An Idea

[Incendia]

I think this is the correct place to post this...

I had an idea...

Although it could be someone elses and I didn't know or forgot...

Perhaps gravity [and perhaps other forces] act on space-time. This would cause the space-time to 'crumple' around high gravity objects which would mean time gets progressively slower the closer you are to those high gravity objects. [so space-time has 'higher density' near things with gravity.] The slower time is because more time has to pass.

Now there are two more 'side ideas':

 

1. Gravity [and other forces] may be free from the effects of time. This would mean as an object passing a high(er) gravity object would move slower because of the slower time but gravity still pulls at the same speed causing object 1 to move closer, causing a curved path. I have no equations and can't make any and don't have exact values etc. but if it is wrong it will show up in the numbers...

 

2. Light refracts when it hits a different higher density medium to the one it was travelling through. Space-time could act like a medium for matter [and energy?] causing it to change direct. As space-time doesn't get suddenly 'denser' and only progressively increases in 'density' object 1 would progressively change direction as it passed object 2.

 

...I am not a scientist or anything and Physics isn't really my favourite...

 

[Also]

Orbits are still possible with this. Some glass spheres can trap light inside itself causing it to constantly reflect off the insides of the glass in a circular paths around the sphere...Though there is the problem that planets orbits are oval shaped and not circular.

 

...I would prefer people posting here to attempt to strengthen this idea into a good theory rather than decimating it....

Edited November 12, 2010 by ProcuratorIncendia

[Incendia]

I knew this idea was nonsense...[sorry for posting twice if that isn't allowed here...]

[Mr Skeptic]

Your idea sounds rather like General Relativity. I can't say much other than that, because I don't know GR past the general ideas.

[Incendia]

It does but it isn't...it just reaches a few of the same conclusions. [space-time is curved/warped around things with gravity, time slows down near high gravity...there might be more...i'm just not sure...hey that rhymed...] I was hoping it could be developed into a theory somehow...

 

Off-topic: What do you think of the ideas in my signature? [1-3] I'm not sure if they're genius or nonsense...

[Mr Skeptic]

And how is that different than Einstein's curved spacetimes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

[Incendia]

From what I have read, I understand that general relativity is a generalisation of Newton's law of universal gravitation and special relativity and a geometrical theory of space-time...in other words I don't think it says why space-time curves around things with gravity...this does... I'm pretty sure this idea could be merged with GRT with a bit of thought from someone who understands GRT...

 

Note(s):

-Would the fact there is more time mean things appear to more slowly anyway as there is more space to travel through in the space distance? Or am I thinking nonsense? If it isn't nonsense then this could help idea Version A. This more space it would have to travel through could be why gravity has more of a chance to pull on object 1. It could also have implications for version B.

-How does GRT say space-time curves...surely it would have to be a strange type of curve to allow planets to orbit in the northern hemisphere of the star?

-If photons can change direction travelling through denser mediums perhaps particles with gravity changing direct when the travel through 'denser' space-time isn't so absurd.

-I need to make some diagrams...would help me think...could also help convince people to help...I'll use google sketch-up because 2d diagrams wouldn't work as well...

-In my notebook I said something about matter/things with mass sort of 'displace' space-time causing space time curvature. I know what I mean but I can't find the words to explain it...it isn't the mass or matter 'displacing' space-time though...

Edited October 29, 2010 by ProcuratorIncendia

[Janus]

 

 

...I would prefer people posting here to attempt to strengthen this idea into a good theory rather than decimating it....

 

But that is how you strengthen an idea into a good theory:

 

1. Others punch holes in your idea.

2. You modify the idea to fix the holes.

3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 until either you can no longer patch the holes and you are forced to abandon your idea, or until no one can find any weaknesses in it anymore and you have a bona fide theory. (At least for the time being. There is no guarantee that future discoveries couldn't still blow your theory out of the water.)

[lemur]

-How does GRT say space-time curves...surely it would have to be a strange type of curve to allow planets to orbit in the northern hemisphere of the star?

-If photons can change direction travelling through denser mediums perhaps particles with gravity changing direct when the travel through 'denser' space-time isn't so absurd.

