A new model for General Relativity.

[JohnSSM]

 

I actually have a lot to say about this (I didn't see it before) but I don't have much time right now.

 

Firstly, I suspect that calculating the total space-time curvature between two objects is very hard, even when they are stationary. (If they are orbiting each other, then my understanding is that it cannot be solved analytically.)

 

You can use your/Newton's inverse square law to calculate that the net force is zero. But I'm not sure that means the space time curvature is zero. (For example the net gravitational force at the center of the Earth is zero, but the space-time curvature is maximal.)

 

So we can't come up with a quantitative (i.e. scientific) test from your idea unless we can predict exactly what the magnitude of the effect is. For example, we can look at existing pairs of bodies in space (Sun-Earth or Earth-Moon, for example) and see that there is no wormhole created there.

So how large do the masses need to be?

How far apart do they need to be?

Could we do it in a lab with two large weights?

Do they need to be planets, stars, galaxies?

Galaxies are bigger but further apart - are they more or less likely to meet your requirements?

Which galaxies are big enough?

 

And on and on. You are not going to get anyone to lend you their spaceship and team of scientists until you can answer questions like this. Ultimately, this is why science relies on mathematics - why a theory must be mathematical.

 

One way we could test your idea is to use GR to calculate what theory predicts would happen. But if you think GR is wrong, then that doesn't help.

Thanks for the read and the comments...yes...thank you! I know it takes energy to read someone else's words and truly consider them...

 

Yes, Im running into some of the same walls with my own experiment at this point...But let me give an extreme example...the larger the scale i use, it makes the effect more drastic...

 

Lets say we have a cluster of galaxies.. five of them, and just for easy's sake, we make them all roughly the same in mass...

 

So our five galaxy clusters are all compressing the grids within them and surrounding them..even obeying the shell theorem that i just read...this next part is going to be very layman...im sorry...

 

So you have the compressive energy from 5 different galaxies converging on an area of spacetime...Lets just say for easy's sake that from the 5 different gravitational fields, there is 30 percent of one, 25 percent another, 30, 40 and 10 percent left over..it suggests that the galaxy clusters are not spaced evenly from a common center...IF these fields converge and the compressive energy combines and adds together,youve got 135 percent of the compression in the middle of space where no mass exists at all...since the 5 masses could not all be coverging on the same axis, that would have to be taken into account and would lower the resulting energy below 100 percent...But you still may have 50 percent of the compressive force of gravity left over in a region of spacetime with no mass...So you take 50 percent of the gravitational force of just one of our five galaxies and it exists is a very small area of spacetime where the convergence happens...if your 5 galaxy clusters are in a star pattern on a flat axis and at equal distances, and you could travel perpendicular to that axis in the absolute place in space time where the convergence occurs, in this case, in the center of that star formation, i thoerize you could now use that energy to accelerate to very fast speeds... the speed of light? I dont know...at this point the theory only makes the claim that this effect would allow for powerless acceleration...giving your craft the same intense gravitational energy as half a galaxy...But you will only exwerience this effect with the correct vector...If you travel accros this zone and do not hit that vector, your craft will be tugged from all 5 directions...in the experiment, our craft does not hit that vector...so it flies from one galaxy to another...but as it travels through that space, the time/length dilation would exist...because spacetime is still additively compressed even though the effect cannot be detected by a change in acceleration...cause the gravity is still compressing back at different vectors...time doesnt have a vector...

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, we were (or I was) talking about your description terms of spheres and their surface areas. That is the inverse square law that I said was obvious. (That can be derived from GR, but it isn't simple.)

 

Secondly, people's mental image of space-time curvature (including your idea and the picture I posted) all come from the mathematics, not the other way round.

 

If you tell me that you came up with the idea of space-time being curved and compressed without ever having read anything about Einstein or GR then I won't believe you. Even Einstein had to do a lot of (mathematical) work before he could understand that was what was required.

