Einstein was right!

[Butch]

Einstein stated that gravity and acceleration must be the same force, I can only see one way this is possible... Everything is expanding, this seems ridiculous at first, however I have been giving it a lot of thought for many years and I am ready to answer questions.

[Strange]

Einstein stated that gravity and acceleration must be the same force

 

 

I don't believe he said that.

[Butch]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_gravity.html&ved=0ahUKEwj8qP_CsKjQAhXF8CYKHVB4BuoQFggiMAI&usg=AFQjCNFoZ0VAajz0-iguZBJ3JulwI8eULw&sig2=aPK8XwO0wYPKOinIP9-8Ow

[DrKrettin]

I'm all for "making difficult topics understandable" but not at the expense of accuracy. For example, in that link:

 

This “inverse-square law” is quite sophisticated enough to explain .... why the planets travel in an elliptical orbit around the Sun

 

This is quite wrong for starters. It is the conservation of angular momentum which determines that, not the inverse square relationship. He then goes on to talk of the principle of equivalence, expressed as gravity and acceleration being the same force, which is a baffling mixture of dimensions.

[DrmDoc]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_gravity.html&ved=0ahUKEwj8qP_CsKjQAhXF8CYKHVB4BuoQFggiMAI&usg=AFQjCNFoZ0VAajz0-iguZBJ3JulwI8eULw&sig2=aPK8XwO0wYPKOinIP9-8Ow

 

Posting a link is insufficient for us novice, can you provide a quote from that link where Einstein equates gravity with acceleration?

[Strange]

Einstein stated that gravity and acceleration must be the same force

 

 

They are equivalent, but neither are a force in GR.

 

However, as this is equivalence is the basis of GR, perhaps you can explain what you are saying that is different from GR?

 

 

 

Everything is expanding

 

What evidence do you have for this? For example, why do we not see the Earth getting larger?

[Butch]

I am not contesting GR, rather I believe I am exploring the implications. I am limited in my posts today, so please ponder these things until I am in a better position to respond.

 

1. The inverse square law is not an explanation, it is a mathematical description.

 

2. Einsteins curved space is outside our sphere of perception.

 

We do not see the earth getting larger relative to anything because everything is expanding at an accelerating rate. We perceive it however as gravity.

Edited November 14, 2016 by Butch

[Strange]

1. The inverse square law is not an explanation, it is a mathematical description.

 

 

True. The same is true of the equations of GR. And everything else in physics.

 

 

 

 

2. Einsteins curved space is outside our sphere of perception.

 

Not really. We perceive it as gravity, for example.

[Mordred]

We even have a satellite dedicated to testing that curvature. However freefall under GR doesn't involve a force. The equivalence principle is inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass. Which isn't the same as saying gravity and acceleration is the same thing. An accerating frame is not an inertial frame.

 

Acceleration causes rapidity under GR.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

Something like this?

What are your thoughts on this?

[swansont]

2. Einsteins curved space is outside our sphere of perception.

 

 

Gravity, as Strange has noted, but if you are talking about differences between Newtonian physics, I guess it's fortunate that physicists have relied on instruments to detect things beyond our natural perception. For hundreds of years. So I don't see why one would single GR out for critique because we need instruments to measure subtle effects.

 

We do not see the earth getting larger relative to anything because everything is expanding at an accelerating rate. We perceive it however as gravity.

 

So much for not contesting GR.

[Butch]

Not critiquing, if space were expanding at an accelerating rate, how would we perceive it? By "Space" I am referring to the dimension of space v the dimension of time.

 

Would you refer to this space as flat or curved?

Edited November 15, 2016 by Butch

[michel123456]

Einstein stated that gravity and acceleration must be the same force, I can only see one way this is possible... Everything is expanding, this seems ridiculous at first, however I have been giving it a lot of thought for many years and I am ready to answer questions.

Yes something like that: gravity should be a kind of acceleration. Or better, gravity should be the reaction we feel from a kind of acceleration. If that is true, then we know the direction of this acceleration: it has a direction from outside to the inside, it is radial. IOW it has the effect of a scale factor.

But once you make such a statement like "everything is expanding" there is a question arising.

If I am expanding, and you are expanding too, then why aren't we bumping together?

Take 2 ping pong balls at a distance of 10 centimeters, then "expand" the balls and transform it into soccer balls. If each ball expands relative to its center, then the 2 balls will hit each other. The only way to avoid this is to make the distance between the ping pong balls also "expand". The 10 cm must also transform into 100cm.

How is that possible? How can the void between the balls increase? And how does the expansion take place? Relative to what center?

Edited November 15, 2016 by michel123456

[Butch]

A better example is two balloons inflating, if the observer is moving away from the two balloons at a rate which causes the balloons to appear to remain the same size relative to the observer, the illusion for the observer would be that the balloons approach one another until they touch. As for the center of expansion, I will cover that once more ground has been covered.

 

Q... Does time have a beginning?

