swansont Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 16 minutes ago, Unified Field said: 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 You said you had evidence. There is no experiment you did in a day that tested GR. what part of GR did you allegedly test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unified Field Posted December 28, 2017 Author Share Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) Quote 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. Ok, so I can't use the rubber sheet model, to calculate the actual properties of orbits for objects, which are moving around a central object - don't worry, I don't want to... I have already a model, which represent's the gravity in better way. But you are still not able, to understand it - that's why, I have to use your theories, to prove, that you are incorrect All I need, is to observe, how the size of an object affects the curvature of "space-time" - and according to all possible sources of official science I have full right to use the only possible way to visualize gravitational field in space. Tell me, why I shouldn't do it? Edited December 28, 2017 by Unified Field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Unified Field said: 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 As GR has been tested in many situations, to very high levels of accuracy, any effect such as you predict must be very small. In which case, it seems implausible that you will be able to measure it. Although, of course, we don't know the size of the effect you claim because you don't have a model, just guesswork. That is why models are important: they let you design an experiment to measure an effect of a particular size and check that the results are consistent after taking into account other factors (mass of the rubber sheet, how the coefficient of elasticity changes with the amount of stretch, etc.) As you have no model, you have no way of knowing if any effect is consistent with your guesswork or is caused by some other factor. To put it as simply as possible: how big an effect do you expect changing the density to have? Does doubling the density increase (or decrease?) the gravitational effect by 10%? 100%? 1,000%? You don't know, do you? 3 minutes ago, Unified Field said: All I need, is to observe, how the size of an object affects the curvature of "space-time" How do you intend to do that? Do you know what experiments have already been done to measure this? 4 minutes ago, Unified Field said: and according to all possible sources of official science I have full right to use the only possible way to visualize gravitational field in space. What makes you think it is the "only possible way"? Just because it is a common analogy, doesn't make it the only one. An obvious alternative is the "waterfall (or river) model". https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411060 This may be more your level: http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html And,of course, the best way of visualising it is to treat it as a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. But you knew that. Edited December 28, 2017 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 ! Moderator Note When you are ready to post your model and these alleged results, open a new thread and post them. I'm done asking for you to follow the rules and being rebuffed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts