What do you guys think of this? There is no such thing as 'attraction', only path of least resistance

[metacogitans]

 

Nope. The FLRW solution to the Einstein Field Equations requires that space expands or contracts (unless the density is balanced just-so).

The 'FLRW solution' isn't accurate.

[Strange]

The 'FLRW solution' isn't accurate.

 

It is an exact solution the EFE. And its predictions appear to be confirmed by evidence.

 

So what is your source for this claim?

Edited August 9, 2014 by Strange

[Bignose]

The 'FLRW solution' isn't accurate.

Very strong claim here with no evidence presented to support it.

 

On the one hand, we have this http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377 which clearly demonstrates how accurate GR is in comparison to observations made.

 

And on the other hand, we have someone who freely admits "I do not have a clue.. could sure use a knowledge of higher calculus right now." and therefore doesn't even understand what the current model has to say.

 

But yet, it "isn't accurate". Com'on man, you gotta do better than this on a science forum. If you're going to claim something like this, you need to present a ton of evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it is just hubris and Dunning-Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).

[studiot]

 

I want to do it but I need to know how to use tensors which I don't; I'm going to have to research it.

 

Tensor mathematics contains a deal of notation designed to achieve compactness in writing.

There is also Einstein's own summation notation, dropping the sigma symbol and leaving the reader to understand (guess?) when a sum is meant and when it is not.

 

Unfortunately it takes years to become familiar and comfortable with the notations and, when it comes down to it, they don't reduce the calculative effort one iota.

 

As every engineer knows, the fancy compact notations in the textbooks do not mean that when you want to actually calculate a result you can shortcut. You still have to perform the full calculations kin each direction (dimension).

[metacogitans]

Very strong claim here with no evidence presented to support it.

 

On the one hand, we have this http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377 which clearly demonstrates how accurate GR is in comparison to observations made.

 

And on the other hand, we have someone who freely admits "I do not have a clue.. could sure use a knowledge of higher calculus right now." and therefore doesn't even understand what the current model has to say.

 

But yet, it "isn't accurate". Com'on man, you gotta do better than this on a science forum. If you're going to claim something like this, you need to present a ton of evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it is just hubris and Dunning-Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).

Alright, let me take a swing at this:

The FLRW solutions, although an improvement on Einstein's GR field equations still fail to explain the following:

- The shape of galactic superclusters (both the origin of their shape, how their shape changes, and what their future shape will be) and the broader shape of the entire cosmos - this is a big problem, considering that the force of gravity is meant to describe the influence massive objects have on the trajectories of other massive objects on a macroscopic scale, yet fails to do so. Although the equations as written can accurately predict the trajectory of massive objects at certain scales, how accurate they are when predicting trajectories at larger cosmological scales is, so far, purely hypothetical speculation. The inconsistency between theory and observation at such scale ends up being 'explained away' by proposing dark matter and dark energy.

 

- How gravity applies to particles at the subatomic level --this is not as big of a problem as the previous point, as most (if not all) theories for gravity which make accurate predictions do not attempt to provide such an explanation; their goal is merely to provide a mathematical description for the attraction between massive bodies.

 

Also, as far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), no working theory for gravity explains how universal background radiation itself changes due to the presence of mass. All theories explain background radiation as constant at any point in space. Any warping in this background radiation is assumed to be the result of curved space-time, when in fact, nothing distinguishes that from being the other way around (with observations of 'curved space-time' actually resulting from a curvature in the distribution of background radiation).

 

What I propose is that universal background radiation itself (the 'cosmological constant') is what is 'warped' by the presence of mass -- not the underlying grid of 'spacetime'. Background radiation is blocked/absorbed/reflected by massive objects, resulting in a tendency for their to be less of it in the direction of massive objects, and hence, causing there to tend to be a 'path of least resistance' (in an ordinary electromagnetic sense) in the direction of a massive object.

 

The reason 'why' this approach would be superior to current and prevailing approaches is that this approach does not require us to assume new types of energy and matter (dark energy and dark matter) without anything else to suggest their existence; we would simply be re-working existing equations so that such phenomenon are already accounted for. Assuming the existence of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', could be considered as not very different from when scientists of the past assumed the existence of a fictitious 'aether'; especially when reevaluating and reworking what we already know would provide an explanation, without taking such liberties in violation of physical laws.

 

Let's review what we already know:

- When electromagnetic radiation interacts with a particle, the particle moves.

- Depending on variables such as frequency or intensity of the radiation, this movement might be observed as kinetic, thermal, or indeed any type of momentum or excited state of a particle.

 

Universal background radiation is not (and couldn't/shouldn't be) an exception, and would also produce movement in particles it interacts with.