 

Are you saying that gravity could curve spacetime in such a way that gravity could bend the path of gravity itself instead of just light? If so, that's something I've never heard anyone suggest and it sounds sort of interesting. After all, I think generally gravity is thought of as occurring in concentric 'layers' around masses to produce gravity-wells. I tend to look at gravity-wells as intersecting where gravity-wells intersect, such as the Earth's gravity-well being located within the gravity-well of the sun, and the moon's gravity-well being located in that of the Earth (and the sun too). I have asked whether gravitational fields interact in some way and people have told me they do not; that an object going from Earth-orbit to lunar-orbit simply shifts direction with a small amount of propulsion at the lagrangian point and goes from orbiting one to orbiting the other.

 

But if gravity in fact 'radiates' from objects, for instance the gravity from the sun is supposed to travel at the speed of light to reach Earth, the same as sunlight does, then why shouldn't it follow the curvature of spacetime just as light supposedly does? In other words, why can't gravity bend gravity 'rays,' the same as light? If it did, I don't know how this could possibly be observed or tested, because it would mean that spacetime is curved within its curvature, so to speak.

 

The only way I can think to formulate a concrete question about this would be the following, maybe (could be nonsense but I'll try): Let's look at the gravity-well of the sun as having an upward "slope" going from the sun to the heliopause. Now, consider the Jupiter's gravity-well as indented into this slope. Would Jupiter's gravity-well then be perpendicular to the slope of the sun's gravity-well or would the two gravity-wells be parallel, so to speak?

 

Now I'm trying to think of how this distinction could be relevant but I can't really. The closest I can get is that the high-end of a slanted gravity-well could have a higher escape velocity than the low-end. Maybe this might also mean that an elliptical orbit could appear circular because it is the result of gravity-well slant instead of satellite-trajectory. This is all very speculative, though, and I'm not even sure you meant to imply what I inferred from your post.

[Mr Skeptic]

-Would the fact there is more time mean things appear to more slowly anyway as there is more space to travel through in the space distance? Or am I thinking nonsense? If it isn't nonsense then this could help idea Version A. This more space it would have to travel through could be why gravity has more of a chance to pull on object 1. It could also have implications for version B.

 

It depends on what you mean. Would a clock run slower? If so, what can you compare your clock with to say it is running slower?

 

-If photons can change direction travelling through denser mediums perhaps particles with gravity changing direct when the travel through 'denser' space-time isn't so absurd.

 

I don't think it's absurd. I more or less have been thinking of it like that myself, since I don't understand curved spacetime but I do understand denser media. But then I'm not sure if that analogy works when talking about stuff other than light; do particles refract in denser media too?

 

-In my notebook I said something about matter/things with mass sort of 'displace' space-time causing space time curvature. I know what I mean but I can't find the words to explain it...it isn't the mass or matter 'displacing' space-time though...

 

Odds are there are many many things that you might mean, and you don't know which. If you can put an equation to it you will know exactly what you mean. Alternately, if you describe it in enough detail that only one equation would fit your description, that works too.

[Incendia]

@Janus: Not necessarily...

 

 

@lumur: Glad you find it interesting...

 

@Mr Skeptic: Any moving parts of the clock would run slower as they would have to move through more space...The non-moving things and the moving things would both slow down because of the increased amount of time. I only came up with that note because I was trying to figure out what having more space inside the same distance would mean. I'm still not entirely sure.

 

I'm not sure about other particles. By that point I didn't mean it was an actual medium. It just had similar effects. I used the word medium to describe it because no other word fits. It does not refract because as far as I know matter cannot refract.

 

I can write equations. Neither can I understand most of them. I'm thinking of a way to explain that last note in words other people can understand without getting the wrong idea. Wait for the sketch-up models...they may explain a few things...I've got an idea of how it would work...

 

EDIT: I haven't finished the models yet., [Harder than I though actually] but I did think of a way to [attempt] explain how the space-time curves. Instead of thinking of the space-time distortions as an indentation of an elastic sheet, [How GRT is often explained.] think of space-time as an fluid.

Now take a cubed section of it out and draw those imaginary wire mesh lines on it so you have a cube of space-time made of of lots of imaginary mini cubes. [Hopefully you understand that...]

Now imagine that a planet is in the middle of that cube but imagine that the gravity of the planet effects the fluid.

As space-time is not made up of particles this means that it fills in all the tiny spaces inside the planet and the spaces inside atoms etc.