No...of course I heard that Einstein came up with curved space time...I came up with compression for a model as to how those curves are formed...You probably did not read the post where I describe that process but ill either find it or write it again...You know how many times Einstien mentions compression in his published theories or discussions? I didnt find any references to it...How much could my concept of compression have been on his mind? Then again, I thought it very obvious...you cannot curve things without changing their "internal" geomtery...if you want to curve something, it must be flexible...try to curve a zippo lighter...it dont bend so well...but the real truth is, it dont compress so well...because compression is the impetus of bending and not the other way around...

 

He doesnt mention compresison and I dont mention whatever it is hes talking about because I dont get it...but we did end up with very similiar models...can you find another graphic that represents the geomtery like the 3d one you showed earlier? I sincerely want a collection of them...if you happen to come across another...I cannot find another...so it doesnt seem that common a notion...you can find the 2d bowling ball latex thing all over the place by googling "gravitational models of space" and looking at the images...theres like 500 of those...

 

So....my mental picture did not come from mathematics brotha...i have no idea how to create that geometry with math...but i can do it with big blocks of foam and basketballs...

 

 

 

 

Thats why I thought it so amazing when i saw that drawing...Ive actually searched craigslist a couple times when i went looking for a 3d cpu modelling expert to create the same thing...none of them would come meet me cuz they didnt understand what I was asking...

I was like....imagine a big piece of memory foam with gridlines running through it in all 3 dimensions...now imagine i can slip a rubber membrane into the middle of the foam and magically pump it up....what we want to observe and model is the effect this has on the gridlines of the foam as it is forced away..which should be a spherical pattern of those grid boxes compressed near the edges of the rubber membrane, with the compressing easing as it gets back its natural shape travelling away from the center of the rubber membrane...none of them could understand...but that thought is how i got here...

Yeesh your flying around in your spaceship. You want to calculate the force of gravity between your spaceship and the planet you are orbiting. What formula would you use? Lets ignore the second planet.

for the love of snoopy! you are too much...i wanna party with you...im sure youre a ballbsuter

[swansont]

The mechanism of EM is charge. What else drives EM besides charge?

 

So the mechanism of gravity is mass (Newtonian) and extends to energy in GR. Why is charge as a mechanism acceptable but gravity is not?

 

(E&M = Electricity & Magnetism)

[JohnSSM]

 

So the mechanism of gravity is mass (Newtonian) and extends to energy in GR. Why is charge as a mechanism acceptable but gravity is not?

 

(E&M = Electricity & Magneti

So mass is the mechanism and effects spacetime...as charge is the mechanism and effects the EMF...

 

or does mass effect something else in gravity's case? The only other logical thing it could effect would be "other mass"...but what travels from one of the masses to inform the other mass that an effect is due? the gravitron...ugh..i dont like it!

 

but without the graviitron, spacetime must become the communicative medium...it must have properties that allow for the transfer of information and if something has properties then it does exist and is not nothing...or couldnt seem to be nothing...

 

So, do you adopt the gravitron as the absolute field tenser of gravity? Ive met lots of GR enthusiasts who say no to the gravitron...and they are GR enthusiasts...

 

so the difference seems to be that everyone knows about the photon and its tensor field communications are like bedrock in physics...the gravitron is like the shunned step child...is that only my perspective?

Edited January 8, 2015 by JohnSSM

[swansont]

GR is a classical theory, and does not include an exchange particle. That's why I was comparing to classical E&M, and not quantum theory. The graviton (only one r) would be the exchange particle in a quantum theory of gravitation, which currently doesn't exist as a working theory.

[JohnSSM]

GR is a classical theory, and does not include an exchange particle. That's why I was comparing to classical E&M, and not quantum theory. The graviton (only one r) would be the exchange particle in a quantum theory of gravitation, which currently doesn't exist as a working theory.

My lack of formal education started combining QM and GR...

 

But i cant say I know much about EM without photons...i always considered them inseparable...

GR is a classical theory, and does not include an exchange particle. That's why I was comparing to classical E&M, and not quantum theory. The graviton (only one r) would be the exchange particle in a quantum theory of gravitation, which currently doesn't exist as a working theory.

