What is the Paradox of Gravitation and its Resolution?

[Brad_Ad23]

No I alone am not, but as part of a physics community I have that responsibility.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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!

 

[Brad_Ad23]

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.

 

[yogi]

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

 

[Brad_Ad23]

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.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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......

 

[Brad_Ad23]

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.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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?

 

[Brad_Ad23]

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.

 

[yogi]

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

 

[Brad_Ad23]

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 dilation 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 dilation 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?

 

[yogi]

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 black hole 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 black hole - 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 black hole radius - any comments

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Bad-ad 2/3^rds
(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.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

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).

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Bad-Ad 2/3^rds
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.

 

[Brad_Ad23]

Ok. I did not catch that part my mistake.

 

[yogi]

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

 

[Brad_Ad23]

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.

 

[yogi]

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

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

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!

 

[elas]

You all seem to be offering theoretical solution without stating clearly what the problem is.
As far as I am aware Einstein's gravity works perfectly until we encounter the gravational field between galaxies. No gravity theory proposed by contributors to this site have offered any solution that solves the inter galaxy problem.
Or am I missing the point?

 

[yogi]

There is no certainty regarding the nature of gravity at large distances - but its a good bet that some of the data that has become foundational to theories of cosmic repulsion and acceleration are questionable

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by elas
As far as I am aware Einstein's gravity works perfectly until we encounter the gravational field between galaxies. No gravity theory proposed by contributors to this site have offered any solution that solves the inter galaxy problem.
Or am I missing the point?

The problem is that gravity is not a fundamental force. It derives its properties from the configurations of the unified field which can be in fluid motion on all scales.

The problem of the rotation of galaxies can be easily explained in the context of a fluid-frame of "space".

What is the problem of the gravitation BETWEEN galaxies?

 

[elas]

Re- What is the problem of the gravitation BETWEEN galaxies

There is no theory of gravitation that correctly predicts the observed behaviour of galaxies within a group of galaxies. The problem is explained in beginners books on astro-physics. There is a free-hand copy of one such diagram on the gravity page of my website.

The confidence expressed in your statement on gravity is not shared by the experts who according to a recent special issue of Scientific American are seriously searching for a new theory that matches calculations made from the observations of the Hubble telescope.

So what is the fundamental force that triggers creation, Hawking's wrote that it must be gravity but is unable to explain how.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by elas
The confidence expressed in your statement on gravity is not shared by the experts who according to a recent special issue of Scientific American are seriously searching for a new theory that matches calculations made from the observations of the Hubble telescope.

The confidence and the theory are not shared by the experts...

The experts simply do not have a true theory of gravitation. Nor are they taking into acount the fluid frame of space nor the electro-magnetic effects on those large scales.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by elas

So what is the fundamental force that triggers creation, Hawking's wrote that it must be gravity but is unable to explain how. [/B]

The creation of what?

 

[Tyger]

Here's my philosphical overview

of Physics and the World Picture.

I don't think of the world as being in any sense made of mechanical things. That the "mechanical" notions we have are just a convenient (and not always so convenient) shorthand for describing certain aspects of the world. I think the world is in some very deep sense made of mathematical relationships, that it is perhaps nothing more than some great formal system, for which we do not yet know all the rules. That the most concrete of stuff, including ordinary concrete, is made of the purest of abstraction.

That is why our description of the world becomes more and more abstract, and why mathematics and physics draw closer and closer together. I think that one day they will be one system.

And I think of the world as just existing, spread out in all time and space, much in the way that Einstein spoke of it in his memorial to Lorentz. That our perception of it is just made up of the way the patterns of the great system fit together. That no meaning can be given to such questions as "what happened before the big bang?", or "what caused the beginning?".

The only real "cause" of things is that this system fits together in a logical and consistent way, all else is consequence.

And I think that in time all men will view the world this way. For me it is the only possible way to see it.

 

[yogi]

Good Post Tyger

 

[elas]

I don't think of the world as being in any sense made of mechanical things

I agree completely; but conclude that therefore existence must be made of 'nothing' and the creative force is the 'force of nothing' i.e. vacuum.
This lead to a search for ways to explain existing theory using only the vacuum force. I found that the force names in use at present can be accounted for mathematically but cannot be defined in words; but by replacing current names with vacuum, a perfectly simple explanation is possible. The most satisfactory being my proposed explanation of mass, which is not definable in the Standard Model.
I hope to develope this concept in mathematical terms with my current 'sub-project' on atomic radii.
I have no interest in those theories that suggest the Standard model is wrong, my claim is that incorrect interpretation is preventing further progress.

 

[yogi]

But Elas - the standard model is replete with particles - how can it be right in any sense of the word when there is nothing but a vacuum??

"All is space - the forms of energy are the distortions of space and nothing more"