Unified Field

I have a very good evidence, as the rubber sheet model represents space-time curvature in a scientifically valid way - even, if you don't like this fact

But this is not, what has to be measured. To make a correct measurement, I would have to go to Low Earth's Orbit and see, if a dense object will start to fall from an altitude, at which less dense objects remain on the orbit... Absolutely - after I will create the equation, I will check, if it matches observations in every case. http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1889&context=td " A colleague of ours (Gary White) has done a fair amount of work on quantifying to what extent the rubber sheet analogy “works”. This can be found in “The shape of “the Spandex” and orbits upon its surface” by G.D. White and M. Walker, American Journal of Physics 70, 48-52 (2002) and “On trajectories of rolling marbles in cones and other funnels”, by G.D. White, American Journal of Physics 81, 890-898 (2013)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_well#The_rubber-sheet_model "Thus, to a first approximation, a massive object placed on a rubber sheet will deform the sheet into a correctly shaped gravity well, and (as in the rigid case) a second test object placed near the first will gravitate toward it in an approximation of the correct force law." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542244 "key question is: does the curvature you get with a mass in the 2d sheet have the same local properties as the curvature you get via GR in Minkowski space? Is this what is really driving the paths of objects in the simulation to be ellipses, hyperbolas, etc.? What is a notable example of some GR prediction that is NOT accounted for by his rig? The height as a function of position of the elastic sheet is a solution to Poisson's equation, which is the same equation that gives you the (classical) gravitational potential. So the demonstration is an analogue computation that solves the analogous problem in gravity." I could search for more, but there's no need. Sorry to say it: rubber sheet model represents correctly the "space-time curvatures" - and this is all, what I need from this model... I refuse to discuss things, which exist only on paper Luckily now I know, that I can use the rubber sheet model, to visualise the correlation between size and gravity - and that it will in fact show a correct result. Thanks - if not you, I wouldn't bother to check, if science approves it as a correct representation of "space-time curvature". Lucky for me, it does... Sorry for prooving, that you are incorrect...

Yes, yes, yes - I've heard it many times: "don't try to argue", "our opinion is the correct one", "trust in the equations", "How can you disagree with science?", "Science is always correct" Yes, we landed on the moon and we send probes to space - but none of this doesn't have to deal with the changing size of a planetary body and it's effects on gravity...

Throwing a rock is even more simple - so why won't we use it, as a model of rocket propulsion? Maybe because a model needs to have something in common with things, which it represents? By learning about the correlations between the size of an object, the force, which works on it and the distance at which it will affects other objects - this is all what I need... So how can you use it, to physically measure, that size doesn't have any effect on gravity? How can it be tested, if we are not capable to change the size of a planet? Sure - nothing more simple... We have thousands of bodies with the same masses and the same distances from the central object, but with different sizes... There are so many to choose from, as we just keep spotting them on every corner Of course, we have thousands of observations, in which stars became black holes - just as we keep tracking them, to see, if bodies orbiting around them are still in the right place... That was irony, if you didn't notice... Using the only way, to base a model on observation and measurement is not science? So this is why science make models, which include 11 dimensions and factors, which exist only on a piece of paper... By "accepting and aligning with the scientific method" you mean: "Believe in math an don't even try to discuss"? I'm going sleep - c'ya later

And what, if I will use this: to physically prove, that GR is wrong, when it comes to explaining gravity? And this is, what I want to do - so what's the problem? For now, I just presented the idea and the way, which I want to use, to validate it... Shouldn't it be the way of describing all laws of physics?

No? If it is so incorrect, then why it is being used, to visualize the concept of gravity? Model doesn't have to be perfect, but if it gives us completely inacurrate results, then it can't be used as a model. Cool - and how would you use this, to physically measure the effect of size of object on gravity? For me it's just a fairytale without any base in physical and measurable reality So, maybe it's actually a model, which shows, how gravity doesn't work? And this is exactly, what I want to do. But in the difference to science, I won't waste the time, to build a mathematical model, which has no base in some measurable facts... But did we observe, what will happen, if you change the size of an orbiting body, while keeping it's mass? I don't think so... So, what's the physical evidence, that Sun turned into a BH won't affect the orbits of planets?

Science in it's current state, is a result of hundreds years of work of thousands different scientists. I'm just one guy, who treats physics as a hobby and I have the entire scientific community working against me. You want me to redefine entire science by myself, while making everything, to stop me from doing it. Instead to help me in finding some ways, to turn my theory into reality, you just keep telling me, how stupid and uneducated I am. From all the users of this forum, only Vmedvil presented something with some scientific value...

That's why I will make the experiment and measure it's effects - something, what is the essence of whole science. Maybe you just didn't notice, that I already presented the concept and made some assumptions, as for the results, while explaining, why I expect to observe such effects. I managed as well to make some attempts, to see, if my assumptions are correct. Simply, my theory is already in some 60-70% a scientific fact. After I take the measurements, create the formula and check, if it matches the results in every possible case, my theory will turn into something called as "law" or "rule"...

I don't remember making any kind of promise, to solve all the problems of science. I can only try, to point out some of the issues and propose something, to fix it. Question is: will you have the balls, to admit your own mistake? Because it seems, that "scientists" are making everything, to ignore facts, which they don't like... You just don't know, what I have. Problem is, that you want me to make some miracle: give you somekind of sacred formula, which will explain all the mysteries of Universe, with couple letters and symbols. Sadly, I'm not Einstein or Jesus or some other saviour of science. Do you really expect, that I will explain entire Universe in a single thread? Even, if I try, moderators would probably close the discussion, if they would notice, that I might be correct (it happened already once)...

I'm sure it has... So? My experiment doesn't include magnetic fields or electric currents and it doesn't include any conducting fluids. As much, as I like MHD, it is simply completely useless in this case...

I really love MHD and it's beautiful simplicity - you can check, how I used it, to describe flux transfer events affecting the circulation of airmasses: But I don't need MHD, to explain my experiment - I have the feeling, that you just try to confuse me... Sorry, it won't work...

95% of those things have nothing to do with my experiment. As for the gravitational lensing - I have already the explanation, but first I need to deal with the subject of size and gravity. Do you want me, to deal with each aspect of physics simultaneusly? Cool... But how this is connected with the influence of size of an object on the g. field?

Which are? There's no empirical evidence of gravity depending (or not) on the size of objects. If there is, then show it to me...

I think, that an actual scientist (if there are still any) knows the value of an empirically proved fact. Problem is, when "scientists" keep ignoring facts and use calculations, as proof... Don't worry - I will create the formula anyway. But why does it matter to you, how I will make it? Why you insist so hard, to create it BEFORE collecting the data and not after? Don't you think, that it doesn't make sense, to calculate things, which are based on pure speculations?

Waste of time... If I want to create a formula, I base it on actual data. There's absolutely no sense to use the math, if I still don't know, what are the correlations between different values. It's like trying to calculate, what I will have for breakfest next Tuesday...

Blah blah blah... Are there any real-life tests of gravity being (or not) affected by the size of an object? No? Then what are we talking about? How can I use math, if I don't have any actual numbers? Where should I get them from? Guess them? Use magic?

Yes, there's nothing to examine, as there was still no observation. I don't need to - we already have the model Exactly - so let's see if it works and if it can be meassured spoiler alert - it works and can be measured I will prove it with practical experiment - what has much greater scientific value After I will take the measurements, I will use them to build a mathematical formula... Math is not a proof of anything - it's only a tool...

Actually I presented 2 different models of gravity, where one of them is fully accepted by mainstream science. Both models confirm my claims... So, let's hear what according to such smart guy, as you, is the best way to represent a gravitational field and the forces, which work inside it... .... .... .... Oh, there isn't any? So how can we measure, if the equations are correct? Oh, we can't? And you still call this "science"?

It's even worse - the entire model is completely incorrect. You all seem to forget about one "small" issue: Our environment is placed deep within the g. field of Earth. To conduct an experiment, which would give us some actually correct readings, we would need to leave the planet and measure the gravity of objects in deep space. Hmm, do you see any problems with this? I see... Rubber surface model won't work in 0-g environment... Still, it is a model, which is approved by science, as the best representation of space-time curvatures. Besides, it is the only officially accepted model, which allows me to observe and measure gravitational interactions of objects (of course, my model, which uses surface of water is still much better - but it is not accepted by science). There's simply no other way, to experiment with g. fields - and without experiments and physical measurements, all theories are nothing more, than sci-fi fairytales. But even if using the model will give me most likely incorrect numbers, it still suppose to represent the gravity. If something can be observed using the model, it should be also observed in the full-scale reality - however we will probably get different values... This is, how models suppose to work - if I see, that something takes place during the experiment, I have a VERY strong reason, to assume, that my theory is correct... If the rubber surface model shows clearly, that force of attraction depends greatly on the size (density) of the central object, I have full right to assume, that: a) my theory is correct b) current models of gravity are completely incorrect and can be used only as trampolines for children Suddenly all started to tell me, that the model can't be treated seriously. But this is the ONLY way, in which you can visualize gravity and the only way to confront a theory with practice. What is an other way, to prove my claims - should I turn the Sun into a black hole and see, if Earth will remain on it's orbit? Sorry - this I can not do... And this is why we have goddamn models. If you say, that I can't use it, because it won't show real results, then it means, that your entire concept of gravity is a total crap - completely virtual and unproven fiction... And if you know any better way of looking, how size of an object affects the g. field - don't be shy and share it with us... Or even better - maybe you know some practical experiment, which will contradict my experiment... Calculations? Not interested - I want simple facts... Anyone? ...Just as I thought... It's funny, how "scientists" put calculations before facts. It's even funnier, when someone tries to check, if those calculations match the observation and it turns out, that they don't...

