Kygron

In the real world a full self-reference is impossible (I can give my name but not my quantum state), if this were somehow incorporated into mathematics, would Godel's Incompleteness proof fail? It's based solely on self-reference, right? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIf you aren't able to answer, do you know of somewhere or someone else I can ask?

I think it's important to remember perspective, especially with relativity. From the perspective of an outside observer, anything entering a black hole becomes part of it, end of discussion. There's really no inside or outside, just a value of mass. From the perspective of someone falling into a black hole, you don't even notice the horizon. Eventually you'll get stretched out, but before that there's no reason why anything that exists in normal space can't exist in "falling space", including other black holes.

Yes, yes, but I had assumed the acceleration decreased until it reached the current value, and now that paper I mentioned suggested that it decelerated for awhile and then re-accelerated to the current state. This latter explanation would not be so good for the model I presented in this thread. This discussion has mentioned first through fourth derivatives of the size of the universe (WRT time), and I believe we've all (including myself) been confused at which one we're talking about at any place in the discussion. I'll try to be more clear in the future. Hmm.... My model suggests that gravitational field strength was much greater during the inflationary period, but I seem to recall that inflation was suggested as a means of overcoming the gravity of the early universe. Looks like I may have to read the pre-90's section of that article after all.

Ugh! That was the first Wiki article I've seen where the dates are either pre-90's or the text is still in a "raw data" form: where ever it wasn't useless it was meaningless. No offense to you of course, that just means I've hit the boundary of current research/personal ability. A good thing for my ego and a bad thing for my attempted contribution to science.

At least with this post I understand what you're trying to ask for. Let me simplify this tremendously. Assume a black hole and an asteroid, the BH is fixed in position and the rest of the universe is empty. You're asking how the asteroid can enter the BH's influence and then leave again. The answer is that it never does! Gravity has no range, so the entire universe is under the influence of that black hole. Anywhere the asteroid is it will be obeying Kepler's laws. If it gets to earth, that will be because earth is on the orbit, not because it escaped from the orbit. Back to light, as swansont said light CAN accelerate, as long as it's not in the direction of motion. Light only has a fixed SPEED, not VELOCITY. I don't think Kepler's laws would apply to light, for this vary reason, so a simple "orbit" would appear far more like a parabola or hyperbola then an ellipse. Is that what you were trying to ask, or am I still misunderstanding you?

I searched a bit for info on the expansion rate. Best I've found was this paper that suggests in its introduction that the universe has had phases of deceleration. For my model this would mean that there have been times when the gravitational field strength becomes 0 (not negative, it's the absolute value of the acceleration rate). This would be easily visible in starlight so it kinda messes things up for me. Anyone know anything about possible deceleration? Or if there's been times of widespread supernova activity? Or if I'm lucky the rate at which gravity returns (second derivative of acceleration?) is gradual enough to let things continue just where they left off.

It is my hope, in fact, that a simple transform can convert the current models to this new one, it would save alot of work (or not transform them, but incorporate this) The difference is that I'm linking the gravitational force to the expansion rate of the real universe, the new model just demonstrates how to do the linking. I've heard people suggest that certain universal constants may have been different in the early universe. However, how do you decide what they might have been? Were they greater, lesser? Can you even measure them? I'm giving a way that you CAN measure one of them, the gravitational constant, because you can measure the expansion rate of the universe. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do the mathematics personally, but I have attempted to set this up so that they CAN be done and a definite "this works" or "this doesn't work" is achieved. (Some bad luck would get me: "this interferes with the calculation of the expansion rate.", or "we'd have to completely reprogram the computers to accept a variable G") I'm hoping someone will be able to suggest some problems I'm running into, or suggest someone to present this idea to who would be interested in doing some of the mathematics. If only I had some grad students at my beck and call....

If anyone can, please do! I don't have the mathematical physics background for it. I don't doubt that it is, or at least similar, I only wish to suggest an alternate viewpoint that has actual repercussions for current models. In that case I guess I should have picked a better title, oh well. No, it can be flat or anything else, the analogy is for illustration of concept. But isn't this the same problem we face with the current model? Sorry for the bad start, the main idea I was trying to convey is: An accelerating universe is the cause of Gravity and other "unexplained" phenomena. I'd love to see the effect this has on models of universal development, as I'm suggesting that G varies in space and time. (edit: but can still be calculated from non-gravitational data) Thanks for the thoughts, please continue!

Ok, I just thought of this this morning and I've got to try out the idea on some people. Here's WHY the masses are equal: The Setup (skip it if you know alot of physics): Sorry, my mind works with analogies, I'll use standard ones, first, we have the sheet of rubber that has balls of different masses placed in it. The masses bend the rubber (warp the fabric of space-time) and display gravitational effects. It's a bad analogy because it relies on your knowledge of "real" gravity to power the motion, but hold that thought for a minute and I'll remove "real" gravity before I finish up. Next, we extent that sheet of rubber until it models the whole universe as a balloon. This is the analogy that answers the question of "where's the center of the universe? There is none!" However, to continue to have that "real" gravity to power the model, we must have a massive object at the center of the balloon. Still with me? Now we move to Einstein's elevator where he bends light but doesn't know if he's on a planet or accelerating through space. We learn that gravitational force can be replaced by acceleration. Back to the model balloon, I get to fulfill my promise to remove the mass at the center. We exchange it for an acceleration, by inflating the balloon at an ever-increasing pace. The inertial masses on the surface resist the acceleration, causing dimples in the balloon, which produce a gravitational affect on the other masses. And wouldn't you know it... We live in a universe experiencing accelerated expansion!!! The Conclusion: The universe around us is expanding at an accelerating rate. The inertial masses resist this acceleration, warping space-time to produce gravity as they do. Gravitational strength is therefore produced by inertial mass and universal expansion. I'm using this model to explain other phenomena to myself (like dark matter), but I'll start simple and ask for your feedback. I certainly surprised myself this morning saying "but that would require the universe to be accelerating... wait, it IS!"

Well for the first part about having mechanisms for developing variation, I can say I was surprised... that it would even be questioned. Of course nature keeps us varied. Because... because... ok, I'm struggling with descriptions, it's just too common-sense for me. As for aging, would you mind sharing an example of why it's beneficial? I can think of one or two, but they're probly not significant enough.

Well, I must say, Smolin has given me more respect for string theory than I had previously. Not as it relates to physics, as I would come to the same conclusions with the info presented, but as a concept that's so powerfull that it's begun it's conquest of earth. You'd think it would take a charismatic flesh-and-blood human to become emperor of the world, but perhaps an abstract mathamatical concept will be the first to achieve that goal.

Yes, this is the way I thought it was. The book seemed to make a bigger deal about it in my mind. You say "there is no problem" and I would agree, assuming the rest of what you said is true and complete. So why then does Smolin rank it as the second biggest problem in physics, after unification of theorys??

I just read in Lee Smolin's new book about the problem with the observer in Quantum physics. He called it one one the 5 biggest problems, that you need an observer for it to work out right. Is this really a problem????? I had always assumed it was the way you explain a non-problematic but unique situation to a non-physisist. Would the whole theory really break down if we all "shut our eyes"?????

Reading the book now. I'll have more to say later, but for now one thing I'm happy with: For me personally it was the first time I heard a discription of guage theory and spontaneous symmetry breaking described in clear, modern, layman's terms. I believe it'll do wonders for my understanding of current physics.

Believe it or not, this is just what Martin meant when he said: And also what I alluded to in the OP, though I stopped short. Lucky you, there're physists working on your idea at this very moment!