So what is light in classical E&M?

GR is a classical theory, and does not include an exchange particle. That's why I was comparing to classical E&M, and not quantum theory. The graviton (only one r) would be the exchange particle in a quantum theory of gravitation, which currently doesn't exist as a working theory.

By the way, I believe you suggested i develop a test or experiment for my theory which i found very daunting as you suggested it...but became very interesting as I tried and came up with one...Yuo can read the experiment on post #89...I Just mention it in passing cuz I do think you inspired that bit...if you get the time and inclination, your feedback would be great.

Thanks for hinting me into using the rules to keep this post as clean as i could...

GR is a classical theory, and does not include an exchange particle. That's why I was comparing to classical E&M, and not quantum theory. The graviton (only one r) would be the exchange particle in a quantum theory of gravitation, which currently doesn't exist as a working theory.

IS the merger of GR and QM akin to unifying the four forces? It seems so, but i have to admit that its blurry to me...is the working model of quantum gravity, the gravitron, holding up unification? Is that the issue?

[swansont]

My lack of formal education started combining QM and GR...

 

But i cant say I know much about EM without photons...i always considered them inseparable...

So what is light in classical E&M?

 

It's an electromagnetic wave. Made up of fields, which aren't real things. It works fine in lots of situations, where the quantum nature isn't important.

[JohnSSM]

I am willing to pay someone who is willing to let me ask them some questions about GR...kinda like a tutor...am I allowed to make such offers? If not, please forgive me...It will not be a discussion about my thoery at all...I just have some specific questions about GR...

 

It's an electromagnetic wave. Made up of fields, which aren't real things. It works fine in lots of situations, where the quantum nature isn't important.

If fields require energy, how can they not be real things? this fake or "unreal" thing over here is using up my energy? This may get annoying to you...

Edited January 8, 2015 by JohnSSM

[swansont]

 

By the way, I believe you suggested i develop a test or experiment for my theory which i found very daunting as you suggested it...but became very interesting as I tried and came up with one...Yuo can read the experiment on post #89...I Just mention it in passing cuz I do think you inspired that bit...if you get the time and inclination, your feedback would be great.

 

You don't really make any predictions, nor do you explain how your idea differs from GR in what it would find.

 

I also not that in the following post, ajb said basically the same thing as I later did about E&M.

I am willing to pay someone who is willing to let me ask them some questions about GR...kinda like a tutor...am I allowed to make such offers? If not, please forgive me...It will not be a discussion about my thoery at all...I just have some specific questions about GR...

 

You should start a thread where you ask questions about it (and not insist an any new interpretation or conjecture)

 

If fields require energy, how can they not be real things? this fake thing over here is using up my energy?

 

Energy isn't a physical thing, either. It's a property.

[JohnSSM]

 

You don't really make any predictions, nor do you explain how your idea differs from GR in what it would find.

 

I also not that in the following post, ajb said basically the same thing as I later did about E&M.

 

You should start a thread where you ask questions about it (and not insist an any new interpretation or conjecture)

 

Energy isn't a physical thing, either. It's a property.

I did make a prediction but Yes, youre right...thats a good point...I was thinking, what if general relativity does predict this also? If it did, i would be pretty excited that once again, my thoughts could align with results of equations without ever doing them...if general theory didnt predict them, then we might have a real test or something I could show was different than GR...in that perspective, I was fine with both outcomes...Is my description and occurence of worms holes the same as how GR predicts them? that would blow my mind...

I did make a prediction but Yes, youre right...thats a good point...I was thinking, what if general relativity does predict this also? If it did, i would be pretty excited that once again, my thoughts could align with results of equations without ever doing them...if general theory didnt predict them, then we might have a real test or something I could show was different than GR...in that perspective, I was fine with both outcomes...Is my description and occurence of worms holes the same as how GR predicts them? that would blow my mind...

My questions are really simple and annoying...i dont think anyone wants to bother with them...

I did make a prediction but Yes, youre right...thats a good point...I was thinking, what if general relativity does predict this also? If it did, i would be pretty excited that once again, my thoughts could align with results of equations without ever doing them...if general theory didnt predict them, then we might have a real test or something I could show was different than GR...in that perspective, I was fine with both outcomes...Is my description and occurence of worms holes the same as how GR predicts them? that would blow my mind...

My questions are really simple and annoying...i dont think anyone wants to bother with them...

You had some perspectives and made some points that ABJ did not...I wasnt even aware that I was mixing my GR and my QM...there were lots of small topics on the table at the same time...Your words had more impact on me...for whatever that is worth...

I didnt even think of what being a "classical" theory meant...and then I remembered that there are no particles in GM and its all based on geometry only...but i truly didnt think to change my perspective of EM to not include QM...I dont often think of electromagnetism in "classical" terms...and waveforms still exist for me in QM...I never separated GR into waveforms and QM into particles...Ive always view any mention of a particle as a particle wave, and any mention of a waveform as a particle wave...

One carries momentum and the other carries amplitude...i see them as kinda interchangeable...to me, the difference between a particle and a wave is just a model and a perspective...one has mass,the other has frequency...

Edited January 8, 2015 by JohnSSM

[swansont]

 

One carries momentum and the other carries amplitude...i see them as kinda interchangeable...to me, the difference between a particle and a wave is just a model and a perspective...one has mass,the other has frequency...

 

Photons have no mass, though.

 

One of the traits of the foam space model is that 2 areas of compression can add together to create changes in time and length dilation out in the middle of empty space...Why? the compressed space time region of one star hits the compressed space-time region of another star, and the compressive product is more than both alone. So, I suppose we would need to get into a spaceship and fly from one star to the next...through this journey, we would reach a point, in space-time, between the stars where the gravitational influence from the one in front of us is growing larger than the one behind us...the gravitation should make a smoothe slope from one to the other in this transition...in between 2 stars with the correct masses and distance apart, there should be a region of spacetime where the time dilation and length dilation increase but the gravity does not increase, simply changes the direction of acceleration.

 

 

Does the compression increase or decrease as you move away from a celestial body?

[JohnSSM]

 

Photons have no mass, though.

 

Does the compression increase or decrease as you move away from a celestial body?

Feyman called photons corpusles...interesting word that essentially means "particle"...mass or not, that was his perspective...

 

i never really agreed with him on that...his big argument was that a photon has a front and back...and it seems a wave can have a front and back...

 

 

 

Does the compression increase or decrease as you move away from a celestial body?

This answer is gonna open a can of worms...

 

In my thoery, the compression of space-time is MOST at the surface, And it decreases as one moves away from the center of mass...

But it is only compressed due to the lack of gluon energy...because of that, time runs slower and one dimension of space shrinks...The dimension in the vector of the gravitational compression...standing up on earth means you shrink from your head down...laying down on your back means you shrink from you chest down...time doesnt care how youre positioned...it just shrinks...

Is it ok to speculate about the gluon field? cuz thats how it all gets unified in my thoery...

Im pretty sure that GR folk see the space time at the edge of a blackhole to be strectched...or that is how their perspective has seemed to me...

My theory explains back holes in the sense of smashing space time out of existance...like heat detroys EM fields...gravity can destory the spacetime field...andthe impetus is beinog compressed down to nothing...its easy to imagine foam that is so pressurized that it no longer has foam like qualities...

The theory goes on to suggest that the energy in black holes no longer follows the four forces...because the four forces are created by the conflict between space time and what I like to call mass-energy...in the case of black holes, mass-energy has won and energy is free do whatever its possibilties now dictate...and without spacetime to "tame" its tendencies, it kinda just exists as a pool of lawless potential...but cant really interact with the energies that do exist within spacetime...one the other side of that horizon...where we are

Edited January 8, 2015 by JohnSSM

[swansont]

Gluons as the cause is where you differentiate yourself, and that's what you need to test.

