Strange Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 6 hours ago, Unified Field said: And this is our current model of gravity... No it isn't. It is a very inaccurate drawing of a very bad analogy. That is not how gravity works. 6 hours ago, Unified Field said: If you know any better and more correct way, to represent gravitational field, I would love to hear about it... [math]R_{\mu \nu} - \tfrac{1}{2}R \, g_{\mu \nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G }{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}[/math] 2 hours ago, Unified Field said: Hmm, do you see any problems with this? I see... Rubber surface model won't work in 0-g environment... One of the many flaws in that analogy, which proves it isn't how gravity works. 2 hours ago, Unified Field said: 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 No. Because you are criticising a (bad) analogy and not the actual science. 2 hours ago, Unified Field said: What is an other way, to prove my claims Create a mathematical model (as science does) and test the predictions of that model. 2 hours ago, Unified Field said: 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? Lots of observations of orbiting bodies of different densities in space. Satellites and other space missions. Quote How can I use math, if I don't have any actual numbers? Where should I get them from? Guess them? Use magic? Observations of orbiting bodies of different densities in space. Satellites and other space missions. 1 hour ago, Unified Field said: Problem is, when "scientists" keep ignoring facts and use calculations, as proof... No one does that. Proof comes from evidence, not calculations.
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 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... -1
beecee Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Unified Field said: 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. Bluster and rhetoric does not cut it my friend. GR is continually tested every day by many professionals and continues to make successful predictions and match observational data. Quote 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 So far none of your links do anything to invalidate any data re the present cosmological model including GR and/or DM...I have a sneaking suspicion this will just be more of the same bluster. Edited December 28, 2017 by beecee
Strange Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 Just now, Unified Field said: You want me to redefine entire science by myself, We don't want you to do anything except back up your claims scientifically. To test your model, you need to compare it against data and see if it is more accurate than Newtonian gravity: [math]F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}[/math] (note that density doesn't appear there). So: produce your equation, calculate the results for various planets, satellites, comets, etc and see whether you or Newton are more accurate. That is how science works.
beecee Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 43 minutes ago, Unified Field said: 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)... Empty bluster and rhetoric continues. 21 minutes ago, Unified Field said: 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"... And delusions as well. 8 minutes ago, Unified Field said: 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... Well considering you just recently in a post claimed "proof of god" I see this and most all of your posts as bluster agenda laden rhetoric that will be lost in a short time in cyber space.
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) Quote No it isn't. It is a very inaccurate drawing of a very bad analogy. That is not how gravity works. 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. Quote R_{\mu \nu} - \tfrac{1}{2}R \, g_{\mu \nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu \nu} = \frac{8 \pi G }{c^4} T_{\mu \nu} <I don't know, how to qute the formula :/ > 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 Quote One of the many flaws in that analogy, which proves it isn't how gravity works. So, maybe it's actually a model, which shows, how gravity doesn't work? Quote Create a mathematical model (as science does) and test the predictions of that model. 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... Quote Lots of observations of orbiting bodies of different densities in space. Satellites and other space missions. 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... Quote No one does that. Proof comes from evidence, not calculations. So, what's the physical evidence, that Sun turned into a BH won't affect the orbits of planets? Edited December 28, 2017 by Unified Field
Strange Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Unified Field said: No? If it is so incorrect, then why it is being used, to visualize the concept of gravity? Because it is simple. 1 minute ago, Unified Field said: Model doesn't have to be perfect, but if it gives us completely inacurrate results, then it can't be used as a model. It isn't sed as a model. I don't even know how you could calculate any results from it. 1 minute ago, Unified Field said: Cool - and how would you use this, to physically measure the effect of size of object on gravity? You couldn't. Because size doesn't have any effect. 2 minutes ago, Unified Field said: For me it's just a fairytale without any base in physical and measurable reality It has been extensively tested in many different ways. It has always been found to match observation and experiment. (Even though it doesn't include size or density. Funny that.) 3 minutes ago, Unified Field said: But did we observe, what will happen, if you change the size of an orbiting body, while remaining it's mass? I don't think so... You can find objects of the same mass but different size and compare their orbits. 4 minutes ago, Unified Field said: So, what's the physical evidence, that Sun turned into a BH won't affect the orbits of planets? The fact that stars that have turned into black holes have exactly the same gravity as a star of that mass.
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 18 minutes ago, beecee said: Bluster and rhetoric does not cut it my friend. GR is continually tested every day by many professionals and continues to make successful predictions and match observational data. So far none of your links do anything to invalidate any data re the present cosmological model including GR and/or DM...I have a sneaking suspicion this will just be more of the same bluster. And what, if I will use this: to physically prove, that GR is wrong, when it comes to explaining gravity? 21 minutes ago, Strange said: We don't want you to do anything except back up your claims scientifically. To test your model, you need to compare it against data and see if it is more accurate than Newtonian gravity: F=Gm1m2r2 (note that density doesn't appear there). So: produce your equation, calculate the results for various planets, satellites, comets, etc and see whether you or Newton are more accurate. That is how science works. 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?
beecee Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 Just now, Unified Field said: And what, if I will use this: to physically prove, that GR is wrong, when it comes to explaining gravity? As explained you can't and you won't. And your continued bluster and rhetoric on a public forum on which you have not been banned from yet is where that rhetoric and bluster will languish until finally disappearing in cyber space. In realty I would guess though that if you are banned for your refusal to accept and align with the scientific method, you will use this as fodder and claim more victimisation on the next forum you chose to troll.
Strange Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Unified Field said: And what, if I will use this: to physically prove, that GR is wrong, when it comes to explaining gravity? That is not science. It is not how GR is used. So all you will do is prove yourself to be an idiot who knows nothing about how science works. But knock yourself out. You will confirm my hypothesis. Edited December 28, 2017 by Strange
beecee Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, Strange said: That is not science. It is not how GR is used. So all you will do is prove yourself to be an idiot who knows nothing about how science works. But knock yourself out. You will confirm my hypothesis. Adding even more support for your hypothesis is the fact that not one of his many links support his baseless rhetorical claims re GR and the cosmological model in general.
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) Quote Because it is simple. 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? Quote It isn't sed as a model. I don't even know how you could calculate any results from it. 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... Quote You couldn't. Because size doesn't have any effect. So how can you use it, to physically measure, that size doesn't have any effect on gravity? Quote It has been extensively tested in many different ways. It has always been found to match observation and experiment. (Even though it doesn't include size or density. Funny that.) How can it be tested, if we are not capable to change the size of a planet? Quote You can find objects of the same mass but different size and compare their orbits. 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 Quote The fact that stars that have turned into black holes have exactly the same gravity as a star of that mass. 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... 39 minutes ago, Strange said: You will proof yourself to be an idiot. That is not science. It is not how GR is used. 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... Quote As explained you can't and you won't. And your continued bluster and rhetoric on a public forum on which you have not been banned from yet is where that rhetoric and bluster will languish until finally disappearing in cyber space. In realty I would guess though that if you are banned for your refusal to accept and align with the scientific method, you will use this as fodder and claim more victimisation on the next forum you chose to troll. 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 Edited December 28, 2017 by Unified Field
beecee Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 3 hours ago, Unified Field said: 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... Let's get down to the nitty gritty. It's painfully obvious you are driven by an agenda, Let me mak a few points...Analogies are useful but near all have limitations....the stretched rubber sheet, the raisin loaf etc. It's also obvious to blind Freddy that the current model of gravity is correct,. If they weren't I don't believe we would have put men on the Moon, and sent probes to all planets in the solar system including the two Voyagers to two and four planets respectfully, and from my knowledge, all these space endeavours Newtonian mechanics was accurate enough and GR simply was not needed, although it would have given the same results. You see your rather silly childish claims that maths is not needed is just that and a pure cop out, the maths and observations go hand in hand and are both needed. That along with the fact that not one of your links support your speudo claims in any way, and in effect your rather tiresome unsupported religious driven agenda and rhetoric needs to be recognised for what it is.
