Space flowing towards a mass (split from gravity is a force)

[MigL]

The graviton is the mediator boson in a QUANTUM field theory of gravity.

We don't have a quantum field theory of gravity yet !

( but everyone expects there to be one eventually )

 

As for space-time ( or even fields ) 'flowing', I'm of the opinion that you can probably construct a model including such 'flows' as space-time is a mathematical construct.

But what would be the point; it would make the exact same predictions, yet be much more complex.

So, no, nothing is flowing into masses, but if you want to construct a mathematical model, go ahead and knock yourself out.

( but I suggest you study GR first, the going is much simpler )

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

This topic is on space flowing towards a mass - anything else is offtopic.

 

Handyandy - even the originator of a thread can be seen to be hijacking a thread if they head off on too many tangents.

 

If you wish to ask about the graviton then do so in a new thread, ditto spin characteristics, ditto fundamental particles' make up.

 

And too many "what is this vague mix of buzzwords is true" will set off the verbal vegan (word salad) alert - ie please don't just guess at stuff and ask if it might be right. Ask structured questions to gain knowledge and you will get amazing answers; assert word-salad garbage purporting to be a question and people will start to call you on it and leave your threads alone.

 

[Handy andy]

Apologies for my method of questioning. I tend to think what an answer maybe to a question, before asking what the answer to the question actually is, or is considered to be.

 

I had assumed Space flowing towards a mass or gravitons flowing towards a mass could be assumed to be same thing, both resulting in a gravitational gradient in space, or the apparent stretching of space, in line with GR. Clearly gravitons are bosons and space whilst full of bosons and fermions is neither, but the stretching of space does transmit the gravitational force.

 

I know there are many theories, and I know they all don't agree on the mechanism of gravity. This is why gravity is interesting. It is also why space is interesting, space can be stretched and deformed into a gravitational field around a mass according to GR, it can also be stretched by EM waves or photons of light.

 

If any one knows how the gravitational force is transmitted and where all matter in the universe comes from, I think everyone would be interested.

 

A simple question relating to the flow of space is. How is the gravitational force transmitted?

[swansont]

Apologies for my method of questioning. I tend to think what an answer maybe to a question, before asking what the answer to the question actually is, or is considered to be.

 

I had assumed Space flowing towards a mass or gravitons flowing towards a mass could be assumed to be same thing, both resulting in a gravitational gradient in space, or the apparent stretching of space, in line with GR. Clearly gravitons are bosons and space whilst full of bosons and fermions is neither, but the stretching of space does transmit the gravitational force.

 

Did you not read the previous discussion about what the article means by "flow of space" or are you just ignoring it?

 

I know there are many theories, and I know they all don't agree on the mechanism of gravity. This is why gravity is interesting. It is also why space is interesting, space can be stretched and deformed into a gravitational field around a mass according to GR, it can also be stretched by EM waves or photons of light.

 

If any one knows how the gravitational force is transmitted and where all matter in the universe comes from, I think everyone would be interested.

 

A simple question relating to the flow of space is. How is the gravitational force transmitted?

 

Did you not read the previous modnote or are you just ignoring it?

[Handy andy]

Do I conclude that the strange claim ref the flow of space was totally wrong? or just not definitely correct?

[Handy andy]

Do I conclude that the strange claim ref the flow of space was totally wrong? or just not definitely correct?

 

I will answer my own question, I do not believe the flow of space towards a mass to be totally wrong, it is a viable method for transmitting gravity according to gravity research paper attached.

 

http://www.gravityresearch.org/pdf/GRI-010515.pdf

 

I think the jury is still out.

[Mordred]

You really can't look at just key buzzwords but not study the actual math to understand what is really going on. There is a real easy way to tell and after work. I will domonstrate.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Mordred

[swansont]

I will answer my own question, I do not believe the flow of space towards a mass to be totally wrong, it is a viable method for transmitting gravity according to gravity research paper attached.

 

http://www.gravityresearch.org/pdf/GRI-010515.pdf

 

I think the jury is still out.

Gravity research institute? It's not a peer-reviewed paper, either.