This and gravity stop the fluid from being completely displaced by the planet. The planet displaces the fluid but gravity keeps it in place. The displacement causes space-time ripples. As the imaginary lines are fix to their little bit of space-time they are curved as we know ripples are [usually] circular. It would be easy to show you in a diagram even a 2d one. By the way the gravity holds these ripples in place and the ripples get weaker further from the source so space-time curves less there and far enough away the imaginary lines are still straight. Hope this helped you understand.

PS. The ripples are imaginary...Space-time is not a fluid... the ripples are spherical. If you can imagine that...I can...If you can't just take one slice of the space time cube for now. The diagrams might help me explain all this better...

 

Note(s):

- Since space-time fills the gaps between atoms and particles wouldn't that mean that objects could trap space time within themselves and carry it around because the gravity of the object would hold the space-time within not allowing any to escape...I have forgotten what I was thinking whilst I was writing this note...Though perhaps it means that time moves slower inside objects?

Edited October 30, 2010 by ProcuratorIncendia

[Incendia]

Sorry to post twice [again] but I don't have time to wait for you to post [or to make 3rd models of space-time curvature], so here is a 2d diagram:

 

The yellow line is light moving in a straight line relative to space time.

The circle in the middle is a planet. the lines inside the circle are to show there is space-time filling up the spaces between all the particles that make up that planet. The green circle is the edge of planet's gravitation reach.

The cyan line shows how things might orbit. [Of coarse in real life it is less jagged] And the red and purple lines show how objects curve passing the planet.

The thin planet lines on the white square are the imaginary lines running along space-time.

As you can see the curvature of the lines is lesser closer to the green circle.

...Maybe this explains it better...maybe it doesn't...I at least hope it doesn't give you the wrong ideas about my idea...

[lemur]

The green circle is the edge of planet's gravitation reach.

 

How do you determine the "edge of a planet's gravitation reach?"

[Incendia]

Where an object is unaffected by the planets gravity/where space-time is not distorted by the planet...

 

The red and purple lines are smaller objects passing the planet...

Edited October 31, 2010 by ProcuratorIncendia

[lemur]

Where an object is unaffected by the planets gravity/where space-time is not distorted by the planet...

Gravitation decreases according to the inverse square law, which means it approaches zero but never actually reaches it. Personally, I see gravity and "spacetime fabric" as the same thing. As the universe expands, distance between particles/energy increases and as matter coalesces, relative vacuums form between the emerging/deepening gravity wells. Gravitation is the force that keeps the big bang from dissipating matter-energy completely without resistance, along with inertia. Thus, in my view, spacetime should be viewed in terms of the gravitational relations between objects, no matter how distant. Two galaxies may be loads of light-years apart but the spacetime growing between them is still defined by their being connected by gravity. I don't think that totally empty space(time) devoid of gravitation is possible, but maybe someone else would say otherwise, idk.

[md65536]

2. Light refracts when it hits a different higher density medium to the one it was travelling through. Space-time could act like a medium for matter [and energy?] causing it to change direct. As space-time doesn't get suddenly 'denser' and only progressively increases in 'density' object 1 would progressively change direction as it passed object 2.

I like this idea and it's intriguing. I think it needs much more development though; how is space-time like a medium? How are the two alike, to make refraction and gravitational lensing the same mechanism? Figuring out the math should show what's right or wrong about the idea, and open up a ton of new directions to explore. I'm not intrigued enough to try to do this myself.

 

I'm pessimistic about the chances of non-scientists like us explaining their underdeveloped ideas and having scientists "get it" with the same intuition that you have that tells you it's an idea worth exploring. If you can, and if you care, keep working on your ideas and developing them as best you can. And keep writing about them! Even if you no one develops your ideas directly, perhaps someday someone will be working on related ideas and gain insights from yours. But... there are so many crackpots out there, that undeveloped ideas tend to be lost in a sea of crackpot theories, and no one has the time to read them all, think about them all, and separate the good ones from the bad.

 

Also... it's usually easier to explain why a new idea is wrong (even if it's a good idea) than it is to explain why a new idea is right, so don't worry if people focus on that. A good idea can be modified until it's right.

[Incendia]

Thanks...Nice to know someone likes my idea...

 

...I think I like idea version 1 better...I'm not sure...

 

...number 2 was just a random thought I got...