 

 

 

 

My theory explains back holes in the sense of smashing space time out of existance...like heat detroys EM fields...gravity can destory the spacetime field...andthe impetus is beinog compressed down to nothing...its easy to imagine foam that is so pressurized that it no longer has foam like qualities...

 

I don't think your characterization of black holes smashing space time out of existence is correct, and heat destroying EM fields is news to me. High temperatures can e.g. affect the source of magnetic fields in ferromagnets, but that's a well-known mechanism, and it's not because the heat does anything to the fields themselves.

[JohnSSM]

"I don't think your characterization of black holes smashing space time out of existence is correct..."

 

If you need to be harsher because "theres NO WAY my characterization of black holes smashing space time out of existance is correct"...Then do it, otherwise you leave me thinking that you arent for sure...

If you want to...no pressure to be harsher...my point is...it didnt sound that solid and i wouldnt want you to spare me for my feelings sake...

You cant decrease the strength of magnets by heating them? I thought it was possible...I might be thinking superconductivty with magnets and heat...

[Strange]

No...of course I heard that Einstein came up with curved space time...I came up with compression for a model as to how those curves are formed...You probably did not read the post where I describe that process but ill either find it or write it again...You know how many times Einstien mentions compression in his published theories or discussions? I didnt find any references to it...

<snip for brevity>

...but we did end up with very similiar models...

 

Strictly speaking, you don't have a model (this is a word that is often misunderstood, like "theory") you have a mental image. And, I'm afraid not a very accurate one when it comes to GR. The reason Eisntein doesn't mention "compression" is because this is not a concept described by the equations. It is something that the diagram I posted appears to show and that one might imagine is described by the equations. But isn't.

 

The maths of GR is waaaay over my head. But I have learnt a bit about how it works. One of the most important things I have learnt (by being frequently corrected) is when not to extrapolate based on intuition and mental model - occasionally that will egt you the right answer but more often it will lead you astray.

[JohnSSM]

 

Strictly speaking, you don't have a model (this is a word that is often misunderstood, like "theory") you have a mental image. And, I'm afraid not a very accurate one when it comes to GR. The reason Eisntein doesn't mention "compression" is because this is not a concept described by the equations. It is something that the diagram I posted appears to show and that one might imagine is described by the equations. But isn't.

 

The maths of GR is waaaay over my head. But I have learnt a bit about how it works. One of the most important things I have learnt (by being frequently corrected) is when not to extrapolate based on intuition and mental model - occasionally that will egt you the right answer but more often it will lead you astray.

Its more than a mental image at this point...thats only how it started...I know what youre saying though...Models in physics are described with equations and not constuctions...

[Strange]

So mass is the mechanism and effects spacetime...as charge is the mechanism and effects the EMF...

 

or does mass effect something else in gravity's case? The only other logical thing it could effect would be "other mass"...but what travels from one of the masses to inform the other mass that an effect is due?

 

In both case, what carries the effect from one chrage/mass to the other is the changes in the field/spacetime.

 

In the case of the EM field, it turns out that those changes are quantised and can be described in terms of virtual photons. But, of course, the same things can be explained classically using continous changes/ripples in the EM field as Maxwell, inspired by Faraday did. (Would you describe those as "compression"? I guess not.)

 

In the case of spacetime no one has worked out how to quantize it and so the graviton is just a hypothetical if-we-could-quantize-gravity-this-is-what-we-would-have kind of thing. Some of its properties are known, even without a quantized theory of gravity.

 

So it isn't a shunned step-child (many people are reserarching it). It is just that no one has fugured out how to do it. Yet.

[JohnSSM]

Heres a thought experiment...You go back in time and talk to einstein when he's still thinking about men falling in elevators...GR was not created when he made equations...and I personally believed he envisioned them way before he started manipulating the existing equations...I would think he probably manipulated existing equations before he came up with what became his equations...So I would be in the elevator stage...and it doesnt make me wrong...or right...just unfounded and unproved...which is totaly understand to be illegitimate...but it is where I am...

[Strange]

IS the merger of GR and QM akin to unifying the four forces? It seems so, but i have to admit that its blurry to me...is the working model of quantum gravity, the gravitron, holding up unification? Is that the issue?

 

My understanding is that GR, being based on differential geometry must be continuous. This makes it a challenge to produce an equivalent model that is discrete/quantized.

[JohnSSM]

 

In both case, what carries the effect from one chrage/mass to the other is the changes in the field/spacetime.

 

In the case of the EM field, it turns out that those changes are quantised and can be described in terms of virtual photons. But, of course, the same things can be explained classically using continous changes/ripples in the EM field as Maxwell, inspired by Faraday did. (Would you describe those as "compression"? I guess not.)

 

In the case of spacetime no one has worked out how to quantize it and so the graviton is just a hypothetical if-we-could-quantize-gravity-this-is-what-we-would-have kind of thing. Some of its properties are known, even without a quantized theory of gravity.

 

So it isn't a shunned step-child (many people are reserarching it). It is just that no one has fugured out how to do it. Yet.

Dont make me do it...I have to...how can you make changes to something you claim isnt real, or doesnt exist? Is this question allowed? cuz I keep asking it...and I know there is no answer for it...but there it is...

 

I can use frequency to refer to compression, or I can use momentum to refer to compression...compression is a model for anything that carries anything...I think my answer is...Yes...would describe whatever it is as compression...I even see motion as compression...miles per hour...increase the miles per hour and we call it accleration...I call in increased compressive motion....the same thing gravity does to us to get us moving...

[Strange]

Feyman called photons corpusles...interesting word that essentially means "particle"...mass or not, that was his perspective...

 

Quanta, photons, particles, corpuscles ... just words.

 

The use of corpuscle is a reference to Newton, who spent a long time wondering if light was corpuscular. Eventually, based on the available evidence at the time (cos that's what science does), he came to the conclusion that it must be a wave. Now we know it is (or can be described as - which is the same thing in science) both.

 

i never really agreed with him on that...his big argument was that a photon has a front and back...

 

I haven't heard that before. Do you have a reference to where he said it?

Dont make me do it...I have to...how can you make changes to something you claim isnt real, or doesnt exist? Is this question allowed? cuz I keep asking it...and I know there is no answer for it...but there it is...

 

Because it is a mathematical model that works. Whether the EM field (or spacetime) is "real" (and what "real" means) is a question of philosophy, not science.

Its more than a mental image at this point...thats only how it started...I know what youre saying though...Models in physics are described with equations and not constuctions...

 

Exactly.

 

(BTW, thanks for an interesting and positive discussion - doesn't often happen in Speculations!)

[JohnSSM]

 

Quanta, photons, particles, corpuscles ... just words.

 

The use of corpuscle is a reference to Newton, who spent a long time wondering if light was corpuscular. Eventually, based on the available evidence at the time (cos that's what science does), he came to the conclusion that it must be a wave. Now we know it is (or can be described as - which is the same thing in science) both.

 

 

I haven't heard that before. Do you have a reference to where he said it?

Yes...Its in a you tube video from one of his lectures... I will do my best to find and note the time, and send you the link through some means...

 

He was referring to an experiment where light was hitting some sort of plate detector that signaled an audible blip...he said when the light was bright, the detector would make the sounds of white noise...but as you turned down the light until it was almost completely off, you would occasionally get a random blip...he inferred that the randomness of the blip as proof that light was a little packet,,,why would a wave arrive at random intervals? then makes a motion with his hands...and says "its a particle"...

 

I shall go looking for the video

 

Quanta, photons, particles, corpuscles ... just words.

 

The use of corpuscle is a reference to Newton, who spent a long time wondering if light was corpuscular. Eventually, based on the available evidence at the time (cos that's what science does), he came to the conclusion that it must be a wave. Now we know it is (or can be described as - which is the same thing in science) both.

 

 

I haven't heard that before. Do you have a reference to where he said it?

 

Because it is a mathematical model that works. Whether the EM field (or spacetime) is "real" (and what "real" means) is a question of philosophy, not science.

 

Exactly.