 

In the near-vacuum of space, where background radiation might likely be the strongest influence on a particle, background radiation would be affecting the particle from all directions. If background radiation is the strongest influence a particle is currently experiencing, the particle will begin to accelerate in whichever direction it is influenced by background radiation the least.

 

Now, that's it right there; that's the main principle behind this approach to gravitation, and we can use it to readily explain all the phenomenon in the macroscopic cosmos which current theories of gravity fail to explain, and all inconsistencies in previous approaches can be resolved with keeping a few other things in mind:

- Levels of radiation in the cosmological background are dynamic; thus, the 'cosmological constant' would also be dynamic.

- Waves of radiation in the universal background have an origin which lead to their current trajectory; in accordance with the conservation of energy, the radiation in the universal background has, in a sense, been reflecting between massive bodies in the cosmos for however long the cosmos has existed, whatever the origin of the cosmos may be.

 

With that in mind, the perceived 'expansion of space' is simply the result of this repulsive force between massive objects across vast distances in the cosmos. This isn't really saying anything different from what the 'cosmological constant' is already proposed to do.

 

Now, the only place where it would start to get a bit tricky is when we try to explain how gravity could then affect massive bodies towards the outskirts of the universe. For this, I am thinking we need simply apply special relativity, and conceptualize the 'edge of the universe' in a similar manner to how we conceptualize objects in thought experiments used when explaining special relativity:

 

For starters, we could say that all radiation emitted into the empty space beyond the outskirts of the universe would not lead to an observed loss of energy for the rest of the universe, as 'work' is relative, depending on distance and time, and any 'leaked' radiation would not lead to an observed 'loss' of energy for the rest of the universe, and it would not appear as though less 'work' is being done.

 

Matter on the very outskirts of the universe would behave very strangely, and would be subject to phenomenon making it unsuitable for star formation. This region could be thought of as consisting of a cloud of 'lost matter' - matter which has gone too far to be able to gravitate back towards other matter, but still capable of causing repulsion back towards everything else in the universe-proper.

 

This 'cloud' of matter on the outskirts of the universe may be reacting violently with adjacent matter, churning endlessly; or it might simply be stagnant - a sort of shield which reflects radiation back into the universe-proper, preventing it from 'leaking' into the empty space beyond this region.

 

Something which I think might still require additional explanation is how our measurements of the universal background radiation would lead us to believe that it's constant at any point in space. Although, it might be as simple as that old saying - something like "not being able to see the forest for the trees" - in that our measurements of background radiation in one or a few locations would appear to be similar or the same, but would not lend an accurate representation of the distribution of background radiation at macroscopic scales. Not helping the fact would be that any 'curvature' detected in measurements might be attributed to warped 'space-time' instead. Perhaps someone else could give some insight as to how exactly universal background radiation has been measured.

 

Last but not least in this post, we need to be able to explain how gravity is capable of curving the path of light. This approach to gravity holds water so far (and anywhere it doesn't, please let me know), but collapses completely if it can't explain the curvature of light in a gravity well. This is where I believe we must actually re-consider the Einsteinian notion of 'space-time' itself actually being curved, but the cause of this curvature would not be directly caused by the presence of mass, but instead resulting from the fluid-like mechanics inherent to spacetime. For this, we must view space-time as not being independent of its contents. Spacetime is only measurable as the sum of its contents; and the sum of its contents do not sit with each other in a way that forms a perfect grid, as these contents may be oblong or sphere-like in shape, which would instead form a fluid-like medium.

As a result, when mass blocks/absorbs/reflects radiation coming from a certain direction, pressure in the fluidic medium of spacetime would result on the other side of the object, curving the path of light/radiation passing by the massive object, which would be traveling in a straight line through curved spacetime.

 

So, with my limited knowledge of mathematics concerning tensors, vectors, and scalars, let me try making a mathematical asssessment of this approach: there are two main tensors which would need to be considered - a fluidic space tensor and a curved background-radiation tensor: the fluidic space tensor would basically translate fluidic space into something resembling euclidean space so that it could be worked with mathematically; then, in the absence of other influences, a particle would move through this reformed-Euclidean space along a path of least resistance determined by the curvature in the distribution of background radiation caused by the presence of other massive bodies. This curvature in the distribution of background radiation would be defined as the cosmological average of radiation in space minus the radiation mitigated by a massive object in the direction of that massive object. The curvature of background radiation would also be subject to the fluid-like nature of space. Now, I'm going to go to work writing the actual equation. Wish me luck.

 

I would like to also mention that this approach to gravity, by itself, suggests nothing about the fate of our universe or the universe's origin; it merely re-assesses what we already know to provide an explanation for phenomenon already observed, where current approaches would otherwise fall short and experience inconsistencies.

Edited August 16, 2014 by metacogitans

[Strange]

The FLRW solutions, although an improvement on Einstein's GR field equations ...

 

They are not an "improvement" on the EFE, they are a solution of the EFE.

 

- The shape of galactic superclusters

 

There is no reason the FLRW metric should explain that. The FLRW metric only applies to a homogeneous distribution of mass.

 

On the other hand, simulations do predict the shape of clusters pretty well.

 

- how gravity applies to particles at the subatomic level

 

Again, nothing to do with the FLRW metric but we have no reason to think that gravity works any differently at the subatomic scale, so I don't know what your point is.

 

Also, as far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), no working theory for gravity explains how universal background radiation itself changes due to the presence of mass.

 

Well, there is gravitational lensing. That is the only effect of gravity on the cosmic background that I am aware of. And explained by GR.

 

What I propose is that universal background radiation itself (the 'cosmological constant') is what is 'warped' by the presence of mass

 

Then you had better come up with some maths and some evidence for this.

[Bignose]

Alright, let me take a swing at this:

None of this demonstrated how 'inaccurate GR' is (your words, remember, above). Please take a look at the paper I linked to. It demonstrates just how accurate GR really is.

 

If you are going to stick with your inaccurate claim, please present data similar to that paper that shows GR being inaccurate.

 

Otherwise, look a this impartially. I have a well cited and supported research paper demonstrating exactly how closely the predictions from GR agree with measurements. And on the other hand I have some guy on the interwebz telling me a story about how it isn't accurate.

 

As I wrote above, com'on man, you gotta do better than this.

 

If you are going to claim 'inaccurate', you need to demonstrate it. Not just with a lot of words. But with data to support your claims. Because the claim that GR is pretty darn accurate, has a great deal of data behind it. This is how science works. You have to produce a large amount of data that agrees with you. Not just tell a better story.

[metacogitans]

 

They are not an "improvement" on the EFE, they are a solution of the EFE.

It would seem that 'improvement' and being an 'exact solution' could be seen as the same thing.

 

 

 

There is no reason the FLRW metric should explain that. The FLRW metric only applies to a homogeneous distribution of mass.

 

 

On the other hand, simulations do predict the shape of clusters pretty well.

Every simulation I've seen has inconsistencies which had to be remedied by tweaking the equations entirely until they produced something resembling a stable model of the observed universe.

 

 

Then you had better come up with some maths and some evidence for this.

 

Hard proof of this would involve measuring waves coming from one direction in the background radiation out in space on one side of the planet, while having measuring devices on the other side of the planet mapping background radiation to see if those same waves are dampened by the planet itself. Simple as that.

 

Here's another prediction that would be true with this approach but not necessarily true with other approaches:

Matter would be more evenly distributed throughout space the further the distance is from the center of the universe, due to the force of gravity weakening into one-directional repulsion at greater distances; this would be significant enough that it would prevent the formation of galaxies and eventually stars at sufficient distances. Current theories of gravity would lead us to believe that star formation should be able to take place anywhere in the universe as long as there is enough mass.

 

There is a great deal of difference between viewing the cosmological constant as being independent of gravitational attraction and being the source of gravitational attraction.

Edited August 16, 2014 by metacogitans

[metacogitans]

Alright here you go guys the first workings of the equation...

Where R(Λ) is electromagnetic repulsion exhibited on a particle by universal background radiation from a particular direction. Λ is a measured average or estimate of universal background radiation from a certain direction, and Λ(mitigated) is universal background radiation mitigated by the presence of a massive object.

 

What this will tell you is the level of repulsion from universal background radiation influencing a particle in the absence of other electromagnetic influences.

Since this repulsion is experienced from all directions, it becomes synonymous with resistance.

For spherical particles, R(Λ) is given as the intensity of electromagnetic repulsion exhibited on each region of the sphere's surface by universal background radiation. This requires greater than infinitesimal increments of time to be more than a 0-dimensional value, which I'll continue explaining later.

 

Λ can be made as precise as needed; an exact value of Λ would require knowing the location of all massive bodies in the universe with arbitrary precision, so it has to be an average and/or estimate.

 

Finding Λ(mitigated) must account for many things; it is found by adding the background radiation asborbed and radiation reflected by the massive object away from the particle, then subtracting both the background radiation which has curved around the object towards the particle due to the fluidic mechanics of space as well as the radiation reflected off the massive object back at the particle.

All of which require more than just the mass of the object to calculate - such as density, shape, and volume, as well as what materials make up the object, as certain materials may be more prone to reflecting or absorbing the cosmic background radiation. It just so happens that 'mass' gives a good approximation.