Strange Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 12 minutes ago, Unified Field said: 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? You can use a thrown rock as a simple model of ballistic rocket flight. In fact, I was going to suggest you could drop rocks of different density from the top of a tall tower (a leaning one, preferably) to see whether your idea is correct or not. But this would be complicated by air resistances. 13 minutes ago, Unified Field said: So how can you use it, to physically measure, that size doesn't have any effect on gravity? That is why you need your own model. Or, alternatively, make measurements with different sized objects and how they are not as predicted by current models. 14 minutes ago, Unified Field said: That was irony, if you didn't notice... Really. What is ironic about making factually correct statements? (Apart from the fact you don't do it very often.) 15 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Using the only way, to base a model on observation and measurement is not science? You are not using a scientific model. You are not using either of the accepted models of gravity. You are using a child's toy that doesn't reproduce the way gravity works. 17 minutes ago, Unified Field said: By "accepting and aligning with the scientific method" you mean: "Believe in math an don't even try to discuss"? As you refuse to discuss the mathematical models that describe gravity, I assume this was irony?
beecee Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 17 minutes ago, Unified Field said: 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 Discussing the scientific method and how the universe works with someone with a "god agenda" has been shown to be fruitless
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 Just now, beecee said: Let's get down to the nitty gritty. It's painfully obvious you are driven by an agenda, Let me mak a few points...Analogies are useful but near all have limitations....the stretched rubber sheet, the raisin loaf etc. It's also obvious to blind Freddy that the current model of gravity is correct,. If they weren't I don't believe we would have put men on the Moon, and sent probes to all planets in the solar system including the two Voyagers to two and four planets respectfully, and from my knowledge, all these space endeavours Newtonian mechanics was accurate enough and GR simply was not needed, although it would have given the same results. You see your rather silly childish claims that maths is not needed is just that and a pure cop out, the maths and observations go hand in hand and are both needed. That along with the fact that not one of your links support your speudo claims in any way, and in effect your rather tiresome unsupported religious driven agenda and rhetoric needs to be recognised for what it is. 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...
Strange Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, Unified Field said: 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... But it has everything to do with having an accurate and useful model. (Which has nothing to do with rubber sheets.) The model is tested, and confirmed, every time we make an observation or launch a satellite. Your claims contradict those models and would therefore appear to be worng. You do not have any sort of model to confirm your claims. So there is no reason to take them seriously. Quote 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" No one is saying that. It is the evidence that confirms current theories. You have zero evidence for your claims. So people are naturally going to accept the model that works and reject the baseless claims that appear to be wrong. Sounds logical to me.
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 Quote You can use a thrown rock as a simple model of ballistic rocket flight. In fact, I was going to suggest you could drop rocks of different density from the top of a tall tower (a leaning one, preferably) to see whether your idea is correct or not. But this would be complicated by air resistances. 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... Quote That is why you need your own model. Or, alternatively, make measurements with different sized objects and how they are not as predicted by current models. Absolutely - after I will create the equation, I will check, if it matches observations in every case. Quote You are not using a scientific model. You are not using either of the accepted models of gravity. You are using a child's toy that doesn't reproduce the way gravity works. 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... Quote As you refuse to discuss the mathematical models that describe gravity, I assume this was irony? 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...
swansont Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 8 hours ago, Unified Field said: 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... The Einstein field equations . And you test them by testing the gravitational field, not a rubber sheet.
