forces that interact with each other (split from critical density thread)

[Kramer]

 

-------- I claimed to quit. But I see, from your answers, that I can’t.
In fact my post was not to discus the idea of critical density, but the forces that interact with each other.
I consider the problem very simple:

If you fire a rocket in “radial direction” it will move up until fuel is spent, and after---
rocket will return again in the spot you have fired. This is because the force of firing and the force of gravity are the only forces that are interacting in radial direction. When I say “ radial direction “ I mean you have eliminate step by step, the third force of inertial gravity-- (which is perpendicular with radial direction)-- with a your second antagonist fuel force.
Now, you have a pure repulsion force and attractive force acting in the same line.
You may call it “expansion” and “attraction” if you like. But…

I understand what is “gravitation attraction”, at least in my way:
Mass particles of matter have ability to attract each other with a force inverse proportional with square of distance.
( By the way ---- It is strange that nature, which play with parity, on the case of gravity work only in one way. And most strange, is the absence of science efforts to explain it)
I understand in my way what is “the repulsion force of matter” --- only in the electromagnetic nature of matter.

And about movement of matter in space ----I think that movement is the main property of matter particles, for “mass: particles in stationary status, for “mass-less” particles in run away status.

I have no idea what mean “expansion”.
In fact from “elegant formula of critical density” we have:

( Ho*R ) ^ 2 * R = ( G*M ) m^3 * sec^-2

and somebody my conclude that gravity of mass is nothing else but “ volume of space divided by square of time”. A clever trick to flush the “concept of matter” away from debate.
If you explain to a non-believer ( alias-- to a non understanding) what is expansion, or inflation ( But please, not with German mark inflation) I will be very grateful.
What is “the fuel” that began creation of universe? that continue to act with more intensity?
Without this explanation, what is the difference of “theory” from “speculation”?

[Strange]

If you fire a rocket in “radial direction” it will move up until fuel is spent, and after---

rocket will return again in the spot you have fired. This is because the force of firing and the force of gravity are the only forces that are interacting in radial direction.

 

That is correct: gravity acts radially (towards the center of mass). This corrects your earlier statement that it acted tangentially.

 

 

the third force of inertial gravity

 

 

 

You may call it “expansion” and “attraction” if you like.

 

I don't think so.

 

 

It is strange that nature, which play with parity, on the case of gravity work only in one way. And most strange, is the absence of science efforts to explain it

 

It doesn't seem that strange. Different forces act in different ways. The strong force, for example, is always attractive (ecpet at very short distances).

 

But in GR (which is science's "effort to explain it") gravity is not a force anyway.

 

I have no idea what mean “expansion”.

 

It means distances increase.

 

 

somebody my conclude that gravity of mass is nothing else but “ volume of space divided by square of time”.

 

They would be very confused if they concluded that.

 

 

If you explain to a non-believer ( alias-- to a non understanding) what is expansion, or inflation ( But please, not with German mark inflation) I will be very grateful.

"In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#bigbang

 

 

What is “the fuel” that began creation of universe?

 

Nobody knows. We don't even know if there was any such "creation".

 

 

Without this explanation, what is the difference of “theory” from “speculation”?

 

The theory isn't about "creation". It is about the evolution of universe we see around us.

 

There is speculation about "creation" or "before the big bang" but I ignore it all until it becomes science.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Strange

[Sensei]

( By the way ---- It is strange that nature, which play with parity, on the case of gravity work only in one way. And most strange, is the absence of science efforts to explain it)

 

Because real scientists are describing observable phenomenons, not imaginary..

 

If I will make theory for something that I have no way to prove or disprove using currently existing experiments, it'll remain unnoticed (or forgotten) until somebody accidentally will find out experiment a few hundred years later which matches my theory..

I showed experiment how to calculate gravity at home in this thread

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84336-if-pi-ratio-was-squared-and-98-mss-how-would-this-change-the-whole-of-science/?p=815752

Currently you don't have alternative experiment for antigravity to perform.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Sensei

[Mordred]

you have also missed the part that shows that interacting particles also exert a force that force is in terms of pressure due to a particles energy and momentum, the critical density formula is derived with those interactions as well as gravity. Here is another article showing the pressure relations and the critical density. In cosmology the FLRW metric uses the equations of state which correlates a particles energy-density to its pressure contributions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29

 

I mentioned before the Einstein field equations here is a quote from wiki

"The Einstein field equations (EFE) or Einstein's equations are a set of 10 equations in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity which describe the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by matter and energy.[1] First published by Einstein in 1915[2] as a tensor equation, the EFE equate local spacetime curvature (expressed by the Einstein tensor) with the local energy and momentum within that spacetime (expressed by the stress–energy tensor)"

 

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

 

 

http://www.helsinki.fi/~hkurkisu/cosmology/Cosmo4.pdf

equation 4 is the stress energy tenser to energy density and pressure relations, the section from equation 4 to 13 covers how the critical density is derived.

 

this statement describes the curvature

"The nature of the curvature then depends on the density"

 

as I stated critical density is k=0, [latex]\rho=\rho_{crit}[/latex]

 

the curvature and cosmological constant is used to define the rate of expansion which is H in the critical density formula

 

[latex]H=\frac{\dot a}{a}[/latex]

 

 

a is the scale factor. the dot denotes today

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_%28cosmology%29

 

more detail on expansion can be found here

http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion

 

Hubble's law as well as its correlations with the above can be found here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

Edited July 17, 2014 by Mordred

[swansont]

-------- I claimed to quit. But I see, from your answers, that I can’t.

In fact my post was not to discus the idea of critical density, but the forces that interact with each other.

I consider the problem very simple:

If you fire a rocket in “radial direction” it will move up until fuel is spent, and after---

rocket will return again in the spot you have fired.

 

What if you have enough fuel to escape? The rocket doesn't fall back.

the third force of inertial gravity-- (which is perpendicular with radial direction)-- with a your second antagonist fuel force.

 

 

Huh? Inertial gravity?

[Ophiolite]

Huh? Inertial gravity?

Pointless discussions about alternative gravity theories have enough inertia to run on for several pages.