel themselves growing heavier as they approached the planet's centre of mass.

Can this be taken further to build a more operational view of gravity? No, not directly, because quantum theory is needed to understand the current picture of fundamental interactions. But the main idea - and I think you've seen this before - can be understood by observing that two people on roller skates throwing a ball back and forth will roll away from each other (as a result of momentum conservation). Somewhat similarly, electrons are mutually repelled as a result of exchanging photons, and likewise, gravity is the result of graviton exchange.

However - as you already know - the analogy doesn't work as well in this latter case because gravity is attractive, the explanation of which is - as I mentioned - not intuitive because of it's quantum theoretic origin. Repeating it, elementary particles are classified in terms of spin, mass and charge, and only massless even-spin particles can mediate long-range attractive forces between like charged bodies: suffice it to say that gravitons are spin-2 and, like photons (which are spin-1, consistent with electromagnetic repulsion between like charged bodies), are massless (Actually, since theories with bosonic gauge fields like EM and GR exist as classical theories, this can be seen from looking at the interaction potentials in the corresponding classical lagrangians, it's just that spin itself is a purely quantum theoretic concept which confuses this intuitive classical aspect of the picture).

The reason that gravitational and electromagnetic fields - whose quanta as you know are the graviton and photon respectively - grow stronger as their sources are approached is also quantum theoretic. Again, briefly, because of the time-energy uncertainty principle, the distance from a source that field quanta can travel decreases with their energy. So, for example, the strength of the gravitational field grows stronger as a gravitating body - like a planet say - is approached because gravitons of progressively higher energies are encountered (analogous statements hold for the electromagnetic field).

So what's the connection between the classical notion of spacetime curvature, and the quantum view of the gravitational field as a continuum of gravitons? The answer is that because gravitons - unlike photons - interact with each other, they assemble themselves in a way that's in fact governed at lower energies by general relativity, so spacetime curvature is merely a large-scale structural quality of the resulting gravitational matrix.

Although this picture must - as you know - break down at very high energies, it provides no real foundation for your view of gravitational attraction as paradox.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Tyger
398
0
steinitz, I have another post

on the board called "Why does Gravity occur?" which better states my views on the subject. Something I've always (since I can remember) disliked about GR and many of it's offshoots is the arbitrary way in which certain elements are introduced. As you can see by the post I've tried to eliminate the arbitrariness and bring all the elements together into a single picture.
 
  • #17
yogi
1,525
10
Most attempts to explain forces that are communicated through space are based entirely upon conjecture - no one has ever seen a virtual photon and by definition - never will - nor will they see a graviton - these are at present useful metaphores - for some types of calculations - but more likely not representative of reality - the notion of spatial inflow and the false vacuum analogy are to my way of thinking more likely to lead to a true picture of gravity - modern physics depends upon many ad hoc insertions to get the desired results
 
  • #18
Spatial Inflow?

Ok, I have heard on a number of accounts that throughout the universe matter is coalescing. If this were true and if your statement that matter is consuming space were also true, then would not the increasing densities of matter necessitate the shrinking of space--and thereby not explain the fact that the universe is expanding?

Perhaps inflow of matter creates an outflow of space...could this not bring about proportional degrees of pressure and cause further inflow of matter?

On the level of the universe, if there were a very large black hole in the center...the inflow of matter would result in a converse outflow of space, in which the whole of our galaxies reside--and in which other matter is also coalescing...

Keep in mind that I don't understand why there should be differences in pressure, or if there is such a phenomenon, what sort of pressure exists. Plus, I'm using the term pressure very loosely. I'm just trying to make sense of something that seems very counter-intuitive, the facts of which elude me since I'm not experienced in the complexities of mathematics required for a firm understanding.
 
  • #19
yogi
1,525
10
It is not inconsistent to have expansion on a cosmic scale and have space being absorbed on a local scale - one consequence of this model would be a false vacuum - that is, a universe under tension rather than pressure - my personal bias is that the universe is in a state of nagative pressure (false vacuum) and as it expands it creates energy just as does a spring when it is stretched - so energy is being generated at a rate that exactly counterbalances the loss of negative potential energy i.e., the totality of energy is always zero - this satisfies a lot of physical-philosphical problems in that we don't need an outside force (creator) to explain its origin. Along the same line - we don't have to hypothesize that space is falling into matter (black holes) ... rather we can consider that matter is acted upon in all directions as an inertial impediment to the isoptropic expansion - this creates a gradient that appears as a spatial inflow - but there need be no real influx -
 
  • #20
jeff
Science Advisor
658
1
Originally posted by Tyger
every gravitating body simply swallows up the space around it, and anything in that space. There is no "field", and any curvature is an accidental result of the "swallowing up" process.

Then how do you, tyger, interpret the existence of curved space vacuum solutions of einstein's gravitational field equations?
 
Last edited:
  • #21
yogi
1,525
10
Although the query was posed to Tyger - I will jump in and say that the inflow theory and GR are empirically equivalent - we can look at spacetime as curved due to a static mass acting upon a static space - as per Einstein - or as a dynamic. Since we know the universe is in motion on a cosmic scale, and we have absolutely no evidence of any forces that are not in some way related to motion (some dynamic is involved in every known force on both the global scale and the microscale) then it at logical to try to explain gravity as consequent to some dynamic - and when the applicable dynamic equations are applied we get the same results as those predicted by GR - take a look at my references to the work of Tom Martin above.
 
  • #22
jeff
Science Advisor
658
1
Originally posted by yogi
Although the query was posed to Tyger - I will jump in and say that the inflow theory and GR are empirically equivalent - we can look at spacetime as curved due to a static mass acting upon a static space - as per Einstein - or as a dynamic. Since we know the universe is in motion on a cosmic scale, and we have absolutely no evidence of any forces that are not in some way related to motion (some dynamic is involved in every known force on both the global scale and the microscale) then it at logical to try to explain gravity as consequent to some dynamic - and when the applicable dynamic equations are applied we get the same results as those predicted by GR - take a look at my references to the work of Tom Martin above.

Yogi, do you understand what I meant by "curved vacuum solution"?
 
  • #23
Tyger
398
0


Originally posted by steinitz
Then how do you, tyger, interpret the existence of curved space vacuum solutions of Einstein's gravitational field equations?

I don't worry too much about the "curved space vacuum solutions" of Einstein's field equations. The fact that a particular set of equations can be written to model a situation doesn't mean that they represent the best model of all posssible situations.

Yogi hit the nail on the head, this post is about finding a dynamical way of looking at Gravity in keeping with the fact that it creates and destroys space. For instance, in the beginning there was only matter, but the Universe expanded to produce the space we have now.

This is all about finding a fresh vantage point that may inspire someone to write the correct equations that GR and other models only approximate. My other post "Why does Gravity occur" in A&C gives a more complete description.
 
  • #24
jeff
Science Advisor
658
1


Originally posted by Tyger
I don't worry too much about the "curved space vacuum solutions" of Einstein's field equations. The fact that a particular set of equations can be written to model a situation doesn't mean that they represent the best model of all posssible situations.

Yogi hit the nail on the head, this post is about finding a dynamical way of looking at Gravity in keeping with the fact that it creates and destroys space. For instance, in the beginning there was only matter, but the Universe expanded to produce the space we have now.

This is all about finding a fresh vantage point that may inspire someone to write the correct equations that GR and other models only approximate. My other post "Why does Gravity occur" in A&C gives a more complete description.

Two definitions:

Crackpot theory: An idea so ill-framed that it doesn't make enough sense to even be wrong.

Crackpot: A purveyor of crackpot theories who is pathologically incorrigible.

Note that according to these definitions, not all crackpot theories are proposed by crackpots. Crackpot theories have two related aspects: abuse of terminology and faulty logic, with the former presenting the more fundamental problem most of the time.

You're advocating a crackpot theory. The question is, are you a crackpot?

Btw, I'm a physicist, so if you'd like some help learning about GR or any of the other subjects you think you understand but really don't, just let me know.
 
  • #25
Tyger
398
0


Originally posted by steinitz
You're advocating a crackpot theory. The question is, are you a crackpot?

Btw, I'm a physicist, so if you'd like some help learning about GR or any of the other subjects you think you understand but really don't, just let me know.

In the first place I never called it a "theory" and wouldn't dignify it with that description until it had a mathematical framework. I called it a "picture", a different viewpoint, a different vantage. So don't try putting words in other people's mouths.

Did you even bother to read my other post? https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2091 It provides a rational for that viewpoint based upon Dirac's Large Number Hypothesis.

You may think it's crackpot too but the LNH has at least some experimental basis so I chose it as a starting point as opposed to some mere supposition.

By the way I notice that you have never originated a post or put forth any essentially new ideas, only commented on other's posts, often in a derogatory manner. If you can't come up with new ideas then you may learn physics and teach physics, but you won't do physics! It's that simple.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
jeff
Science Advisor
658
1


Originally posted by Tyger
By the way I notice that you have never originated a post...

In general, I'll only start a thread when I think this is the right place to come for help with a problem that I need to solve but can't.
 
  • #27
yogi
1,525
10
As soon as someone puts forth something on these forums that is conceptually different than the regimented dogma - that person is immediately branded as a crackpot - I never cease to be amazed at how insecure the present physics community is - fearful that some new idea will impair their repository of security - Einstein was not afraid to question his own theories - near the end of his life he queried whether he may have been on the wrong path along. "The present position of science can have no lasting significance"

Steinitz -I suggest (again) that if you want a good analytical development of the spatial inflow theory you read the papers published by Tom Martin. As for the tests that prove GR, they also validate the inflow theory - to date there is no reason to suppose that GR is any better than what Tyger has proposed (although he was not the first to suggest it) If Tom Martins tests are every carried out, then one or the other can be eliminated

The situation is analogous to SR and the Lorentz Ether Theory - they both explain the MMx and Kennedy-Thorndike experiments - the issue is which represents reality... if either.
 
  • #28
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
Originally posted by yogi
As soon as someone puts forth something on these forums that is conceptually different than the regimented dogma - that person is immediately branded as a crackpot - I never cease to be amazed at how insecure the present physics community is - fearful that some new idea will impair their repository of security - Einstein was not afraid to question his own theories - near the end of his life he queried whether he may have been on the wrong path along. "The present position of science can have no lasting significance"

Yogi, THANK YOU!
 
  • #29
Brad_Ad23
502
1
That's hardly the case. If that was, science could NOT progress. We merely hate to break it to you all that your ideas are not crown jewels of science that will revolutionize things. They have to be consistent and logically sound.
 
  • #30
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
That's hardly the case. If that was, science could NOT progress. We merely hate to break it to you all that your ideas are not crown jewels of science that will revolutionize things. They have to be consistent and logically sound.

And you are the person fit to sit in judgment of this??

Ya figure??

(I don't!)
 
  • #31
Brad_Ad23
502
1
No I alone am not, but as part of a physics community I have that responsibility.
 
  • #32
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
No I alone am not, but as part of a physics community I have that responsibility.

Yes, to explore New ideas, and listen to them in there completeness, prior to judgment, rather then the just spouting off the "same/old/tired" (party?) lines, repetitively, as you have clearly demonstrated yourself as being quite capable of doing, over, and over, and over, and over, (ad infinitum/ad absurdum) again.

Otherwise you are derelict in your responcibility, as that new Idea, that you have not listened to, not explored, not even so little as tried to understand, might just be the one that resolves the error/missing components that is/are there.

Quite remise, not to try first, I suspect that is what Yogi means, but he/she (?) speaks very well for themselves, sooooo...

Adieu!
 
  • #33
Brad_Ad23
502
1
Parsons, I have explored this idea. Hell I came up with a similar idea awhile ago. Yes it does work equally as well in some cases, but it also introduces inconsistancies, such as the field equations aforementioned somewhere in this post. It does not account for that for example. So before you go accusing me of not listening to the ideas, do yourself a favor and do not make the assumption we do not. I agree there are a lot out there that will NOT even look at ideas that go against the paradigm. Their loss. But I do indeed read, because you never know what spark the idea may have. Maybe, just maybe it has some idea that someone else will see and realize that's what they need for their idea. But, as I stated this idea is not entirely useful, on its own anyways.
 
  • #34
yogi
1,525
10
One of the features of the inflow theory is that it better explains why clocks slow in a G field than GR - in other words, we know from experiment that accleration by itself does not appear to change clock rate, but in a G field there is a change that depends upon gravitational potential (How does the clock know its in a gravitational potential)_- the interesting thing is that the slowing of a clock in a centrifuge corresponds to its velocity vis a vis SR, and in a G potential we get the same slowing as though space were flowing inwardly past the clock at the escape velocity so SR may be at the base of gravitational time dilation (would it not be great to unify GR and SR)... in any event there are some hurdles to be overcome with the inflow theory as Brad points out - but there are reasons to ponder whether it may lead to a better explanation of gravity. We cannot hope to understand the universe until we understand space - for that is the stuff of which it is made. If it (space) is in motion in some sense of that term, we can not rely upon Einsteins static universe to yield a true picture of reality
 
  • #35
Brad_Ad23
502
1
Well stated Yogi. Though one thing about the slowing of time and acceleration. I'll have to disagree with you there. Acceleration by itself would indeed have an effect on the rate a clock ticks (better said, time). Since acceleration is the change in velocity per time, and as you mentioned special realtivity, if you have a large acceleration, it will slow down a clock faster...thoughI suppose one could attribute this more towards the fact that it is the velocity itself and not the acceleration, but that's just another way to look at it.

As for why time slows down in the current model, I believe it has to do with the actual warping of spacetime itself but I will have to check on that.
 

Suggested for: The paradox of Gravitation

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
387
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
872
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
15K
Replies
8
Views
829
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Top