 

Now, back to how R(Λ) is given. The equation above will only give R(Λ) a value for one direction on the surface of a particle, and it is here we hit a major roadblock: if we try to calculate the value of R(Λ) at multiple locations on the surface of the particle, we only get a rough approximation of overall repulsion influencing the particle, and this wouldn't be of much practical use. If we were to assume regions of intensity determined by R(Λ) covering the surface of the sphere, we arrive at another problem: 'intensity' assumes an increment of time. If we were to hypothetically consider infinitesimal increments of time, only one point on the surface of the sphere would be experiencing repulsion at once. Over any increment of time greater than that, the surface of the sphere would have regions of fluctuating intensity over time. This leads us to an even bigger problem: the relativistic mass of the particle increases as the increment of time we use to approximate regions of intensity increases. We must once again make estimates.

So, to summarize this, before applying Λ(mitigated), we assume every region on the sphere to be experiencing repulsion by a factor of Λ - which is an average. With applying Λ(mitigated) to a point on the sphere, we are simply subtracting Λ(mitigated) from Λ. We must then go about trying to approximate regions of intensity on the surface of the sphere, but are unable to do so as the relativistic mass and therefore volume of the sphere increases with time. Why does this happen? Well, as the particle is acclerated by the universal background radiation, the rate at which it interacts with more universal background radiation increases, thus the energy of the particle would increase exponentially. At such a scale, mass, volume, velocity, heat, and frequency are indistinguishable, thus we can only consider relativistic mass, which can be equivocated to energy.

 

To sneak around this headache, we could consider R(Λ) as the level of repulsion from cosmic background radiation in a given region of space if a particle were there. R(Λ) then tells us the path of least resistance in a given region of space that an object would accelerate in. But R(Λ) does not complete the entire equation. The fluidic mechanics of space would distort that path of least resistance around the object, and this distortion would need to be accounted for, and this path of least resistance determined by R(Λ) would be telling an object how to move through fluidic space, not Euclidean space.

All of this is a vastly more difficult to calculate than the field equations in GR.

Edited August 16, 2014 by metacogitans

[Strange]

It would seem that 'improvement' and being an 'exact solution' could be seen as the same thing.

 

I can't imagine who would think such a thing or why.

 

 

Hard proof of this would involve measuring waves coming from one direction in the background radiation out in space on one side of the planet, while having measuring devices on the other side of the planet mapping background radiation to see if those same waves are dampened by the planet itself. Simple as that.

 

There are some very tiny anisotropies in the CMB. None are related the position of the Earth. as far as I know.

 

 

Matter would be more evenly distributed throughout space the further the distance is from the center of the universe

 

In the "more accurate" FLRW based model, there is no centre of the universe.

[metacogitans]

 

I can't imagine who would think such a thing or why.

What exactly does it mean to be an 'exact solution' to the GR EFE? As far as I can tell, it just means that it remains consistent with GR while not violating any physical laws.

Being an 'exact solution', which is a man-made term, isn't some golden seal of authenticity validating something as some objective truth wholly immune to all forms of human error.

 

 

There are some very tiny anisotropies in the CMB. None are related the position of the Earth. as far as I know.

 

Does equipment even exist capable of mapping specific waves picked out in the cosmic background on different sides of the planet?

How would such waves not be dampened by the Earth itself? I'm literally talking about following one specific wave in the background radiation as it travels through the Earth along its diameter and then on the other side of the planet measuring how that affected the wave's intensity.

 

I'm not convinced there's any reason that I'm wrong; I just didn't do a good enough job advocating why I could be right. I need to get some big bad tensors and make a mean looking equation I think.. then it might get taken seriously.

 

Another thing is I doubt anyone would ever notice such fluctuations in the cosmic background unless they were already looking for them.

 

And really, think about it.. warped spacetime by itself isn't going to cause attraction, its just going to cause a curved path...

No, no.. the math is wrong.. why is 'attraction' just.. assumed.. in GR? Even in electromagnetism, 'attraction' isnt true attraction either, but just the result of lines of force.. You can't just say 'gravity attracts' and call it good.

 

Hey, look what I just found:

 

Lines of force originated with Michael Faraday, whose theory holds that all of reality is made up of force itself. His theory predicts that electricity, light, and gravity have finite propagation delays. The theories and experimental data of later scientific figures such as Maxwell, Hertz, Einstein, and others are in agreement with the ramifications of Faraday's theory. Nevertheless, Faraday's theory remains distinct. Unlike Faraday, Maxwell and others (e.g., J.J. Thomson) thought that light and electricity must propagate through an ether. In Einstein's relativity, there is no ether, yet the physical reality of force is much weaker than in the theories of Faraday.

Exactly the point I was originally trying to make with this thread.

I'm beginning to think that it doesn't matter whether my guesswork is right, wrong; true, untrue; accurate, inaccurate -- if what I lack is a reputation.

You know what; I'm right. What do I do now? Copyright it?

I bet this same theory has already had a patent put on it for 20+ years, but no one has heard of the holder or cares because in the history books, people hear about Einstein, and after that everyone pretends to already know the whole score.

People in modern times coming up with their own ideas??How do you sell that??

 

So what are we left with? The people who do know something are stuck upholding esoteric terminology -- if you have a new idea, then that means you obviously didn't learn the esoteric terminology used by people when your same idea was considered in the past. Not too big of an issue - esoteric terminology, I guess.. when it does become an issue, it usually means an ego or two have entered play.

 

This forum is actually incredibly open to discussion. I don't know if it's my Latin name or something, but thank you. Usually, wherever else physics is the official topic of discussion, a person is immediately ostracized the second they ask a question or propose an idea they've come up with on their own.

Edited August 16, 2014 by metacogitans

[Bignose]

I'm beginning to think that it doesn't matter whether my guesswork is right, wrong; true, untrue; accurate, inaccurate -- if what I lack is a reputation.

 

You know what; I'm right. What do I do now? Copyright it?

I bet this same theory has already had a patent put on it for 20+ years, but no one has heard of the holder or cares because in the history books, people hear about Einstein, and after that everyone pretends to already know the whole score.

You're really heading the wrong way now.

 

Firstly, you can't copyright an idea. What you can do is be the first to publish a new idea in a reputable scientific journal.

 

But, that journal is going to demand the same things people have been asking you in this thread, only 1000-fold more rigorously done. My questions, for example, if you ignore them will just result in your submission to the journal being ignored.

 

Look, science is not based on reputation, or copyrights, or history books. It is based almost completely and totally upon accuracy of prediction with measurement.

 

It is a human endeavour. It has some human failings. But it is far, far, far more objective than it used to be where people judged your ideas solely on your name, whether you were a church leader, or a king, or rich or etc.

 

Today, it is all about how useful your idea is, and usefulness is almost wholly based on how closely your predictions agree with measurements.

 

You have presented nothing of that in this thread, despite being repeatedly asked. I asked, for example, you to use you idea to make a prediction to describe a satellite in a geostationary orbit. This is a very straightforward example that can be easily done with the current mainstream ideas of gravity.

 

Yet, you have declared yourself correct. Despite presenting nothing but stories.

 

You are free to believe what you want, but you are going to receive no interest in the scientific community.

 

Yes, this forum is generally pretty tolerant, and it is our goal to help get you to think about your idea in a more scientific manner. But, you haven't done that yet, and if anything, you're regressed. Because you are declaring yourself right with no evidence.

 

So, you have a choice now. Are you actually truly interested in exploring your ideas in a scientific manner? Or are you just going to continue to declare yourself right and be done with it? You talk about 'advocating about why I could be right'... really this is very straightforward in science. Present us with some objective evidence that your idea makes more accurate predictions than the current mainstream ideas. If you can do that, you will receive much interest from the scientific community. If you can't or won't do that, then expect to be ignored.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Bignose

[metacogitans]

You're really heading the wrong way now.

 

Firstly, you can't copyright an idea. What you can do is be the first to publish a new idea in a reputable scientific journal.

 

But, that journal is going to demand the same things people have been asking you in this thread, only 1000-fold more rigorously done. My questions, for example, if you ignore them will just result in your submission to the journal being ignored.

 

Look, science is not based on reputation, or copyrights, or history books. It is based almost completely and totally upon accuracy of prediction with measurement.

 

It is a human endeavour. It has some human failings. But it is far, far, far more objective than it used to be where people judged your ideas solely on your name, whether you were a church leader, or a king, or rich or etc.

 

Today, it is all about how useful your idea is, and usefulness is almost wholly based on how closely your predictions agree with measurements.

 

You have presented nothing of that in this thread, despite being repeatedly asked. I asked, for example, you to use you idea to make a prediction to describe a satellite in a geostationary orbit. This is a very straightforward example that can be easily done with the current mainstream ideas of gravity.

 

Yet, you have declared yourself correct. Despite presenting nothing but stories.

 

You are free to believe what you want, but you are going to receive no interest in the scientific community.

 

Yes, this forum is generally pretty tolerant, and it is our goal to help get you to think about your idea in a more scientific manner. But, you haven't done that yet, and if anything, you're regressed. Because you are declaring yourself right with no evidence.

 

So, you have a choice now. Are you actually truly interested in exploring your ideas in a scientific manner? Or are you just going to continue to declare yourself right and be done with it? You talk about 'advocating about why I could be right'... really this is very straightforward in science. Present us with some objective evidence that your idea makes more accurate predictions than the current mainstream ideas. If you can do that, you will receive much interest from the scientific community. If you can't or won't do that, then expect to be ignored.

