Boohda Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 I have spent many years trying to understand gravity. I know very well the current theories and their flaws, which is why I do not believe any of them are correct; not even the much praised General Relativity. And after much research, and nearly every scientific undergraduate classes offered by the good college of USF. I have found a way to understand gravity that fits in very well with almost all of the observed experimental data that I am aware of anyways. And hence created this theory I call Dynamic Gravity. Here is a video of me doing my best to explain it and show some of the reasons behind it: Dynamic Gravity Video Now, why do I post this theory on these forums? Simply to see if there is anyone here that might possibly have knowledge that I do not, of verified experimental data not based on assumptions that either helps prove this theory, or shows it is simply not possible. If you think you know something I do not, please let me know. But as I have said, I have spent many years contemplating every aspect of this theory compared to GR. I will be pleasently surprised if someone can enlighten me to knowledge I am not already aware of, for all that I have already learned but only proves this theory as truth. Aside from one known phenomenon that remains a thorn in my side. I plan to release another video further showing how this theory explains all of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in much better detail. Since I see how I did not explain it very well in this video. Thank you for your time.
ajb Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 (edited) First, this should probabily be in the speculations sections. I don't know that for sure as you have not presented any of your work. Secondly, the rules of this forum state that you should not simply direct all the details off this forum and especially not to just a video. Please outline your ideas here and then we can discuss them. A brief abstract is also required. You might not be able to sensibly present everything, but try to give us a good outline. Do not spare the mathematics, many of use will be okay with that, and indeed it would be needed for a proper discussion. Note you can use LaTex in this forum. Edited April 11, 2015 by ajb
Strange Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 I have spent many years trying to understand gravity. I know very well the current theories and their flaws Could you summarise what you think are the main flaws of GR?
Klaynos Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 ! Moderator Note Moved to speculations. Please review the extra rules and guidelines stickied in the forum for speculations. On the forum can you show, numerically, how from your idea you can find the height of a geosyncrones orbit around the earth?
swansont Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 ! Moderator Note Further, rule 2.7 requires you to post the material for discussion here. A link to a video does not suffice. emphasis added "Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos."
`hýsøŕ Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 You haven't presented any sort of mathematical framework in which to explore this theory, so you aren't really able to make any quantitative predictions which could be testable and could falsify the theory. Physics, especially theoretical physics and in this case relativity/gravity relies on mathematics, and usually the mathematics of manifolds and differential geometry. here you have explained qualitatively some ideas you have about gravity and how it works, your thoughts about general relativity and things. but note that general relativity has had a large amount of experimental support, in the sense that the predictions it makes agree with data to high levels of accuracy. General relativity might be wrong, in the sense that its not the deepest understanding of gravity there is, but the model works well currently, and so in some rough sense it could be considered 'right' anyway. while you say there are flaws in the theory, you've not provided your own theory with predictions, and you've also not gone and tested them, or even had some experimentalist test them. So I would not call this scientific advancement, assuming that's your aim, because it sounds almost like you want to get rid of the existing beauty of understanding that is general relativity, and instead force your own ideas and be considered the scientific hero. But I can only guess at your motives.
xyzt Posted April 11, 2015 Posted April 11, 2015 I have spent many years trying to understand gravity. I know very well the current theories and their flaws, which is why I do not believe any of them are correct; not even the much praised General Relativity. And after much research, and nearly every scientific undergraduate classes offered by the good college of USF. I have found a way to understand gravity that fits in very well with almost all of the observed experimental data that I am aware of anyways. And hence created this theory I call Dynamic Gravity. Here is a video of me doing my best to explain it and show some of the reasons behind it: Dynamic Gravity Video Now, why do I post this theory on these forums? Simply to see if there is anyone here that might possibly have knowledge that I do not, of verified experimental data not based on assumptions that either helps prove this theory, or shows it is simply not possible. If you think you know something I do not, please let me know. But as I have said, I have spent many years contemplating every aspect of this theory compared to GR. I will be pleasently surprised if someone can enlighten me to knowledge I am not already aware of, for all that I have already learned but only proves this theory as truth. Aside from one known phenomenon that remains a thorn in my side. I plan to release another video further showing how this theory explains all of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in much better detail. Since I see how I did not explain it very well in this video. Thank you for your time. OK, I sat through your presentation. You claim that GR does not completely explain the advancement of the perihelion of Mercury and that another planet accounts for that. Two questions: 1. Prove your statement that GR doesn't completely answer. 2. Show how "Dynamic Gravity" explains the advancement. Use math. hand waving doesn't count. 3. Explain gravitational redshift via "Dynamic Gravity. Use math.
