JohnSSM

"space-time decomposes globally as " decomposes as in, fades away? no longer needed? and What is big R? ha I must investigate transformations...I had just finished with Minkowski and Lorentz. You can use different coordinate models and GR works for them all the same? Didnt see that coming... If you have a pond that's totally still, and gravity works as other forces, mass or some property of mass, would seem to be perturbing the pond, to create gravity (gravity being the waves in the pond). If the field of space-time is only a product of mass's perturbations, then a "still" pond would represent no space-time (to me)...Since space-time has no defined field, the water in the pond, would not even exist. Its just a theoretical surface as space-time seems to be. The stone drops in the still pond...now there IS a field of space-time...the waves create the only field that exists since there is no water...i wanted foam, yall said no...for the same reason....it isnt there...it doesnt need to be...the pond needs no water and has none...but perturbations still create a field that we consider to be "space-time", with "gravity" seeming to be an added or after effect of space-time, when they really go hand in hand like forrest and jenny...peas and carrots...as soon as an object hits that pond it creates both the surface and the waves...cuz remember...no water... Is it scientifically sound to say "the properties of mass and motion contribute fully to the effects of GR?"

So you both agree that gravity and expansion in the universe are equal values? the same thing? Why does expansion seem to be winning? IS gravity gonna snap it back? color me confused...

Nice read...I'd say its a pretty good speculative theory with a flow unto itself...You seem an intelligent person with a passion for the subject...but I feel that you're short on some very important explanations and maybe redefining some terms to fit your theory...not fully... I really liked how you saw the universe as "one mass"...i can see it in terms like that... I can relate to making infinity something finite yet undefined...although in its strictest definition, infinity is different... Looking at e=mc2 like 1=1c2 was a new pespective for me... I like how you see pi as linked with the infinite changing nature of the universe... But there's many assumptions in your writting and ideas...it seems... If you can't show more or less precisely how your ideas differ from the current models, describe how they are different and what features they share, then youre basically making a new model...and no one is going to go along with a new model, against models that have soooo much testing a proof by soooo many very smart folks who proved them with math... Math is like light...the only invariant for differing perspectives...math will always tell the truth...math does not change...So, having a reference frame all your own, you will need math to show anyone in a different reference frame that what you're seeing is also truth for them and math is the only way... I see your harmonius simplicity and I dig it...but the "tugging" and "equality of expansion and gravity" and some of the assumptions made about energy without ever mentioning fields and their different interactions with particles...There's so much more involved than what your discussing, but it isnt all a part of your discussion...its like the slice of a complete idea...and in that regard, I enjoyed reading it... These guys in the forums impressed the shit outa me...although some have misquoted and made some small errors in thought because they arent perfect at thinking on the fly and typing, but the responses they give you are not their own. These guys know the terms and the history of the theories and how they have all grown...so they cant see this like you...they know what the most provable and trusted theories are, and their expertise is in knowing them and following them...Any variance of thought from what is "known" and youre gonna be asked to compare it to what it known, and you have to know it, cuz these guys do...i mean...no one's perfect, but this is a science and a study of much more with your own thoughts...so you dont even get to have them until you know what is known...and the theory is, in that process, youll learn for yourself why your ideas dont work...and youll have new ones built on a stronger foundation... Keep thinking...and taking in what is known...

The little review of Newton turned into a massive five hour reading session...I had to read each sentence slowly, over and over...and often had to interrupt one concept, to go read about another that was being referenced. Im a bit blown away with how much info I didnt have...and I wonder if things are actually as they appear to me with this new info...The vision hasnt so much changed as it has evolved... I dont have much confidence in the things im about to say, but since they really address the original topic of this thread, I thought I would post them here... It seems that Newton thought of space as just something that was being filled with varying moving masses. His space was essentially unmoldable. His inertial reference frames all "moved" together, and I did have to research what rectilinear meant...Space, in those terms truly does reside on a grid of equal coordinates which do not move. The main shift that my perspective took, and I may be wrong in my description of it, is that Einstein no longer viewed space as a strict coordinate system. Which is to say, the coordinates of space are now dictated by the "things" within it and even perspective is a thing. And the vision has changed...I dont see a square grid which is "waiting" for mass to enter it and change its nature. I see a round, or polarized grid emerging from every mass. There is no perfectly uniform grid with nothing or no mass within it. So, in theory, if the universe had only one mass within it and that mass was perfectly spherical, it would have no spin and space-time would radiate out from it in a "sunburst" pattern. Space-time is not a "thing" that has been "compressed", within a grid that already existed. If you remove our one mass, there is no grid and no relative positioning within it. So Newton, it seems, did use a coordinate system for space that was always "square"...And you could view things as "god" seeing it all happen within the grid without reference or bother in creating a position to view it from, but then how could you know anything about the grid? And when you do stop being god and enter,space-time, it changes simply in accordance with your position in it. And it makes me think, Schroedinger's cat would have no mystery if you were also in the box.