[Strange]

Do I conclude that the strange claim ref the flow of space was totally wrong? or just not definitely correct?

 

 

I don't think I made any such claim. I drew your attention to an analogy that can be used to describe one specific coordinate system.

 

That coordinate system applies to a single, isolated, non-rotating, spherical mass in an otherwise empty universe. It does not appear to be a general principle that can be used to describe gravity in all cases.

 

You are extrapolating to an unreasonable degree, simply to match the way you think things should be.

How is the gravitational force transmitted?

 

By the curvature of space-time.

[Zylacone]

Space is a form of matter, the Higgs Field, as such, a mass can attract space, but not continuously. A stationary mass is like a drum, once filled it only attracts the space it has. A mass in motion loses Higgs bosons as it moves away from them due to the elasticity of space, and gains Higgs bosons as it approaches them.

[Mordred]

Please don't try to answer someone elses thread with an inaccurate response. Space is not a form of matter. It is strictly volume where the standard model of particles reside in. This includes the Higgs field.

 

Euclidean space (ie the volume were all used to dealing with.) has the line element.

 

[latex]ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/latex] there is no time dilation/length contraction under the above. It is strictly volume (space). There is no flow in the above and the above follows Galilean relativity.

 

When you add the time component and assign each moment in time a position (coordinate) you get the line element

 

[latex]ds^2=-dt+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/latex] notice our coordinates are now (ct,x,y,z)

 

We still have no flow as the above coordinates are Static. . The above coordinates define space in the first case and spacetime in the second case.

 

If I want to add a flow I need to make several decisions. Does both observers and there corresponding inertial frames flow in the same direction.? Does the IF frame only flow for one observer? Which direction (vector) is this flow?

 

So now you have to break the equations above to the seperate primed and unprimed observers and add an additional vector component showing this flow.

 

In the FLRW the commoving coordinate system adds a complex vector called the scale factor as the geometry of space for both observers change over time. So we add a(t) to reflect this detail. As were dealing with a sphere we need polar coordinates.

 

 

so our first equation now becomes

 

[latex]ds^2 = dr^2 +r^2[d\theta^2 + {sin^2} d\phi^2][/latex]

 

When you combine the time component and commoving coordinates (expansion/contraction) with the scale factor the above equation becomes.

 

[latex]d{s^2}=-c^2dt^2+a(t)^2[dr^2+S,kr^2d\Omega^2][/latex]

 

We have now added a scale factor and a curvature term k.

 

[latex]S\kappa r= \begin{cases} R sinr/R &k=+1\\ r &k=0\\ R sinr/R &k=-1 \end {cases}[/latex]

 

to put it simply space by itself is defined by the first equation. It is static coordinates. The Minkowskii metric is static as well. (So is the Schwartzchild metric). If you add a flow these coordinates that define space or spacetime will require some vector showing the flow over time.

 

If you do not see such a vector in the line element [latex]ds^2[/latex] then your space or spacetime global metric is static.

 

The FLRW metric showing expansion/contraction is one example. However the vector in this case is expansion/contraction not flow.

 

Recall those questions lets say we have both observers flowing in the same direction x over time. We will need a third reference (event) point lets assign this [latex]ds_{outside}^2[/latex] for outside the flow.Critical point: We need to also preserve the Euclidean space for the original two observers.

 

the first equation becomes

 

 

[latex]ds_{outside}^2=d\vec{x_{outside}}^2(t_{elapsed})\pm(ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)[/latex]

 

now we have a flowing space. Your Euclidean geometry (space) is preserved as it flows in the x direction. So two observers within that space agree on the same geometry.(translational symmetry).

 

This is the power of understanding the math of the articles you are posting and not relying on misleading verbal descriptives. I can merely look at the line element of any model and give you all the dynamics involved. Once I identify all the variables in said equation. Without even reading the said article.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Mordred

[Mordred]

Gravity research institute? It's not a peer-reviewed paper, either.

Its not even a particularly good paper as it literally uses a preferred frame. Not too uncommon for eather based theories.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Mordred

[Handy andy]

Please don't try to answer someone elses thread with an inaccurate response. Space is not a form of matter. It is strictly volume where the standard model of particles reside in. This includes the Higgs field.