The former.

I gained a big boost in confidence (perhaps too much of a boost) in learning that a big name (Faraday) already stated something similar to my original question behind this thread. Though, he found application for his concept of 'lines of force' with electromagnetism -- but his proposal that there is only one-directional force seems similar to saying what I said that there is only 'repulsion' and no such thing as 'attraction'.

So what's the trouble in applying this to gravity? If 'attraction' doesn't exist, then how do we explain the 'attraction' with gravity? Well we just find some way of explaining the attraction in terms of repulsion instead, right?

 

Well?

 

Also, something interesting I noticed:

Lines of force look suspiciously similar to the effects of 'fluidic space' in GR, don't they?

Edited August 17, 2014 by metacogitans

[Bignose]

Just because two things look similar, doesn't make them the same thing.

 

And despite the picture, the 'boost', the 'big name', etc., you still haven't actually proposed a model, gotten predictions from it, and compared those predictions to actual data.

 

That is science. That is what we are waiting on. Anything less is more story telling. And while you may tell a bunch of stories, that isn't science.

 

If you are truly choosing the former above, then you need to propose a model that can then be represented by objective predictions. This almost surely involves math.

 

Again, can I ask that you start with a simple one, like describing a geostationary orbit. This is a straightforward example using the current model of attractive gravity.

 

If you seriously are proposing an alternative, show us how it works. Show us the predictions made by a 'repulsion' only gravity. Show us how a satellite stays in geostationary orbit with repulsion only. Show us something scientific.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Bignose

[metacogitans]

Just because two things look similar, doesn't make them the same thing.

 

And despite the picture, the 'boost', the 'big name', etc., you still haven't actually proposed a model, gotten predictions from it, and compared those predictions to actual data.

 

That is science. That is what we are waiting on. Anything less is more story telling. And while you may tell a bunch of stories, that isn't science.

 

If you are truly choosing the former above, then you need to propose a model that can then be represented by objective predictions. This almost surely involves math.

 

Again, can I ask that you start with a simple one, like describing a geostationary orbit. This is a straightforward example using the current model of attractive gravity.

 

If you seriously are proposing an alternative, show us how it works. Show us the predictions made by a 'repulsion' only gravity. Show us how a satellite stays in geostationary orbit with repulsion only. Show us something scientific.

I don't know how to write a tensor translating Euclidean space into fluidic space; actually, I don't know how to write tensors period - all I know is that they can be used to describe warping of Euclidean space. Aside from that, I already gave a mathematical explanation, but giving only conceptual variables and no real-life constants or values given by real measurements.

The variables in

can be as inclusive as you want.

Let me try tossing together some hackjob math for a geostationary orbit; I am worn out at this for tonight though.

Edited August 17, 2014 by metacogitans

[ajb]

What exactly does it mean to be an 'exact solution' to the GR EFE?

The Einstein field equation are a set of 10 coupled, nonlinear partial differential equations. An exact solution would be a solution to full equations as opposed to some approximation to the field equations. However, by exact solution one usually means a solution to the full field equations that can be presented in a closed form. That is in explict terms.

 

The FLRW solution is an exact solution in the above sense.

[Strange]

What exactly does it mean to be an 'exact solution' to the GR EFE?

 

You have an equation. It can have multiple solutions. The FLRW metric is one. The Schwarzschild metric is another. They describe different situations. The FLRW metric describes a homogeneous distribution of mass. The Schwarzschild metric describes a spherically symmetric mass. The Kerr solution is the same for a rotating mass. And so on.

 

 

Being an 'exact solution', which is a man-made term, isn't some golden seal of authenticity validating something as some objective truth wholly immune to all forms of human error.

 

I don't think anyone said it does. There are other exact solutions which do not describe the universe we live in. The FLRW seems to be a good approximation, on large enough scales.

 

 

Does equipment even exist capable of mapping specific waves picked out in the cosmic background on different sides of the planet?

 

Of course. (Obviously , it can't see through the Earth, which seems to be what you are talking about.) The CMB is also very faint and if you are trying to use it to account for gravity, then you have to explain why turning a light bulb on doesn't press you flat against the wall.

 

 

I'm not convinced there's any reason that I'm wrong

 

Of course not. People like you never do. You are convinced that because you made an idea up (and therefore, by definition, can understand it) it must be correct. Sad but very very common.

 

 

Another thing is I doubt anyone would ever notice such fluctuations in the cosmic background unless they were already looking for them.

 

They are looking. Because understanding the CMB tells us a lot about the early universe.

 

 

And really, think about it.. warped spacetime by itself isn't going to cause attraction, its just going to cause a curved path...

