What is the Paradox of Gravitation and its Resolution?

[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"