 

It's not refraction but it is similar...refraction is to do with light. Gravitational lensing is to do with mass curving space-time which causes the light to be bent right? This idea gives the same explanation. And don't take me literally when I say space-time is a medium.

 

Think of the idea as a different way of thinking about how space-time curves. The idea was my attempt to explain why mass curves space-time as I do not know anyone who has attempted to answer that question. [scientists find it easy to find out how and find it more difficult to find out why.]

Essentially I'm just saying the space-time may be effected by gravity. This would pull space-time toward things with gravity causing space-time to bend around them. The other stuff is just me trying to find out how to add the motion of planets into it.

 

I can not do the math as I do not know how.

[md65536]

1. Gravity [and other forces] may be free from the effects of time. This would mean as an object passing a high(er) gravity object would move slower because of the slower time but gravity still pulls at the same speed causing object 1 to move closer, causing a curved path. I have no equations and can't make any and don't have exact values etc. but if it is wrong it will show up in the numbers...

Well, to be honest I skipped over idea 1 because I don't understand it. After reading it quite a few times, I think what you're saying is...

 

Ignoring time, the gravitational force of a mass is the same everywhere.

For example, the sun's pull on Mercury is the same as the sun's pull on Earth, except that since Mercury is experiencing slower time, and since gravity is not affected by time, it accelerates toward the sun faster. Using gravitons just for the sake of analogy, one might say that Earth and Mercury are receiving gravitons at a time-independent "universal rate", which in Mercury's slower time it appears as if more gravitons are received per unit of time.

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

As for the math... the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between 2 masses, so to simplify things imagine something at say Earth's orbital distance from the sun. Another object twice that distance will experience 1/4 of the gravitational force. However, they will experience very little difference in gravitational time dilation. I can't think of any way to explain the difference in force as an effect of time dilation.

 

(Actually I think using Gm/r² is a Newtonian approximation that ignores relativistic effects, but if you can predict the orbits of planets while ignoring relativistic effects then I think it's unlikely that relativistic effects like time dilation can fully account for the orbits on their own.)

 

 

As for saying that gravity may be free from the effects of time...

General relativity predicts gravity waves that travel at c.

I assume these waves would obey the same relativistic laws as light, and so "the speed of gravity" would not be affected by a mass's relative velocity.

So in some sense gravity is time independent........... unfortunately the meaning and possible significance of this is whooshing over my head.

 

 

Anyway just cuz I don't get it doesn't mean it's wrong. Also... it sounds wrong!, but even it if is that doesn't mean it can't be corrected and remain an important and good idea. For example instead of explaining the motion of the planets, it might explain the just the difference between Newtonian and General relativity's predictions of orbital motion... I dunno!

[Incendia]

Well, to be honest I skipped over idea 1 because I don't understand it. After reading it quite a few times, I think what you're saying is...

 

Ignoring time, the gravitational force of a mass is the same everywhere.

For example, the sun's pull on Mercury is the same as the sun's pull on Earth, except that since Mercury is experiencing slower time, and since gravity is not affected by time, it accelerates toward the sun faster. Using gravitons just for the sake of analogy, one might say that Earth and Mercury are receiving gravitons at a time-independent "universal rate", which in Mercury's slower time it appears as if more gravitons are received per unit of time.

 

Is that what you're saying?

 

I think that is...[What I was saying is that gravity is universal regardless of time which means gravity is unaffected by slower time. The same may be true for other forces...]

I like to think that gravitons are hidden inside quarks. [Quarks have mass and therefore gravity.]

 

 

As for the math... the force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between 2 masses, so to simplify things imagine something at say Earth's orbital distance from the sun. Another object twice that distance will experience 1/4 of the gravitational force. However, they will experience very little difference in gravitational time dilation. I can't think of any way to explain the difference in force as an effect of time dilation.

 

(Actually I think using Gm/r² is a Newtonian approximation that ignores relativistic effects, but if you can predict the orbits of planets while ignoring relativistic effects then I think it's unlikely that relativistic effects like time dilation can fully account for the orbits on their own.)

 

 

As for saying that gravity may be free from the effects of time...

General relativity predicts gravity waves that travel at c.

I assume these waves would obey the same relativistic laws as light, and so "the speed of gravity" would not be affected by a mass's relative velocity.

So in some sense gravity is time independent........... unfortunately the meaning and possible significance of this is whooshing over my head.