 

Euclidean space (ie the volume were all used to dealing with.) has the line element.

 

[latex]ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/latex] there is no time dilation/length contraction under the above. It is strictly volume (space). There is no flow in the above and the above follows Galilean relativity.

 

When you add the time component and assign each moment in time a position (coordinate) you get the line element

 

[latex]ds^2=-dt+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/latex] notice our coordinates are now (ct,x,y,z)

 

We still have no flow as the above coordinates are Static. . The above coordinates define space in the first case and spacetime in the second case.

 

If I want to add a flow I need to make several decisions. Does both observers and there corresponding inertial frames flow in the same direction.? Does the IF frame only flow for one observer? Which direction (vector) is this flow?

 

So now you have to break the equations above to the seperate primed and unprimed observers and add an additional vector component showing this flow.

 

In the FLRW the commoving coordinate system adds a complex vector called the scale factor as the geometry of space for both observers change over time. So we add a(t) to reflect this detail. As were dealing with a sphere we need polar coordinates.

 

 

so our first equation now becomes

 

[latex]ds^2 = dr^2 +r^2[d\theta^2 + {sin^2} d\phi^2][/latex]

 

When you combine the time component and commoving coordinates (expansion/contraction) with the scale factor the above equation becomes.

 

[latex]d{s^2}=-c^2dt^2+a(t)^2[dr^2+S,kr^2d\Omega^2][/latex]

 

We have now added a scale factor and a curvature term k.

 

[latex]S\kappa r= \begin{cases} R sinr/R &k=+1\\ r &k=0\\ R sinr/R &k=-1 \end {cases}[/latex]

 

to put it simply space by itself is defined by the first equation. It is static coordinates. The Minkowskii metric is static as well. (So is the Schwartzchild metric). If you add a flow these coordinates that define space or spacetime will require some vector showing the flow over time.

 

If you do not see such a vector in the line element [latex]ds^2[/latex] then your space or spacetime global metric is static.

 

The FLRW metric showing expansion/contraction is one example. However the vector in this case is expansion/contraction not flow.

 

Recall those questions lets say we have both observers flowing in the same direction x over time. We will need a third reference (event) point lets assign this [latex]ds_{outside}^2[/latex] for outside the flow.Critical point: We need to also preserve the Euclidean space for the original two observers.

 

the first equation becomes

 

 

[latex]ds_{outside}^2=d\vec{x_{outside}}^2(t_{elapsed})\pm(ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)[/latex]

 

now we have a flowing space. Your Euclidean geometry (space) is preserved as it flows in the x direction. So two observers within that space agree on the same geometry.(translational symmetry).

 

This is the power of understanding the math of the articles you are posting and not relying on misleading verbal descriptives. I can merely look at the line element of any model and give you all the dynamics involved. Once I identify all the variables in said equation. Without even reading the said article.

Its not even a particularly good paper as it literally uses a preferred frame. Not too uncommon for eather based theories.

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain the above, I had not realised it was yet another aether based theory.

 

Do you or anyone else have any opinion regarding his experiments to verify his claims ref the swan song of the shrinking space theory or of relativity, and do you disagree that his results matched almost identically the results obtained via relativity.

 

Edit

 

After a little more digging Mr Martin has done another paper whereby he almost states that GR must be correct. For amusement if anyone is interested here it is http://www.gravityresearch.org/pdf/GRI-011011.pdf jump to the conclusion before trawling through it.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Handy andy

[Handy andy]

In my defence I am not the only one who has thought there is something not quite right about relativity and time dilation.

 

This is a web page with a more recent attempt to separate space and time. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-time-from-space/ the more I look into space and time the more I find.

 

The concept of a version of the aether or space, having properties of one kind or another will keep coming up for a few more years to come. A flowing space is not the only possibility out there, when you start looking. Adding an extra space dimension is also very interesting when considering gravity.

 

Science is not religion for most people, not everything is written in books and not everything written in books is correct, regardless of what the standard model says. Why should people stop thinking, just because they don't have access to the latest peer reviewed theories. Thinking is amusing, putting forward controversial ideas and getting them knocked down is amusing, even if we don't believe them. Maths is OK, but I have only ever met one person who found maths amusing in university, he was doing his Phd and like many Phd's I know he was not normal.

 

Thanks all, for the input on flowing space,

 

 

( The concept of space having properties still makes sense to me . Fermions and bosons exist in space and have spin why should space(graviton) have spin, unless it becomes a fermion or boson, when excited, why should bosons entering black holes not become fermions, atoms can combine and become heavier atoms, which then breakdown and become bosons, why shouldn't bosons combine in a black hole with sufficient energy to become stable atoms? clearly I have enough to keep me amused for a while longer )

Edited June 1, 2017 by Handy andy

[Mordred]

Well science is never a religion, we always look for alternatives. With eather based theories though the evidence against an eather is extremely strong.

 

Whether or not the graviton is involved for example is still up for debate. We haven't any strong evidence that its not.

 

Still doesn't change the detail space is just the volume/ geometry though. Too often you see people try to consider it as more than that.

 

If the graviton is found it must be a boson not a fermion. The gravitational wave evidence which we have finally observed strongly supports spin 2.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Mordred

[swansont]

In my defence I am not the only one who has thought there is something not quite right about relativity and time dilation.

 

This is a web page with a more recent attempt to separate space and time. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/splitting-time-from-space/ the more I look into space and time the more I find.

 

The concept of a version of the aether or space, having properties of one kind or another will keep coming up for a few more years to come. A flowing space is not the only possibility out there, when you start looking. Adding an extra space dimension is also very interesting when considering gravity.

 

Science is not religion for most people, not everything is written in books and not everything written in books is correct, regardless of what the standard model says. Why should people stop thinking, just because they don't have access to the latest peer reviewed theories. Thinking is amusing, putting forward controversial ideas and getting them knocked down is amusing, even if we don't believe them. Maths is OK, but I have only ever met one person who found maths amusing in university, he was doing his Phd and like many Phd's I know he was not normal.

 

Thanks all, for the input on flowing space,

 

 

( The concept of space having properties still makes sense to me . Fermions and bosons exist in space and have spin why should space(graviton) have spin, unless it becomes a fermion or boson, when excited, why should bosons entering black holes not become fermions, atoms can combine and become heavier atoms, which then breakdown and become bosons, why shouldn't bosons combine in a black hole with sufficient energy to become stable atoms? clearly I have enough to keep me amused for a while longer )

"Not everything written is correct" is part of the problem. Lots of crap is available. One needs to know some science in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. This is basic science, not the "latest".

 

Gravitons, should they exist as described, would be bosons. Integer spin.

[Handy andy]

"Not everything written is correct" is part of the problem. Lots of crap is available. One needs to know some science in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. This is basic science, not the "latest".

 

Gravitons, should they exist as described, would be bosons. Integer spin.

 

Exactly, and a lot of it comes directly out of science sites that should know better than publish nonsense, however even scientists need to generate funding, and sometimes stretch the truth. This is not helped by the media or scientists either, coming out with nonsense multiple universes and time travel stories etc. Having said that science fiction can be amusing if close enough to perceived reality.

 

Gravitons being bosons have 2 integer spin if they exist, which I and many others, possibly yourself included, strongly suspect they don't. Gravitons are an example of the scientific community promoting an idea as fact then quietly dropping it when they found it may be wrong. The Big bang theory is yet another example of ludicrous science giving a beginning of time and all matter appearing out of a singularity, this theory is still evolving single bang to multiple bangs, to its only space expanding really.

 

The school is still out on gravity, and will be for some time to come, it is therefore intriguing. I do not think therefore that there is any harm in speculating. Others may disagree who have their own pet theories of gravity, or the origins of the universe. The standard model promoting gravitons, big bangs the beginning of time and the edge of an expanding universe are looking a bit dodgy. Cern could do with updating its peer reviewed website.