No, no.. the math is wrong.. why is 'attraction' just.. assumed.. in GR?

 

You need to show how the math is wrong. Can you do that?

 

The attraction is not "assumed", it is consequence of the curvature. For example, as an analogy, consider two people walking towards the north pole along different lines of longitude: as the travel, they get closer together. Is there a "force of attraction"? No, it is just a result of the geometry of the Earth.

 

 

You know what; I'm right. What do I do now? Copyright it?

 

Copyright what? You already have copyright on these posts. Write a book and you will have copyright on that.

 

But no one is going to want to "steal" this idea anyway.

 

 

I bet this same theory has already had a patent put on it for 20+ years

 

You can't patent a theory. Only a mechanism using it. If it were patented then it would have been published. (And if it were more than 20 years ago, then the patent would have expired.

[studiot]

@metacogitans.

 

You have allowed yourself to get diverted from your original ideas, I was trying to help you develop in posts 2, 6 and 9, which has been shown to be a very fruitful line of enquiry.

 

You will find more about these ideas here at post24

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84931-equating-motion-with-energy/page-2

 

if you wish to pursue them.

[metacogitans]

Of course. (Obviously , it can't see through the Earth, which seems to be what you are talking about.) The CMB is also very faint and if you are trying to use it to account for gravity, then you have to explain why turning a light bulb on doesn't press you flat against the wall.

Map the radiation on many devices in a ring around the planet; synch their measurements together later on a computer.

And, no friction in space; the increase in acceleration is exponential; and fluidic space is still a contributing factor for gravity as well..

 

 

 

Of course not. People like you never do. You are convinced that because you made an idea up (and therefore, by definition, can understand it) it must be correct. Sad but very very common.

What sort of explanation could you give for how "attraction" arises mechanically? Giving the answer "it just does" is unscientific. Warped spacetime only curves the path of an object; the object has to be experiencing acceleration from another source to initiate free fall.

 

 

The attraction is not "assumed", it is consequence of the curvature.

 

You need to show how the math is wrong. Can you do that?

Yes. If objects did not experience constant acceleration, free fall would take time to get up to speed; when they dropped those two objects on the moon during the moon landing, if they were not experiencing constant acceleration, they would just sit there levitating in space for a while after being let go, and would gradually start free falling.

 

 

But no one is going to want to "steal" this idea anyway.

 

Yeah Faraday was junk too.

Edited August 17, 2014 by metacogitans

[Bignose]

Alright here you go guys the first workings of the equation...

Where R(Λ) is electromagnetic repulsion exhibited on a particle by universal background radiation from a particular direction. Λ is a measured average or estimate of universal background radiation from a certain direction, and Λ(mitigated) is universal background radiation mitigated by the presence of a massive object.

I don't know how to write a tensor translating Euclidean space into fluidic space; actually, I don't know how to write tensors period - all I know is that they can be used to describe warping of Euclidean space. Aside from that, I already gave a mathematical explanation, but giving only conceptual variables and no real-life constants or values given by real measurements.

The variables in

can be as inclusive as you want.

Let me try tossing together some hackjob math for a geostationary orbit; I am worn out at this for tonight though.

So, what are the units of R? You call it "repulsion exhibited on a particle", that sounds like a force to me. But [math]\Lambda[/math], the cosmological constant, has units of 1/length^2. Given your equation here, R must have those same units, but I don't see how 1/length^2 can be interpreted as a repulsion.

 

Also, "The variables in can be as inclusive as you want." is essentially meaningless. Firstly, it is YOUR equation, not mine. YOU should be defining exactly what this equation means. Secondly, every equation has a domain of validity, whether it is from where math breaks down, or the predictions from that math don't agree well with measurements anymore. 'Want' has almost nothing to do with that.

 

In short, your post here doesn't answer my questions in any meaningful way, and as near as I can tell you have a gross units error in your proposed equation. An equation, I might add, that you gave virtually no context about how to actually apply.

Yeah Faraday was junk too.

If I wanted to be taken seriously, I'd knock this off too. This is the 'Galileo Gambit', trying to bring up others' successful work as some kind of defense of your own.

 

First and foremost, it is a logical fallacy to do this. Your work here is not the same as Faraday, apart from you liked a graphic based on his idea. Secondly, if your own work can't stand on its own, then it is junk. Thirdly, the Galileo Gambit has been tried by countless people -- many even on this forum -- and failed pretty miserably.

 

Please provide objective evidence of your own idea working. Not more story telling. Not more misinterpretations of GR. But actual support for your idea, the predictions it makes, and how closely these predictions agree with measurements.

 

You told me yesterday that you were serious about pursuing this idea in a scientific manner; can you please actually start doing that now?