Nice...A little review of those laws was good... Field work? farming? Do you have a job in physics? Freelance scientist? coooool

Thats all pretty clear... Im still trying to figure out if spin and momentum have to share a total amount of force when an impact occurs...or, when effected by gravity...I know how smart you are...you would have to be to understand what you understand...I was pretty thorough in my example with a golf ball...and...I know how smart you are... This is apparently where we go back to discussing the 2 blocks impacting each other to account for this impact with direction and force, transferring a total amount of spin and force to another object depending on the angle of impact....Which is what I set out to find out and yet again what has not been covered.... And you know when i find out the answer about this effect on a ball, i will apply to it my knowledge of gravity's effect on a ball...are we both on the same page now? Cmon man...you know more math than me..lets leave it there and become equals in all other senses... Didnt we say we allready figured each other out? I do appreciate the info you did hand over to my lazy ass Sorry strange...i thought was replying to Mordred...yall just pop in and start talking whenever you feel inspired...I need to pay more attention to the little icons...sorry again... Theres another good reason to pay someone...they are one...taking info form 3 different guys who probably dont agree on everything themselves is tough...ha

So Mordred, you are referencing all that stuff we talked about and we no longer need golf or pool...You know im trying to learn about BHs...Im still looking for confirmation or otherwise on a couple subjects within the Schwartzchild radius discussion. There was only 1 conclusion that I could draw from hearing that the theory needed a "non rotating, symmetrical sphere"...and the conclusion I drew was that an object without perfectly round symmetry would always spin while in space-time...even if acted upon by no other force...it made sense to me, with my understanding of GR, that the forces of an object itself can cause its own spin...and the only thing that could keep itself balanced in space-time without incurring its own spin, was a perfect sphere...and you may really have to reach to understand this, but, if an object were perfectly spherical and its Schwartzchild radius was figured for...then we just changed the shape of the object by a hair out of symmetry, it would incur spin and we would have to reduce the schwartzchild radius. One other small thing and my current confusions about Schwartzchild will be clear... Does "r", which is used in the equations, stand for the radius of the mass? Or the radius of the schwartzchild "effect"? It seems there is an effect, that when the density of a mass is increased by lowering its volume to the schwartzchild radius, an EH is created, making a BH....BUT...does that EH occur at the radius of the mass? or somewhere else in space? and which one is then referred to as the schwartzchild radius.... even after a couple very compete diagrams, I never saw the representation of the mass/volume radius... In the case of the golf ball, do you see the moment of impact when the club hits the ball as the EH? In my theoretical BH, when one even approaches the EH the forces of gravity have allready smashed you down without impacting anything.... If the theoretical spaceship go could through it and survive the forces, i guess nothing would happen...and nothing i can estimate with my ideas...When my "foam" is smashed down to nothing, all the forces change and would remain unknown to us... Do remember though...I do not even know if my logic works even in my head...

Ha...ok...so you can stop pretending that you dont know the game im playing too...

Fer sure...I just like to make a point when I make it ...or try...don't take that effort as aggression, please...two different models of energy! I totally see how the pool table is easier, there is much less happening... But im asking about the moment of impact...an event horizon...at that moment, all the physics it took to get there dont matter...we have an impact with direction and force....if we do this in a vacuum, are there any other forces effecting that reaction? Lets just make it one square block hitting another square block...If one block impacts another "straight on" while neither object is spinning, will any spin be transferred between the two blocks? sorry for changing the terms once again, but i thought pool is easier than golf, but two square blocks seem to offer a very easy model...