[Mordred]

Not critiquing, if space were expanding at an accelerating rate, how would we perceive it? By "Space" I am referring to the dimension of space v the dimension of time.

 

Would you refer to this space as flat or curved?

First off throw away thinking of space as anything other than volume change.

 

Secondly the acceleration of space is something of a misnomer. In point of detail the rate of expansion per Mpc is slowing down not accelerating.

 

The acceleration portion is the seperation distance based on one formula for recessive velocity (which is not a true velocity but an apparent velocity)

 

v=Hd.

A better example is two balloons inflating, if the observer is moving away from the two balloons at a rate which causes the balloons to appear to remain the same size relative to the observer, the illusion for the observer would be that the balloons approach one another until they touch. As for the center of expansion, I will cover that once more ground has been covered.

 

Q... Does time have a beginning?

There is no centre of expansion, there is no inside or outside of the balloon, those analogies were never intended to define expansion. Its only intention is to show a homogeneous and isotropic geometry change of the dots on the surface of the balloon.

 

(all points expanding equally without change of angle)

 

please read these two papers on the above.

 

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion

http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

[Butch]

Dr. Perlmuter took the time to measure this to see if the universal expansion was slowing or remaining constant... What he and his team found was not what they had expected, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. He won a Nobel prize for this observation.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Butch

[Mordred]

You have to study the deceleration equation itself to see the difference. For example at the time of CMB. For every Mpc the rate of expansion given by H was over a 1000 times the Hubble value today.

 

Please read those articles particulatly the one done by Brian Powell. It clearly shows the distinction.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Mordred

[Butch]

I have to go stretch some fish lips, I will be back... Thank you for your interest in this topic.

[Mordred]

Dr. Perlmuter took the time to measure this to see if the universal expansion was slowing or remaining constant... What he and his team found was not what they had expected, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. He won a Nobel prize for this observation.

Yes but this is under seperation distance treatment not expansion per Mpc

[Strange]

Something like this?Screenshot_2016-11-15-08-34-26.png

What are your thoughts on this?Screenshot_2016-11-15-08-46-41.png

 

 

That does not seem to be an accurate representation of how the distance between objects (on cosmological scales) changes with time.

Not critiquing, if space were expanding at an accelerating rate, how would we perceive it? By "Space" I am referring to the dimension of space v the dimension of time.

 

The most obvious way is the measurement of redshift versus distance (Hubble's law).

 

 

 

Would you refer to this space as flat or curved?

 

Measurements show it to be pretty much flat.

Dr. Perlmuter took the time to measure this to see if the universal expansion was slowing or remaining constant... What he and his team found was not what they had expected, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. He won a Nobel prize for this observation.

 

That its true, but it doesn't seem to be relevant. Also, the acceleration only started about 5 billion years ago.

[Mordred]

That its true, but it doesn't seem to be relevant. Also, the acceleration only started about 5 billion years ago.

Specifically when expansion becomes Lambda dominant from matter dominant and we entered the Lambda dominant era.

[Butch]

Yes but this is under seperation distance treatment not expansion per Mpc

Red shift could be deceptive, it could be gravitational red shift, if so then the universe is in a steady state, or perhaps the Big Bang is a local event or an ongoing event which has no beginning... Reference my chart as space being flat and time being curved.

[michel123456]

A better example is two balloons inflating, if the observer is moving away from the two balloons at a rate which causes the balloons to appear to remain the same size relative to the observer, the illusion for the observer would be that the balloons approach one another until they touch. As for the center of expansion, I will cover that once more ground has been covered.

 

That would not be an illusion. The 2 balloons would really touch each other.

 

And what would be the process that makes the observer move away?

[Strange]

Red shift could be deceptive, it could be gravitational red shift, if so then the universe is in a steady state, or perhaps the Big Bang is a local event or an ongoing event which has no beginning...

 

 

You would need to produce a (mathematical) model that shows how gravitational redshift could explain observations (I can't see how that would work, but feel free to present the details).

 

When Hubble first published his result many people attempted to find explanations (even though the correct one had been published a couple of years earlier!) These included tired light, various steady-state and quasi steady state models, etc.

 

However, what really killed all of those off was the detection of the CMB, exactly as predicted.

 

So, how would your model explain the CMB?

 

 

perhaps the Big Bang is a local event or an ongoing event which has no beginning

 

The big bang is definitely an ongoing thing: it is a description of the evolution of the universe from an early hot dense state. That is still continuing.

 

Arguably, it is also a local event, as there is no point where the big bang "happened"; it happened (and is happening) everywhere.

 

And it is quite possible that a quantum theory of gravity will show there was no beginning.

[Butch]

Happening everywhere does not describe a local event. For all we know Big Bangs could be occurring all over the universe.

 

If the Big Bang is the "Birth" of the universe, my hypothesis says it has no beginning. If we were able to go back in time to our perceived beginning of the big bang it would still appear that the universe was about 13.8 billion years old.