[metacogitans]

So, what are the units of R? You call it "repulsion exhibited on a particle", that sounds like a force to me. But [math]\Lambda[/math], the cosmological constant, has units of 1/length^2. Given your equation here, R must have those same units, but I don't see how 1/length^2 can be interpreted as a repulsion.

 

Also, "The variables in can be as inclusive as you want." is essentially meaningless. Firstly, it is YOUR equation, not mine. YOU should be defining exactly what this equation means. Secondly, every equation has a domain of validity, whether it is from where math breaks down, or the predictions from that math don't agree well with measurements anymore. 'Want' has almost nothing to do with that.

 

In short, your post here doesn't answer my questions in any meaningful way, and as near as I can tell you have a gross units error in your proposed equation. An equation, I might add, that you gave virtually no context about how to actually apply.

If I wanted to be taken seriously, I'd knock this off too. This is the 'Galileo Gambit', trying to bring up others' successful work as some kind of defense of your own.

 

First and foremost, it is a logical fallacy to do this. Your work here is not the same as Faraday, apart from you liked a graphic based on his idea. Secondly, if your own work can't stand on its own, then it is junk. Thirdly, the Galileo Gambit has been tried by countless people -- many even on this forum -- and failed pretty miserably.

 

Please provide objective evidence of your own idea working. Not more story telling. Not more misinterpretations of GR. But actual support for your idea, the predictions it makes, and how closely these predictions agree with measurements.

 

You told me yesterday that you were serious about pursuing this idea in a scientific manner; can you please actually start doing that now?

R(lambda), I think, is the Hamiltonian of a free particle in the absence of any influence on the particle apart from background radiation.

For 0 dimensions:

and for 3 dimensions:

At least I think so anyways.

 

 

Where are you getting "1/length^2"? Isn't background radiation going to have units of energy?

Edited August 17, 2014 by metacogitans

[Bignose]

R(lambda), I think,

Dude, it's your equation. Shouldn't you know?

 

And what is H now? There isn't even an H in your equation. Just R's and capital lambdas.

 

Are you just making things up? That isn't scientific at all. You should know what your equation's terms actually are. Science isn't just making up equations and hoping they are right. Science is the creation of models -- almost always mathematical -- and seeing what predictions those models make.

 

As I actually listed in my post (had you bothered to read it) that 1/length^2 are the units the cosmological constant has. And since you've talked about in this thread, and the cosmological constant is usually written as a capital lambda, I just assumed that that was what your capital lambda was. I could be wrong, but this is on you because of your failure to communicate anything about your equation, and based on the question in your quote above, even understand what you wrote.

[andrewcellini]

I really don't understand what you're trying to say with these equations. R doesn't seem well defined by that equation, and if you're using lambda in a different way than convention you need to define it the way that you mean otherwise this equation is completely meaningless.

 

also why are you bringing in hamiltonians when you don't really know what R is or, at the very least, you haven't defined it right?

Edited August 17, 2014 by andrewcellini

[metacogitans]

Dude, it's your equation. Shouldn't you know?

 

And what is H now? There isn't even an H in your equation. Just R's and capital lambdas.

 

Here: "the Hamiltonian is the operator corresponding to the total energy of the system. It is usually denoted by H, also Ȟ or Ĥ. Its spectrum is the set of possible outcomes when one measures the total energy of a system"

There doesn't need to be an H in the equation; you could deduce what it was from my description of it.. To what extent do I need to explain each variable? To what extent do I need to include variables from other equations? You could keep deconstructing variables in any equation to the point they no longer make sense.

I really don't understand what you're trying to say with these equations. R doesn't seem well defined by that equation, and if you're using lambda in a different way than convention you need to define it the way that you mean otherwise this equation is completely meaningless.

 

also why are you bringing in hamiltonians when you don't really know what R is or, at the very least, you haven't defined it right?

Lambda is the radiation in the universal background; whether certain radiation would be considered part of the universal background is open to interpretation - hence, I stated it was an average or estimate.

Edited August 17, 2014 by metacogitans

[Bignose]

There doesn't need to be an H in the equation;

Then why are you even talking about it?!?

 

To what extent do I need to explain each variable?

To the extent that is it obvious what you are talking about. As presented, R doesn't seem to be defined well. It appears to be a force. Is [math]\Lambda[/math] the cosmological constant? If so, there is a unit error between R and [math]\Lambda[/math]. And now there is an H that you're discussing, but doesn't need to be in the equation. All of this is very confusing to me. And confusing to you, because you admitted you didn't know what R was, and certainly didn't clear it up in that last post.

 

You should define the terms in the equation so that at the best least you know what they mean and you don't have to use 'I think' when discussing them.

Edited August 17, 2014 by Bignose