The paradox of Gravitation

  • Thread starter Tyger
  • Start date
  • #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
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
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
499
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
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
499
1
No I alone am not, but as part of a physics community I have that responsibility.
 
  • #32
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
499
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
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
499
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.
 
  • #36
Brad_AD23 there is a very simple reason why "time slows down", but, you seem to have it all figured out, because, as you yourself said, will NOT listen to asnwers that go against the paradigm.

Maybe that is why you can't figure things out, because the 'paradigm' itself has certain "argot flaws", thus disabling the "Big Picture" view that is needed to see the reality, more clearly, then is presently known.

But, with you, we will never know.......................
 
  • #37
499
1
Parsons what the hell are you talking about? I said the current model might have an explination, but I was not sure...and that translates to me not accepting new ideas? RIIIIGHT.
 
  • #38
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
(Mr.) Parsons what the hell are you talking about?
You, but apparently you missed that.

Just because you don't see yourself that way, doesn't mean that you don't come across that way. OK?
 
  • #39
499
1
One could say the same thing about you and your ideas behind gravity. Also, what you see is not necessarily true. Just because I see pink elephants does not mean they are really there.
 
  • #40
1,525
10
Brad - on clock slowing in an acceleration field - I had always assumed as per the principle of equivalence that we should not be able to detect the difference between a G field and an acceleration field - but there are a number of experiments that appear to go against that presumption - namely the centrifuge that I had referred to - you can calculate the correct dilation using SR with v the tangent velocity - or you can consider the clock in an acceleration field v^2r and get the same answer using GR ... but not both - in other words, if you calculate the time dilation using only SR (taking into account only v) and measure the time dilation - they correspond - there is nothing left over for an additional time dilation that corresponds to the v^2/r centripetal component. True, as you have observed, we can integrate the acceleration to get a changed velocity in some linear acceleration experiment, but it appears to be an instaneous velocity value that is significant...counterintuitive at best
 
  • #41
499
1
Very intriguing Yogi. I believe I remember hearing about a problem with that system (the rotating disk aka angular acceleration). And indeed, nobody has been able to come up with a solid solution to it yet. Although, I think the normal reasoning is that the clock will know it is in a gravitational potential from the fact spacetime itself is altered. Whereas in acceleration, it is merely the redistributions of the magnitudes of the vectors such that

ds2=dx2+dy2+dz2-c2dt2

with x,y,z,t corresponding to the 3 space and 1 time dimension respectively and s being the total magnitude of the 4space vector that has the magnitude of c (silly Pythagoras theorem cropping up in SR). However you are correct, the circular motion system does present problems, although on second though as I'm typing this, I am wondering if there is no observed time dialation from the v2/r acceleration because the actual tangental velocity v is the same and it is only the direction of movement that is changing. In other words, the tangental velocity already accounts for all the dialation needed and merely altering the spatial coordinates while moving in a circle need not create anymore dialation, since after all it is just circulating around a set of inertial frame references maybe?
 
  • #42
1,525
10
Hi Brad - it is this and a few other disturbing experiments that continue to fuel the "Inflow Space" theory as competition for GR - although I myself am not ready to endorse it, the ether theorist have been quick to jump on the bandwagon. The positive aspect is that it does provide a conceptual framework that is familiar to our everyday experiences - fluid flow and motion relative thereto. Here is a notion I have been toying with for awhile - expansion of the Hubble sphere a c velocity stretches out whatever is inside - if any given chunk of matter is reduced to its blackhole equivalent - it will have an inertial retardation at its event horizon that looks like a c velocity inflow - but actally it is zero motion at that radius - only a negative pressure that corresponds to the difference between the c velocity expansion focused on the blackhole - so the effect appears as inflow but in reality is spatial outflow to fulfill the new volume created by the expanding manifold - for the comoving observer the equations are the same - i.e., there is no inflow per se - but there is a negative pressure gradient that increases as one approaches the surface of the black hole - other masses (e.g. planets, stars etc) behave the same but the effect is diminished proportionately at their surface in accordance to the square of the ratio of their radius to their effective blackhole radius - any comments
 
  • #43
Originally posted by Bad-ad 2/3rds
(Mr.) 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.
Is that perhaps because there are still some "missing" understandings that have yet to be explained, such as "Frame Shifting"?