[Mordred]

there is nothing wrong with speculation on the graviton. There is literally an entire field theory (quantum geometrodynamics) that tries to narrow out the possible properties of the graviton.

[swansont]

Exactly, and a lot of it comes directly out of science sites that should know better than publish nonsense, however even scientists need to generate funding, and sometimes stretch the truth.

 

The insinuation that this is common and/or accepted practice is both off-topic and bullshit, and is (as usual) an assertion that arrives unaccompanied by any support.

 

 

Gravitons being bosons have 2 integer spin if they exist, which I and many others, possibly yourself included, strongly suspect they don't. Gravitons are an example of the scientific community promoting an idea as fact then quietly dropping it when they found it may be wrong. The Big bang theory is yet another example of ludicrous science giving a beginning of time and all matter appearing out of a singularity, this theory is still evolving single bang to multiple bangs, to its only space expanding really.

 

The school is still out on gravity, and will be for some time to come, it is therefore intriguing. I do not think therefore that there is any harm in speculating. Others may disagree who have their own pet theories of gravity, or the origins of the universe. The standard model promoting gravitons, big bangs the beginning of time and the edge of an expanding universe are looking a bit dodgy. Cern could do with updating its peer reviewed website.

 

It would be hard to care less about your opinion, seeing as it is quite obviously not based in much knowledge of the topic.

 

Also, CERN's website is not peer-reviewed. I doubt that many websites are.

[Handy andy]

Please don't try to answer someone elses thread with an inaccurate response. Space is not a form of matter. It is strictly volume where the standard model of particles reside in. This includes the Higgs field.

 

Euclidean space (ie the volume were all used to dealing with.) has the line element.

 

[latex]ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/latex] there is no time dilation/length contraction under the above. It is strictly volume (space). There is no flow in the above and the above follows Galilean relativity.

 

When you add the time component and assign each moment in time a position (coordinate) you get the line element

 

[latex]ds^2=-dt+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2[/latex] notice our coordinates are now (ct,x,y,z)

 

We still have no flow as the above coordinates are Static. . The above coordinates define space in the first case and spacetime in the second case.

 

If I want to add a flow I need to make several decisions. Does both observers and there corresponding inertial frames flow in the same direction.? Does the IF frame only flow for one observer? Which direction (vector) is this flow?

 

So now you have to break the equations above to the seperate primed and unprimed observers and add an additional vector component showing this flow.

 

In the FLRW the commoving coordinate system adds a complex vector called the scale factor as the geometry of space for both observers change over time. So we add a(t) to reflect this detail. As were dealing with a sphere we need polar coordinates.

 

 

so our first equation now becomes

 

[latex]ds^2 = dr^2 +r^2[d\theta^2 + {sin^2} d\phi^2][/latex]

 

When you combine the time component and commoving coordinates (expansion/contraction) with the scale factor the above equation becomes.

 

[latex]d{s^2}=-c^2dt^2+a(t)^2[dr^2+S,kr^2d\Omega^2][/latex]

 

We have now added a scale factor and a curvature term k.

 

[latex]S\kappa r= \begin{cases} R sinr/R &k=+1\\ r &k=0\\ R sinr/R &k=-1 \end {cases}[/latex]

 

to put it simply space by itself is defined by the first equation. It is static coordinates. The Minkowskii metric is static as well. (So is the Schwartzchild metric). If you add a flow these coordinates that define space or spacetime will require some vector showing the flow over time.

 

If you do not see such a vector in the line element [latex]ds^2[/latex] then your space or spacetime global metric is static.

 

The FLRW metric showing expansion/contraction is one example. However the vector in this case is expansion/contraction not flow.

 

Recall those questions lets say we have both observers flowing in the same direction x over time. We will need a third reference (event) point lets assign this [latex]ds_{outside}^2[/latex] for outside the flow.Critical point: We need to also preserve the Euclidean space for the original two observers.

 

the first equation becomes

 

 

[latex]ds_{outside}^2=d\vec{x_{outside}}^2(t_{elapsed})\pm(ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)[/latex]

 

now we have a flowing space. Your Euclidean geometry (space) is preserved as it flows in the x direction. So two observers within that space agree on the same geometry.(translational symmetry).