No...once i have the ziplock bag I still need to learn how to use it...and in using it, I learn about it... and then i can tell the next person without fail "You cannot use that bag to hold battery acid, nor can you fill it past this pressure and expect it to stay zipped...So i dont know everything, but i do learn what i need to know... When you turn on your computer, do you want to know everything but understand nothing? This may not apply to you, but most folks have no idea how to make a computer and can still use it very very well...and they do learn and understand it...on different terms than creating it... I think the solution lays in me offering payment for answers...in the cases of specific questions anyway...I understand the method that yall as experts and moderators have used for addressing such questions...and its probably the same rules that every forum comes up with if they have any organization at all...This is where the logic tends to go... But yall just sit around waiting for me to say something to attack...when i am right, I rarely hear, you are right...you tell me to prove to you that am right...and after that lengthy process, i get to move on... If we were trying to tow a car with a shoestring, i wouldnt make you prove how and why the shoestring will break if we try...is that how you live and make your way? Im not trying to offend anyone...truly...its just a perspective... Id rather be going back and forth about golf ball spin, but to drive the point home, Mordred even refused to discuss it in my terms...he made new terms with a pool table...fellas...I get it...Ill stop until I have questions about math,,, But you could just say "We will not discuss these things in any terms with you besides math, ever." Then i never would have gone there... Because Im very observant, I figured the approach...it might confuse others to your actual intentions which aren't confusing or mean, they just come off that way unless you explain them...

So, I have these questions that need to be answered (for my own reasoning) and the math has allready been done to get the answers... Like.. If you hit a gold ball "straight on"...i know that implies so much i terms of a swinging club. But is there an angle for which you can make contact (a vector?) which will only send the ball in the exact direction from which the force was applied? The answer to the question has been figured and resides as a mathematical truth now...I just need the answer... I get to use GPS all the time without knowing GR... Once again, im asking for fish without learning to fish... But just imagine that everytime you started to cook, someone demanded you know the physics of heat before you asked at what temperature to cook your pork chops... Am i just being lazy when I buy ziplock bags instead of making them myself? ie "You dont deserve to have and use that ziplock bag because you dont undertand it's nature!" No zip lock bags for you!

Wow...I found it...but I wont be understanding this much sooner than GR anyway... http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/physics-of-a-golf-swing.html

But you dont even need GR to talk about golf ball impacts...So, where to post it. is in question...Classical Physics or Relativity...seems classical physics would be the best fit...ill try it My rationing is, Couldnt Newton tell us everything we know about the physics of golf? Did GR effect those types of things? I know that GR could it explain it, but i was hoping to talking out it in terms of, angle of impact, conservation of energy and spin...

I did take a good look at the post...definitely need to review it i length...but yeah...just some tools to begin with this stuff are great Do you all think they will let me make another topic in "classical physics" about the "golf ball spin" idea I was inquiring about earler in this topic?

Feynman could definitely use words to convey concepts...Ive watched just about every feynman video on youtube... In one of them, wearing no shoes, he explains probability and had me grasping it ways I never considered....he is an eye opener... Eh, ive allready got a dominatrix,,,not the same?

It kinda shows that every once in a while a real observational finding is made that does demand a need to change...but when most of the findings still show that it needs to stay the same, you wouldnt scrap the entire model...i think i get it... When I think of all the success ive had in "doing it myyyyyy way" as Sinatra would say, this just isnt that type of study... When I look at the backwards approach I often take to many things, I was starting off with my own "models" and adjusting them as I find evidence that suggests that I must...its pretty much what I did here in this topic...I made up this notion of space foam so I could have something to shape in my mind...and I shaped that "model" according to what I was learning from people who KNEW or had the BEST INFO about what is true...yes, always with mathematical proof...I didnt have to have it, THEY did...and I could mold my interpretation of what they were saying and adjust the way my foam acted...i constructed it's properties from the realities that I thought they were finding...It was my journey...I suppose that IF it could make ANY sense to anyone with real knowledge, it would validate my process to any degree...i didnt need totality of truth...Just trying to see how close I came with some of my estimations and such... I was and still am very grateful when someone listens and acknowledges...and I still get a bit poopy when someone suggests there is nothing behind what Im expressing.... I dont have a different way to share, but here is a facebook link to my 2d graphic representation of Spacetime foam with object of mass at center https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1523304897958045&set=a.1399707273651142.1073741829.100008356482793&type=1&theater and an improved version... https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1523319187956616&set=a.1399707273651142.1073741829.100008356482793&type=1&theater Best and final version... https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1523323271289541&set=a.1399707273651142.1073741829.100008356482793&type=1&theater And here is my rendering of a mass in motion in the direction of the arrow. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1523336581288210&set=a.1399707273651142.1073741829.100008356482793&type=1&theater

The lecture notes by Carroll are one of the "books" i'm reading right now...I love the first line in the GRAVITY section,,,,"Now that we have paid our mathematical dues...etc" and I thought...I am going to have to pay my mathematical dues cuz im not getting this...but still a good read so far Wow...awesome info...thats pretty wacky!