 

(BTW, thanks for an interesting and positive discussion - doesn't often happen in Speculations!)

Thanks to you too...I surely knew the troubles all this could cause and am really happy that folks are, from time to time, giving me consideration I may not deserve...and that is graciousness..and it creates warmth, if not heat

 

 

 

Because it is a mathematical model that works. Whether the EM field (or spacetime) is "real" (and what "real" means) is a question of philosophy, not science.

 

To me, something must have a nature to have a property...Properties need to stick to some cause...the very purpose of any property is to direct the actions of that cause in some way...If spacetime is being used as a medium, Like the EMF, then to me, its real and has properties which define it...but, its not being used as a medium in the classic model and thats what I didnt understand at first...When you try to put gravity into the sense of having a communication medium, you either need the gravitron or space that just does what geomtery tells it without having any means of communicating it...

 

Unless you adopt my thoery which gives spacetime itself a geometrical form before gravity even enters the picture...giving it an existance beyond gravity..and making it real...

I have a question...Can we take a room and line it with lead or something and shield it from all outside EM influences to have a completely EM free environment? No EMF and no charges?

Edited January 8, 2015 by JohnSSM

[Commander]

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the popularized model of gravity and general relativity that features a "latex grid" with a round object "sitting" on it, presumably being pulled down by gravity, stretching the latex and changing the geometry of the grid. The first question that pops into mind is, if this effect is creating gravity, what effect is pulling the ball down into the latex sheet? It would take gravity to make gravity. The second question would be, What is the latex representing? Or, if you are bending something, what is being bent in space-time? The statement "you cannot bend something without it being some thing" does seem to make sense. So we have a model that takes gravity to make gravity and one which does nothing to discuss the "something" of space-time.

 

I thought on this for many years and always searched for info about gravity and it's causes. The first model I envisioned was more like this. You have a huge chunk of foam and it has grid-lines as well, but they are in 3 dimensions. A big foam block that holds it's own balance of symmetry. Just imagine a 10x10 room filled with memory foam. You've got to make it clear to see the grid running perfectly within it, creating boxes. Now we need a magic balloon that inflates on it's own and starts out insignificantly small. We insert the un-inflated balloon into the center of our foam grid an we hit the magic, remote controlled, inflate button. Our balloon inflates to 1 foot in diameter. What happens to the foam? It compresses, with the area of most compression near the wall of the magic balloon. The compression of the foam would dissipate as you get farther away from the balloon, just as gravity dissipates as you get farther away from massive objects. This really seemed to be a better model for gravity and general relativity in every way.

 

I simply added another dimension to the experiment and came up with a mechanism that would actually bend and change the nature and geometry of space-time. And Im left with why.

 

It seemed that space-time and energy-matter could not "mix" within the same dimensions. Which is to say, in one possible dimensional perspective, they do not mix, and in that dimension, you experience gravity and the effects of general relativity.

 

My ideas on the subject go much farther. Space-time essentially becomes an inherently perfectly uniform dimension, that is interrupted but the occurrence of matter and energy. Energy becomes a different chaotic dimension that bursts into space-time, giving matter a shape and form. E=mc2 tells us how much energy it takes that chaotic dimension of energy to burst through into the space-time foam to create subatomic particles. Creating tiny dents in that foam which result in the nuclear strong force. Imagine cereal in a bowl of milk. What keeps those Cherios together? It's a wave like effect where the slope of both cherios creates a tiny area of strong attraction. On a larger scale, this is the same effect that creates gravity. Space-time really becomes a gel-like database that tracks every piece of energy, which is nothing other than information. Not a crystalline based storage structure, more like plasma with a memory and that memory is time.

 

What makes a black hole? Is it lots of mass? It seems to be lots of mass compressed together very tightly. You can have all the matter in the universe, but you wont have a black hole until it is compressed. Until it mashes down the walls of space-time foam, literally removing time and space from time and space. Which is why light cannot back through it without jumping through some amazing and still unknown hoops.

 

I do believe compression is the key to bending. Since when can you even bend anything without changing it's internal geometry? Even motion seems to be a state of compression. From 10 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour, just keep smashing those miles in.