 

This is the power of understanding the math of the articles you are posting and not relying on misleading verbal descriptives. I can merely look at the line element of any model and give you all the dynamics involved. Once I identify all the variables in said equation. Without even reading the said article.

 

I know this is a question I have asked before, and received no answer, Einstein mentioned it also. It strikes me there is something missing from Relativity and the curvature of space. Has anyone ever tried to rejig Relativity in terms of inertia instead of time. Inertia is missing from the equations. It strikes me that there is an equivalence between change in measured time and change in mass, both due to inertia, clocks undergoing different rates of acceleration will measure different times due to inertia. Objects undergoing acceleration will experience different masses due to inertia.

 

When an accelerated mass comes to rest it measures the same as a mass on the ground, when an accelerated clock comes to rest it ticks at the same rate as a clock on the ground. There is no change in mass or time once returned to a stationery reference frame, even if a difference is measured due to different accelerations. Both results are due to the additional acceleration of the inertias involved, in the clock it is the fundamental particles, and in the mass it is the mass it self.

The insinuation that this is common and/or accepted practice is both off-topic and bullshit, and is (as usual) an assertion that arrives unaccompanied by any support.

 

 

It would be hard to care less about your opinion, seeing as it is quite obviously not based in much knowledge of the topic.

 

Also, CERN's website is not peer-reviewed. I doubt that many websites are.

 

I would never claim to be at your level of understanding, this takes years . I was merely pointing out how misunderstandings are perpetuated by the so called scientific community by publishing results or speculations which are later found to be incorrect, and then not with drawn from the internet. Cerns web site being an example.

 

I would agree what I have forgotten probably out weighs what I now know . I am re-learning a lot of what I once knew . I would also add in order to think we need to question. In order to know what questions to ask takes a little understanding Not everything written is correct, unless you believe science is religion.

 

Thanks for your patience.

[swansont]

 

I would never claim to be at your level of understanding, this takes years . I was merely pointing out how misunderstandings are perpetuated by the so called scientific community by publishing results or speculations which are later found to be incorrect, and then not with drawn from the internet. Cerns web site being an example.

 

I would agree what I have forgotten probably out weighs what I now know . I am re-learning a lot of what I once knew . I would also add in order to think we need to question. In order to know what questions to ask takes a little understanding Not everything written is correct, unless you believe science is religion.

 

 

 

Without an actual example to discuss, there is no way to evaluate your claim. As we have a rule against that behavior, you need to either stop making such claims, or back them up with concrete examples.

[Mordred]

Inertia is included in GR via the stress energy momentum term [latex]T_{\mu\nu}[/latex] of the Einstein field equation.

 

It is also included in the energy momentum equation.

 

[latex]E^2=(pc^2) +( m_oc^2)^2[/latex]

 

also the principle of equivalence tells us that inertial mass and gravitational mass are identical

 

[latex]m_i=m_g[/latex]

 

the last is part of the Einstein elevator lesson in basic SR.

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle

Edited June 2, 2017 by Mordred

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Enough!

 

This topic is meant to be about space flowing towards a mass. It is not about the irrational clinging to a false assertion that fermions are converted to bosons. Either get back to the topic or stop posting here.

 

1. Any further discursions will be seen as hijacking and sanctioned.

2. Assertions of fact must be capable of being backed up - if this is impossible, please be open to the possibility that you are wrong.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Re: previous modnote. The fermion turning into a boson tangent has been split

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/106774-can-a-fermion-become-a-boson-no/

 

[Handy andy]

The concept of time dilation being proved by muon lifetime is interesting. Using the dipole concept of an electron, which is a stable particle. The muon would be similar having the same spin but larger mass. Basically it would look like a donut shaped fog spinning.

 

If space was flowing in the direction the muon was moving, it would be in a more stable environment and last longer, like a stable whirl pool in flowing water.

 

Space flowing towards a mass is a strange idea because it would then have to disappear. Space expanding between galaxies causes them to move apart, why can space not contract and disappear around a mass like some fluid boiling away.