It is being used, as a correct model of gravity, as it correctly represents this: And this is our current model of gravity... If you know any better and more correct way, to represent gravitational field, I would love to hear about it...

To moderators of this forum: I'm sure, that you are aware, that you decided to close the thread about gravity, due to: just after I told, that I'm about to conduct an experiment and take some actual measurements. I already made the first attempt and guess what... ...Of course, I was right... Be sure, that after I will finish recording the results of experiment (day or two), I will make a new thread, called: "Practical experiment - using General Relativity, to prove, that Einstein was wrong" - or something of this kind. There won't be a single word about any theories - only an assumption and direct visual observation (confirmation)... I wonder, how you will deal with it - probably you will simply block my account, as this is exactly, how world of science reacts to unpleasant Truth... http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/47672-practical-experiment-test-if-general-relativity-theory-fact-correct.html#post611111

Slow down a bit - I still didn't include the rotation of a source in this model. First I need to check, if changing just the size of Sun would affect somehow the orbits of planets in Solar System. According to current knowledge, it wouldn't, but according to my model, it would - if my predictions are correct, densier Sun would cause 2 effects on planets: bodies, which are placed close to the center would "fall" into the Sun, while more distant objects should "eject" from their orbits and fly into space. There's also a possibility, that in a certain region of space (somewhere in the middle of a g. field), force of gravitational attraction won't change.... Ok, now let me check this out... Logic IS required, as laws of physics are ALWAYS logical. How can you tell already, that there's no point of continuing, if I still didn't make any experiments? And what, if the models will show, that I'm correct? Will you say, that the models have to be wrong? Drawings are being used to present a concept in a way, which is easy to understand - they are not required, but help a lot...

No... In order, to test my idea, I will confront it with observations/experiments - so there's no need for any virtual calculations... I prefer practical science...

Here's a nice movie. Most important things are being told beginning from 7:53 In shortcut, entire mass of the star has to be compressed inside Schwarzchild radius, to make a BH. Inside a star, object which is placed at the distance of this radius, will be affected only by the mass, which is placed between the center and the object - mass of the star, which is placed beyond this distance won't add to the mass inside and will pull the object to the outside... Anyway, I spent some time thinking about the density of gravity source and the orbits of objects, which move around the center of mass. I think, that I managed to find the solution. Those two images should explain everything... As I said before, mass of the source is responsible for the "amount" of produced gravity, while it's size defines the size of g. field. As we know, distribution of magnitude in a g. field is varied - attraction is getting stronger, the closer we get to the center of mass. 2 Objects with equal mass and different densities should create fields with the same "amount" of gravity, but with different sizes - so the same "amount" of force, has to be distributed over different areas of space. Force, which is distributed over a large area for the bigger source, has to be "compressed", to fit into a smaller space for a more dense object. As a result, force of attraction is stronger for the smaller source, but it's influence doesn't reach so far, as in the case of larger object. This is why, galaxies can interact with eachother as 2 objects over a huge distance, even if their g. fields are rather weak... But what with the orbit of a body, which is rotating around the source? Well, according to simple logic and to those 2 drawings, orbits should be affected by the change of source's density, but I have a plan to make a 3D simulation of this model (I just started working on it) and a real-life simulation (using rubber surface and some marbles) - so I should be able to confront my logic with reality... This is exactly, what I do. I was talking about some of the arguments, which you used to disprove my concept, by telling, that it's not consistent with GR theory - and for me this is not an argument at all. I would have to reconsider this concept only, if it would be inconsistent with observations/experimets and not with other theories...

I don't feel offended, if someone corrects my mistakes - this is why I discuss here my ideas (to validate some of my claims). Actually, I don't get offended easily in general - but when someone starts to adress things, like my education or general intellect, he can expect, that he will get a response, which he probably won't like Dr Swanson was right - this is why I thanked him for finding a mistake, which I've made. Exactly - discussing science: this is why we all are here... Sadly, discussion is not possible, if everything, what is being said about some concept, ends on: Not much to work with... Besides, telling, that some concepts are inconsistent with mainstream theories, or that there's still no theory, which would explain some aspects of a model, doesn't prove anything. So what, if my concept of gravity differs from the concept of gravity in GR? What matters, is the observation, measurement and empirical proof. If you want me to change the concept, you need to prove me, that my explanation is inconsistent with observable facts - and not with hypothesies or virtual calculations... But sometimes it so weak, that it's impossible to observe - and to make things easier, we just ignore it... And even for a single atom - but I want to concentrate on forces, which have some real and measurable influence on the environment. Of course - just ask and I will try to give the answer... Ok, it's 3 AM in here. I'm really going sleep this time... Peace!