Im also really glad that you noted that I wasnt "against" GR even in the beginning...just the goofy latex sheet...and sure, I slaughtered it all with some of my attempted explanations...but ive never tried to understand anything more than these concepts... I do see that...Yknow, when i look at SOME of the equations, the math isnt that daunting at all, but all the terms! I need to know the terms...IS there a good listing of all the terms in oneplace so I can just start memorizing them? . I cant believe my computer cut and pasted that...I do not have those characters on my keyboard...alas...terms...little sub b, little sub uv...whaaa? Where Rμv is known as the Ricci curvature tensor, gμv is the metric tensor, R is the scalar curvature, Λ is the cosmological constant, G is the gravitational constant, π is pi, c is the speed of light, and Tμv is called the stress-energy tensor. They use the Cosmological constant? I thought that was the biggest blunder of his career that hubble disproved...but its in the equations still?

Someone else is waxing poetic...i like it...well said! If only we could turn math into poetry...i could finally read it and appreciate it... I tell you what though, some of these authors Im reading right now seem to be better than others at using language to explain...and that may only be an aesthetic difference that I prefer...and thats damn close to poetry...

Yes,,,I still dont know all the spheres on that page...I thought "stationary limit surface" meant the surface of the mass...Ive been reading it over and over and it sinks in a bit more each time...I never could have come up with the "ergosurface" on my own...amazing

But they are unchallenged because nothing else can explain it better...These guys cant guarantee that all the known math now can explain everything that it may not be considering, but being the best and most thorough explanation is just that...and that is what math gives us...not my thoughts, or anyone else's thoughts...but i am still williing to discuss them with you as long as you dont veer to far from what math tells us...it is fun on this side... That was my point about dark matter and dark energy in the beginning...no matter what, so far, we have this mysterious and undefined thing...aether, the cosmo constant, dark matter...it seems we can take unknowns and work them into equations and just give the unknown a new name...but aether and the cosmo constant has been disproved with better models...or math...and dark energy and dark matter have not been disproved...and are still awaiting final approval...but aether and CC are gone... If you can look at the math of general relativity and then try to ration what it is truly explaining about our universe, then you do see this sacred relationship...because it explains what you cannot

If you stuff the earth down to 9mm radius it will become a BH? Thats awesome info...I just think of the energy it would take to do that...awesome... IM the monkey...youre supposed to walk away, not me...language skills and observation failing you...and why dont you if all youre going to do is be mean? monkey abuser! Im gonna make postings and get as much info as I can in my terms...if you all decide to stop responding, then i wont have anyone to discuss with.. I have no control over the moderators or other posters...all I can do it post and discuss the best I can...If its not good enough, they can ban me... Or you can ignore me... I assume if i had the golf ball spin analogy wrong, that someone would correct me...Does this mean my golf ball spin analogy holds true with at least golf balls? FOR ELFOMAT...The "grid" is used all the time in discussions of spacetime geometry... On page 14 of this article, it shows the grid and the gridlines get less spacetime between than is the grid is closest to the source... http://thep.housing.rug.nl/sites/default/files/theses/Bachelor%20thesis_Pieter%20van%20der%20Wijk.pdf are you sure youre not trying to misunderstand me? The grid seems a pretty easy thing to reference in terms of spacetime geometry, but only if you spent lots of time thinkig of it like that...I am not the only one who uses gridlines to express space-time geomtery... Who told me there isnt? They describe the spacetime at the point of EH to have "infinite curvature and density"...What does infinite curvature and density mean to you? To me, it meant that infinite density and curvature cannot exist at the same time as space-time coordinates...if they have no density and curve, then the coordinates cannot exist....if they have infinite density and curvature, the same applies...in my mind... you can no longer plot coordinates that have any value or meaning in infinity...whats 30 percent of infinity? if 2 points on a slope are defined in infinity, you cannot find a slope...math is still relative from zero...if you have infinite curvature from the presence of infinite density, you cant put values inside it that have any relative meaning...right? I think, if one understands what they mean by "infinite" in this use, then you could say..."IF we could change the speed of light, we would have to redefine what infinity meant in regards to curvature of space and the density it takes to create that curvature... For all the folks who told me to look into rest mass and inertial mass, you were right...I should have...but it doesnt change my big ole perception...it just helped to make it less fuzzy in detail... Learning is painful...i think I understand now that you all feel like im putting all that pain on you and i get to slam around and do whatever i want without pain...and in that perspective, i am a jerk... I am not avoiding that pain...doing lots of reading and thinking...but, we all do, including myself, know that i'm avoiding the inevitable pain of learning math which is why im actually avoiding doing it...and they way you all act, that pain has changed you...ha! This part is supposed to be fun...talking and discussing... Can anyone tell me the MASS limit or line on this graphic...page 34 of this article... http://thep.housing.rug.nl/sites/default/files/theses/Bachelor%20thesis_Pieter%20van%20der%20Wijk.pdf This guy knows how to write and express! Whoever reccomended that link...either Mordred or strange, its really understandable...was I asking yall to say the same things? yes! "As stated in Section (3.4.1), an event horizon is a surface that can be considered as a one-way-membrane: it lets signals from the outside in, but it prevents signals from the inside to go to the outside. The curvature within the event horizon is that strong, that particles or photons can not escape from there to infinity. As well for the Kerr-metric as for the Schwarzschildmetric is the event horizon a sphere-shaped surface around the black hole singularity. The horizon generators are the photons that have no-endpoints and will for always stay on the horizon. Whereas they follow straight lines for the Schwarzschild black hole, the null-geodesics are twisted for the Kerr black hole: they twist around the horizon, as the twists on a barber-pole (see figure 4.5). This twisting is caused by the frame-dragging: the photons" I like to wax poetic...Feynman said that he beileved all the math could be like a fractal...it just keeps getting more and more specific the farther you take the equations, and that the math may never give us any final amounts that do not need further scrutiny...some variable will always spawn more equations and theories...this is Feynman saying this...if he says it could be true, well...he's my mosted trusted expert... The point being really that you all are deeper into the layers of understanding than I am...for sure...but you cant just pull me down to you...I need to make it through the layers...I need time...but still Im looking for conversation at this moment and level... and also...the fractal can be admired and learned from at every depth... If youre gonna ban me or lock the topic, do it now! that ending was beautiful man!