 

 

Anyway just cuz I don't get it doesn't mean it's wrong. Also... it sounds wrong!, but even it if is that doesn't mean it can't be corrected and remain an important and good idea. For example instead of explaining the motion of the planets, it might explain the just the difference between Newtonian and General relativity's predictions of orbital motion... I dunno!

 

And I don't know either. I didn't know GRT predicts that it travels a c. but I don't see how that is relevant.

1. and 2. were just attempts to apply the original idea to planets and their motion. If it's wrong then let someone else try to explain why mass = curved space-time = gravity.

Why does it sound wrong?

[My argument against that: General Relativity Theory sounded wrong when people first heard it.]

 

Note(s):

Perhaps there is no time...Made time is the effect of increased space. [Things have more space to travel through giving the illusion of events passing more slowly and the illusion of time.] ...I'm still not sure if I support this note yet...

 

...You can bust holes in my idea if you want but please don't make them big holes...If my idea is a person. Use the piercing arrows before you start throwing sticky grenades. Preferable you could make it stronger first by suggesting ways that make it sound more right and less wrong...

Edited November 16, 2010 by ProcuratorIncendia

[md65536]

And I don't know either. I didn't know GRT predicts that it travels a c. but I don't see how that is relevant.

The relevance is that gravity in some way is similar to light.

Special relativity is based on the invariance of c, meaning that from any reference frame, light travels at c. Neither moving relative to a light source, nor experiencing time dilation and/or length contraction, will change the observed speed of light.

So I assume nothing will change the predicted observed speed of gravity waves.

That's not the same as saying it's "unaffected by time", but I think it'd be possible to make some kind of argument like that, if you were careful with your wording and especially clear about what frames of reference you're speaking of. Frames always trip me up.

 

1. and 2. were just attempts to apply the original idea to planets and their motion. If it's wrong then let someone else try to explain why mass = curved space-time = gravity.

Why does it sound wrong?

[My argument against that: General Relativity Theory sounded wrong when people first heard it.]

Well, it sounds wrong in exactly the opposite way. GR sounded preposterous but the math said it was right. Your idea sounds reasonable (at least once GR is accepted), but I can't think of any math to support it.

 

 

Note(s):

Perhaps there is no time...Made time is the effect of increased space. [Things have more space to travel through giving the illusion of events passing more slowly and the illusion of time.] ...I'm still not sure if I support this note yet...

 

...You can bust holes in my idea if you want but please don't make them big holes...If my idea is a person. Use the piercing arrows before you start throwing sticky grenades. Preferable you could make it stronger first by suggesting ways that make it sound more right and less wrong...

Well, within that analogy I'd say I can't see the person clearly enough to get a good shot with any weapon.

How to strengthen it: More math. Expressing the ideas more precisely relative to existing accepted ideas.

 

I also can't think of how to strengthen the ideas, but I could quickly go over my own theories or understanding of how it all works... (Disclaimer: I am currently technically a crackpot!)

- Time is literally equivalent to distance and both are observational effects. I would say "there is no objective time or distance" rather than just "there is no time". I think the universe can be described consistently without time and distance (instead, with chronology and order, respectively). It might be described "non-observationally" as a singularity with topology but not geometry, while geometry is a product of observations of the universe.

 

- The force of gravity falls off inversely proportional to r², while the surface area of a sphere increases proportionally to r². To me this means that the total force of gravity exerted by a mass can be "spread evenly" in a sphere around the mass and the total sum of that force will be the same at any distance r (it will just be spread thinner the farther out you go).

 

Also note that the visible area of an object (the moon for example) is also inversely proportional to r². This means that if the sun and the moon (which look roughly the same size) were discs of the same depth and density, they would have the same gravitational pull on us. As it is, the sun is much less dense but much much much "deeper", and so has a much stronger gravitational attraction. -- I don't think this has anything to do with how it works, I just think it's interesting.

 

- Because geometry is an effect of observation, we can conceptualize warping space to make it look different from a different (possibly non-observational) point of view. For example you could imagine warping space so that all the possible spheres concentric with a gravitational mass actually have the same surface area. From that point of view, the force of gravity would be the same at any distance from the mass, but all matter and objects would get smaller the farther they are from the gravitational mass. This, by the way, is an example of a vague and underdeveloped idea!

 

Imagine a mass such as a spherical black hole, and draw lines like rays from its center. From our point of view, we see the rays diverging as they extend farther away from the mass. You might imagine turning the black hole "inside out" such that the lines diverge the closer you get (and converge to a point approaching an infinite distance from the black hole, where its gravitational attraction approaches 0). This might be what a black hole "looks like" to light.

 

 

On the off chance that any of that made sense, it still doesn't answer your question: Why would mass make space appear differently curved in different frames of reference? I don't know. I think though that length contraction is a necessary means of maintaining consistency of observations.

 

- Finally, if we imagine all matter as oscillating energy (traveling at c), then we might say that nothing is ever really "at rest". If you imagine a particle as energy constantly moving back and forth, but while it's doing this each trip back and forth is curved slightly exactly as the path of light is curved due to gravity, it takes on a trajectory that accelerates toward the gravitational mass. Then, the "time" aspect of the particle's acceleration can be expressed in terms of the number of times it oscillates back and forth, or alternatively as the total distance it travels in all its oscillations.

 

 

This is all speculation. I think it would take 10 years (possibly 100) to develop these ideas satisfactorily. I'm still working on the first one, and it's a lot of work and maybe 90% of my ideas so far turned out to be wrong (but the math really does shine a light on it all). Wikipedia says of Einstein: "In 1907, beginning with a simple thought experiment involving an observer in free fall, he embarked on what would be an eight-year search for a relativistic theory of gravity." So it might take some time, for any ideas by any of us!

 

Sorry I can't be more directly helpful with your ideas.

[Incendia]

Well you could help me think of what the effects of gravity pulling on space-time would be.

Unrelated to topic: Hey...I'm a Meson now...Wait...Does that mean I annihilate myself? AAAAAaaaaa......!

Edited November 19, 2010 by ProcuratorIncendia

[md65536]

Well you could help me think of what the effects of gravity pulling on space-time would be.

I don't see it that way. Rather, I think that mass defines the curvature of space-time, and that oscillating energy behaves in curved space-time exactly as a stationary object (or oscillating energy that otherwise has no motion relative to some frame of reference) behaves in "flat" space-time.

 

I believe that because gravity is classically understood as a "pulling" force, we try to describe it that way (pulling on space-time, or pulling on light, or whatever). But I think it can be explained without speaking of "pulling" at all. In your original post you speak of "gravity acting on spacetime". I think this may be a confusing notion. I would say that mass acts on or affects (or even effects) spacetime; gravity is the observed result.

 

The real question for me (which I can't answer) is this: How or why does mass define the curvature of space-time? To try to answer your question, it seems to me that mass seems to expand or "puff up" space-time around mass energy, in a way that can't be seen. For example, in your image the squares of the grid have more area around the gravitational mass, but since there's no visible grid in space, we don't actually observe that.

 

You may have to restate your ideas in a new way in a new thread... I fear I may have derailed your thread by mixing in my own ideas. My hope was to suggest ways forward where our ideas overlap. I have no further ideas for you at the moment. Is there anyone else who can help?

 

Where our ideas conflict I'll have to stick to believing what I currently do, unless someone compels me to think about it differently. Your idea about light refraction doesn't conflict with any of my understanding, and is worth consideration. For me the question is: "Does 'matter' define a curvature of space-time that on one scale (atom-scale) explains refraction (and possibly other things like electromagnetic force or strong force) and on another scale (planet-scale) explains gravity?" My previous understanding of refraction is that it involves light being absorbed and re-emitted by matter, but now I wonder if it can be completely explained by space-time curvature on a very small scale.

 

Good luck with discovering and refining more ideas!

[Incendia]

...But thats the normal way of thinking...It does make sense...how can simply having mass effect space-time...DOES NOT COMPUTE...

My problem is why does mass curve space-time. Then I thought about gravitons. Then I thought: Perhaps they are inside quarks or something as they have gravity. If gravitons generate gravity how can space-time curvature be the cause of gravity?...So I thought of this as I couldn't think of any other why that could be.*

 

 

There are plenty who could help...it's just that nobody except you and Mr Skeptic has ever actually posted here.

From the way I see it: Quarks have gravity therefore they must curve space-time. This means atoms curve space-time.

 

And didn't say anything about matter refracting through space-time. Its is simply an effect similar to refraction. And that is the idea I dis-like most.

 

Thank-you.

 

*You said yourself..."I am currently technically a crackpot!"...Instead of trying to help me with my idea, as none of us know how possibly to try to improve it, how about you try to find your own idea of why space-time is curved by mass. I would be interested in hearing your idea and it may perhaps help me.

[md65536]

...But thats the normal way of thinking...It does make sense...how can simply having mass effect space-time...DOES NOT COMPUTE...

My problem is why does mass curve space-time. Then I thought about gravitons. Then I thought: Perhaps they are inside quarks or something as they have gravity. If gravitons generate gravity how can space-time curvature be the cause of gravity?...So I thought of this as I couldn't think of any other why that could be.*

 

There are plenty who could help...it's just that nobody except you and Mr Skeptic has ever actually posted here.

From the way I see it: Quarks have gravity therefore they must curve space-time. This means atoms curve space-time.

Personally I think that trying to reason past "quarks have gravity" is like trying to figure out what is beyond the edge of a flat earth. You can imagine anything you like as an answer, but if you skip way past the edge of your knowledge or understanding, then there's nothing real and known to compare against, to use to evaluate new ideas.

Personally I don't think that gravity is a "thing" that can be "had".

 

It is similar to inertia. You wouldn't say that things stay at rest because of particles called "nonmovitons" that are like little monsters that pin stuff down to the rubber sheet of space. Similarly I don't think you need gravitons to understand gravity. Gravitons might be real... perhaps any aspect of reality that can be measured over a volume can be described in terms of particles (perhaps not).

 

So this leads to a suggestion for another way to develop your ideas. Break them down into smaller ideas, and work backward instead of forward, trying to understand the ideas that you are building on. Wikipedia is fairly good for that. If it talks about something you don't understand, it will likely link to it, and you can keep working backwards until you have enough of the fundamentals figured out. You can skip over as much as you want (math or stuff that's too hard to understand) but the less you skip the more you'll understand it.

 

I also think that it's good to simultaneously accept that everything that has been discovered so far might be right, AND that everything that doesn't fully make sense might be wrong. That way you can work with new ideas using existing ideas that many others have put a lot of work into, but you can also keep your mind open to completely new ideas. It lets you not get stuck thinking that any one idea (existing or new) is the only solution.

 

And didn't say anything about matter refracting through space-time. Its is simply an effect similar to refraction. And that is the idea I dis-like most.

 

Thank-you.

 

*You said yourself..."I am currently technically a crackpot!"...Instead of trying to help me with my idea, as none of us know how possibly to try to improve it, how about you try to find your own idea of why space-time is curved by mass. I would be interested in hearing your idea and it may perhaps help me.

Well let's see...

• I don't think that space-time is a thing or stuff, either. The grids you and others draw in spacetime diagrams are just measurements.
• Space might be described as a measurement of length. Spacetime curvature refers to things like length contraction and time dilation. Space then can be said to be a measurement of the size of matter and of the emptiness between parts of matter. That is... the curvature of space affects the observed size of objects within that space uniformly (scaling matter and the space between matter equally).
• Matter is equivalent to energy, and it is also "mostly empty space". It might be that energy doesn't really have a "size", and that a scaling of matter is equivalent to a scaling of the emptiness between quantities of energy that make up that matter. So, space curvature is a scaling of all distances between energy within that space.
• Mass then is quantities of energy. The "force of gravity" and the spacetime curvature from which it is effected, is a measurement of energy densities or something.
• ??? goes here.
• Matter is made up of oscillating energy. As this energy oscillates it follows the same curvature that light follows, which makes it accelerate towards the mass that has curved its space. Light appears to curve because it is following the shortest path through spacetime, which isn't a straight line from our observational reference frame. In a sense matter being affected by gravity could be said to do the same thing. As it oscillates, the curved path toward the mass is slightly shorter than staying put or moving away from the mass. It might be that the object is becoming slightly smaller as it accelerates into spacetime that is curved more by mass. The opposite (growing bigger; moving away from gravitational mass) would mean the oscillating energy is moving farther on each oscillation, and it would require added energy to do so.

Okay so this is crackpot speculation, by the way. Just rambling, confusing ideas. It's all beyond my understanding.

 

The missing ??? part is beyond my reasoning. For some reason, the presence of energy in one place, affects the measurements of length in distant locations all around it.

 

Does any of that suggest something worth exploring further?