Something that I have mentioned, but NOT yet explained to anyone, not from the manner that I know of it.
 
  • #44
499
1
To Parsons: No frame shifting is covered equally well in both ideas (GR and space inflow).


To Yogi: That idea has some promise. When I read it I was reminded of the current contender for the traditional black hole, the gravastar (don't know if you have heard of it or not). If you don't mind though, could you more clearly explain what you mean by an inertial retardation (I think I have it but best not to be wrong).
 
  • #45
Originally posted by Bad-Ad 2/3rds
To (Mr.) Parsons: No frame shifting is covered equally well in both ideas (GR and space inflow).
Not in the manner that I know of it.
 
  • #46
499
1
Ok. I did not catch that part my mistake.
 
  • #47
1,525
10
hi Brad - the analogy is Newtonian - if a mass is accelerated with respect to space, we get an inertial reaction - and as Einstein argued, if the universe is accelerated with respect to a chuck of matter, that would correspondingly involve an inertial reaction - in the case of expansion, for a constant c velocity expansion of the Hubble radius R, the volume V will be accelerating, i.e.,
(d^2V/dt^2) = 8(pi)Rc^2

When you make a volume to surface transformation via the divergence theorem, (for a sphere this corresponds to dividing by 4(pi)R^2) space is seen to be undergoing isotropic acceleration 2c^2/R -- if we consider a black hole to be the extreme case of an inertial influence, (acting back on accelerating space just as space exerts a force on accelerating masses) the accelerating space is maximally retarded by the black hole at the radius of the event horizon (i.e., its velocity is zero and its acceleration is zero) - and for any larger radii, the effect is less.

In summary, inertial matter couples to space to exert a retarding influence - the negative vacuum becomes greater near masses which explains why other masses are urged toward the more negative pressure in the vicinity of local masses - also we get as a by product the answer to the question of why inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent - gravity is simply an intertial reaction of matter acting upon isotropic spatial acceleration. Also, we get the answer to the question of the missing mass needed for a critical density universe - the matter acts against spatial acceleration to produce stress - the missing energy is in the spatial stress field - no mystery particles are needed - in other words, the internal of the cosmos is continually created as per inflation - but its an ongoing process. The equations lead to some startling results
 
  • #48
499
1
Hmm, very intriguing.

One question though: Does it allow for the current accelerating universe? It seems like that would naturally extend to have the universe expand slower and slower eventually stopping.
 
  • #49
1,525
10
Hi Brad - actually, it points in the direction of deceleration as you have observed - but I have always questioned Perlmutters conclusions - the whole notion is based on the fact that the distant 1a supernova events are dimmer that what would be expected for a constant velocity or decelerating universe - but the universe may have been different 5 billion years ago - the expansion theory of gravity shows that G diminishes inversely with Hubble radius - consequently, the supernova event would occur with less mass and greater G (since it is the combination that leads to critical pressure as per Chandarask's limit (Don't have the spelling correct) Now I know that all attempts to measure changes in G have failed - but recall the experiments are conducted to measure long term orbital stability(s) e.g., radar ranging the moons of Mars. What is universally overlooked is the fact that these measure the stability of the product of the central mass and G - that is, the experiments show that MG is temporally invariant - what we measure as inertial mass is a field which extends to the Hubble sphere - when the sphere expands the volume of the space containing the field grows - and therefore so does the totality of the field volume - the math shows that it is the MG product that is constant - in the earlier universe G was stronger, the thing we measure as a given inertial mass would be less in a smaller universe
 
  • #50
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Ok. I did not catch that part my mistake.
Thanks, Honesty is healing, for both parties.

Me?? ©2003 Kingston Canada
How can/could you ever learn, that which you are, unwilling to admit to not knowing??
PS like the rest of the conversation your having with Yogi, educational!
 

Related Threads on The paradox of Gravitation

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • Last Post
7
Replies
153
Views
18K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
795
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
Top