 

Any thoughts on just the example of the model which ends after the second paragraph? The rest would take much more explanation.

 

I don't think we have understood all the Forces that permeate the Cosmos.

 

Gravity is also not fully understood.

 

This modeling for justifying some bending is also not fully explained.

 

If someone is trying to explain that Gravity needs to be produced and does not happen automatically between Massed Bodies then everything goes for a toss.

 

Why does Moon fall towards the Earth ? Why do I fall down when I slip off my Chair [instead of going up] ?? and such Questions need to be revisited.

 

There must be certainly more Forces than what we have explained so far.

 

Also it will be interesting to know why Accumulated Mass after some Limit tends to blow up. And then as proposed in Big Bang if all the masses of the Universe condense together then :

 

How did all the Matter got together without worrying about Star Limit, Galaxy Limit etc ?

 

And then what Causes the Explosion ??

[Strange]

Yes...Its in a you tube video from one of his lectures... I will do my best to find and note the time, and send you the link through some means...

 

He was referring to an experiment where light was hitting some sort of plate detector that signaled an audible blip...he said when the light was bright, the detector would make the sounds of white noise...but as you turned down the light until it was almost completely off, you would occasionally get a random blip...he inferred that the randomness of the blip as proof that light was a little packet,,,why would a wave arrive at random intervals? then makes a motion with his hands...and says "its a particle"...

 

I shall go looking for the video

 

Actually it was the "photons have a front and back" bit I was curious about. (The bit you describe sounds like the photoelectric effect, which was one of the first bits of evidence for quatum theory - got young Albert his Nobel Prize.)

 

I have a question...Can we take a room and line it with lead or something and shield it from all outside EM influences to have a completely EM free environment? No EMF and no charges?

 

In prinicple, yes.

[Mordred]

To me, something must have a nature to have a property...Properties need to stick to some cause...the very purpose of any property is to direct the actions of that cause in some way...If spacetime is being used as a medium, Like the EMF, then to me, its real and has properties which define it...but, its not being used as a medium in the classic model and thats what I didnt understand at first...When you try to put gravity into the sense of having a communication medium, you either need the gravitron or space that just does what geomtery tells it without having any means of communicating it...

 

Unless you adopt my thoery which gives spacetime itself a geometrical form before gravity even enters the picture...giving it an existance beyond gravity..and making it real...

 

 

In this your not alone a lot of people feel space itself must be some form of material or form of fabric. This is a common problem. It doesn't help when you hear the term the fabric of space time often used. Even by professional physicists. This is where all the aether theories keep cropping up.

 

Part of the problem is energy does not exist on its own. It is a property of particles. This includes fields. As such would also the a gravity field. Which would require a graviton.

 

The term space is just the amount of volume available. Space time just adds the time component. The two are inseparable in many ways one and the same as shown by GR.

 

The thing to realize is that gravity can only communicate to particles.

 

However the average density of space would give roughly the equivelent of 4 to 5 protons per cubic meter. That's a lot of volume with no particles in it.

 

The common argument is to try to fill that up with virtual particles. Zero point energy due to the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is commonly quoted. Aka Casimiir effect.

 

I've always found it best to simply think of space time as a coordinate map. This coordinate map tells particles how to move. Matter tells the coordinate map how to curve.

[Strange]

I've always found it best to simply think of space time as a coordinate map. This coordinate map tells particles how to move. Matter tells the coordinate map how to curve.

 

I cam across the following example (again) the other day:

 

Imagine two people standing on the equator some distance apart. They both start walking due north. They both think they are walking in a straight line with no forces acting on them but they still get closer together.

 

Now, you might be thinking that the Earth is playing the role of the "fabric" of space time. But we don't need the Earth there in this example. It just makes it clearer.

 

We can start with two people located on the circumference of an imaginary sphere. They both move in a "straight line" along great circles defined by this imaginary sphere. They will get closer together, even though there are no forces, just the curved coordinate system.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Strange