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 Quote No one is saying that. It is the evidence that confirms current theories. You have zero evidence for your claims. So people are naturally going to accept the model that works and reject the baseless claims that appear to be wrong. Sounds logical to me. 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
Strange Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Unified Field said: 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... Why not? You claim that the gravitational effect depends on mass. What is the difference between doing this from a tower and an orbit? But as you don't seem to understand how orbits work, that might explain your confusion. 7 minutes ago, Unified Field said: 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... You seem to have ignored the words "first order" and "approximate" in those summaries. Is that close enough to test your model? Oh, that's right, you don't know because you don't have a model. And you are ignoring the fact that they compared the rubber sheet to a mathematical model; i.e. the actual theory of gravity. Quote I refuse to discuss things, which exist only on paper You are refusing to discuss the evidence supporting this models. Therefore the theory does not exist "just on paper". Edited December 28, 2017 by Strange
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) Quote The Einstein field equations . And you test them by testing the gravitational field, not a rubber sheet. Ok, but why I can't use it, to formulate an equation? If the model represents correctly all the correlations between variable values, I should be able to create a formula, which then can be tested in gravitational fields... Quote Why not? You claim that the gravitational effect depends on mass. What is the difference between doing this from a tower and an orbit? But as you don't seem to understand how orbits work, that might explain your confusion. Because I need to include the distance, at which objects with different densities start to interact with eachother... Quote You seem to have ignored the words "first order" and "approximate" in those summaries. Is that close enough to test your model? Oh, that's right, you don't know because you don't have a model. I think, that this: "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" is enough, to know, that I can use the model and no one won't tell, that it shows completely incorrect results... However, I can see already, that some "scientists" will try... Quote You are refusing to discuss the evidence supporting this models. Therefore the theory does not exist "just on paper". Your "evidence" exists only in the form of an equation - I don't consider it, as emprical proof of anything.... Edited December 28, 2017 by Unified Field
swansont Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 13 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Ok, but why I can't use it, to formulate an equation? If the model represents correctly all the correlations between variable values, I should be able to create a formula, which then can be tested in gravitational fields... You can use it. But it will be an equation describing a rubber sheet bent by gravity and the behavior of a metal ball. It won't correctly reoresent all the correlations of an object in a gravitational field. 13 minutes ago, Unified Field said: Your "evidence" exists only in the form of an equation - I don't consider it, as emprical proof of anything.... Oh, please. There are a bunch of experiments which have tested GR. I'm a co-author on one. 20 minutes ago, Unified Field said: "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" is enough, to know, that I can use the model and no one won't tell, that it shows completely incorrect results... However, I can see already, that some "scientists" will try... So why don't you just give us the result that you think is inconsistent? Stop being coy about it.
Strange Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 17 minutes ago, Unified Field said: http://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1889&context=td This is about the effectiveness of the model as a teaching aid, not how accurately it represents gravity. Quote " 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)" No detail given, so we can't tell how accurate they found the analogy to be. The first paper is here: http://aapt.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1119/1.1412645 but I don't have access. The second one is here: http://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1119/1.4747481 and seems to be largely irrelevant or at best contradicts your claim ("we disprove the common claim that the orbits of the rolling marble or coin are the same as the Kepler orbits for planets revolving around the sun"). However, I did find this: "The main findings of the work are two-fold. First, when analyzing circular orbits of a marble on an elastic fabric in the small curvature regime, the contribution of the mass of the elastic fabric interior to the orbiting marble is relevant to the analysis and can dominate over the contribution of the central mass. Second, we found that the modulus of elasticity for a spandex fabric is not constant and is itself a function of the stretch." https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.3893.pdf So it won't be a very accurate model. I hope you will be taking those factors into account when you do your experiment and create your model. And this: "the orbital characteristics of a marble on a warped spandex fabric fundamentally differ from those of particle orbits about a spherically-symmetric massive object as described by general relativity" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.03996.pdf So maybe you should have carried on looking. Quote 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." As that article shows, the only reason the rubber sheet model gives approximately correct answers (using an idealised sheet, not a real one) is because it is being distorted by gravity. Not too surprising.
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 Quote You can use it. But it will be an equation describing a rubber sheet bent by gravity and the behavior of a metal ball. It won't correctly reoresent all the correlations of an object in a gravitational field. Maybe - but it doesn't mean, that I can't check, if the same equation won't work for real g.fields. There are many equations, which can be used in different scenarios Quote Oh, please. There are a bunch of experiments which have tested GR. I'm a co-author on one. GR has many aspects - by proving one of them, you don't prove all others... Quote So why don't you just give us the result that you think is inconsistent? Stop being coy about it. Because to get such result, I need to make a proper measurement, because as for today science didn't try to prove this part of GR
Recommended Posts