i am sorry for the schwartzchild mispellings...Can i just say S? To me, math is like spelling...you can still make out the words and understand the concepts if I spell the words wrong... Jsut leik tihs wroks, yuo can sitill udnretsnda waht Im syanig cnat you? Im not following the rules of launguage, but the truth of the expression is still known... Ibe gotten to page 34 because I am a fast reader...very cool graphic about the Radius problem...and Wiki would definitlely be misworded..can i get some slack here? There is some confusion about the S radius and the event horizon location....in this paper, http://thep.housing.rug.nl/sites/default/files/theses/Bachelor%20thesis_Pieter%20van%20der%20Wijk.pdf On page 34 it shows the event horizon INSIDE the mass (stationary surface limit)...how could you ever get to the event horizon if it was within the object? And if the thesis by Van der Wijk is right, then my intuitions have been off...but wikipedia's explanation was confusing me... I got it..that shows a rotating BH...I would love to see a graphic such as this with a non rotating BH but the paper does not provide one... I never said my intuitions could get me all the way to any concept...Im starting with intuitions and noting that which correlates to current knowledge...granted, that knowledge has been gained by math...and lots of observation for sure... If you know that i dont know or understand the math, then presenting math as the language is speaking to me in terms I dont get... We can ban me from the forum for not understanding the math, or ban me for not forcing myself to examine the math to create an understanding...but really fellas...in a conversation where someone doesnt understand math, you cant get very far in communicating with that person in math...so you have to find another means or stop trying...i dont try to have conversations with monkeys...and I dont get mad at them for not being able to understand my language...i just walk away... I just ask that folks communicate with me in ways that i can understand... Im going to study the math...i allready have begun...should i just come back after that? itll be like four years...or can we still have a discussion that includes a language that I understand?...you cant force me to understand what you say with math...but you can help me understand what it means...i think...its allready happened...so is it my patience that is being annoyed?

Strange himself said the wording on wiki was not correct my moderator...i guess you didnt see that entry... See how important OBSERVATION is? wasted on you folk This is great...on the very first page it describes a BH with infinite amount of density...with infinite curvature...does that mean that the density is infinite in terms of everything else, or just infinite in terms of effecting gravity as much as gravity can be effected?...once you reach this infinite density or curvature, there is no denseness or curvature that could effect spacetime any more than it has been effected...and that sounds very much like "compressing spacetime until it is gone"...but it really takes a mastery of language to understand that...

Bye bye..im banning myself...