Boohda Posted April 12, 2015 Author Posted April 12, 2015 Okay. So there are a lot of request for me to write a summary of my theory and why GR is bad despite my carefully prepared video. So I shall, but I haven't the time to rewrite such a complicated ideal down over again, so I am copying and pasting an essay I did on Dynamic Gravity for the National Gravity Fondation. Sorry if anyone feels robbed, but I am very short of time lately. Gravity is currently regarded as spontaneously forming from the curvature of space-time with no energy transfer and thereafter having infinite range and lifespan. Even Einstein stated that a gravitational field and matter together must satisfy the Law of Conservation of Energy [1], of course he didn’t mention how this would apply to gravity’s creation. But there is another way to explain gravity, one that satisfies the Law of Conservation. Once presumption that gravity is confined to operate requiring energy to manifest. Then freedom in choosing purposed methodology of gravity’s creation can arise solidly based on origins of energy feeding it. I purpose a thought that is not entirely original, but none the less has not been entirely explored. That gravity does not perpetuate in waves, nor is there any such exotic graviton particle exerting the force recognized as gravity. Instead gravity manifests itself as a field. Generating itself from the displacement of the electromagnetic force, particularly under extreme pressure and high temperatures found in the cores of celestial bodies. This is not to say that only celestial bodies are capable of producing displaced electromagnetic forces, the electromagnetic force is within all atoms. Atoms are forced tightly together encroaching two separate electromagnetic fields together at uncomfortably close proximity. The fields do not merge into one field with simply twice the strength, but rather behave as like entities in a field displacing each field slightly further away from its source. Once a critical limit is reached the effect grows exponentially allowing the electromagnetic force to reach vast distances and remain exceptionally strong. The denser the material, the stronger the gravity it emits. Perhaps this is why Cavendish experiments are unsuccessful using lighter materials then lead as the source of gravity. Protons represent the positive entity in the electromagnetic force, the negative entity being the electron. However, a proton is roughly 1,000 times heavier than an electron, which adds significant weight to the argument that the bulk of virtual photons are produced by the proton. As atoms are compressed the electromagnetic field carried by virtual photons expands, drawing towards it all electrons, which all matter contains. Force is exerted on the electrons not only from their parent protons, but also from any large external electromagnetic fields. Pulling the electrons toward the gravitational field’s source, all while the parent proton to the electron is exerting its pull as well. The end result is a net force exerted on the entire atom as a whole towards the source of gravity. Orbital paths of the electrons becoming seemingly erratic could be contributed to such an effect. How curious that the most unstable particle in all of known physics is a single proton. The particle that is so unstable that modern science must still deduce its mass from hydrogen by subtracting the known mass of an electron. The proton is classified as extremely reactive requiring an electron to become stable, and perhaps this is mostly true. Along with the notion that protons have not been observed to fall in a gravitational field as all other matter does. Additionally considered, of the four fundamental forces only gravity and the electromagnetic force share the 1/R2 fall off rate [3]. When two large celestial bodies become in range to be affected by their gravity fields the result is dynamic, in that both bodies emit strong gravitational fields that are positive, and hence will repel each other. But both bodies contain electrons which are attracted to the positive gravity fields. If given a long enough period of time, the overall effect is the celestial bodies will eventually stabilize a distance apart from each other dependent on field strength; locking them into relatively steady orbiting distances. Evidence in this capacious sorting effect can be seen in looking at our own solar system observing the moons of Saturn [2], or even the trend of planets going from smaller to larger in moving further away from the Sun. This is simply because our solar system has had billions of years to reach a state of quasi-stability. The smallest planets will produce the smallest gravitational fields, meaning the gravitational field of the Sun will not be resisted as much when the Sun’s gravity field is pulling on the electrons in a smaller planet like Mercury. From this a rough estimate of how far the effective gravitational fields emanate from celestial bodies can be inferred in proportion to their size. It would be very difficult to estimate the actual falloff of a large celestial body such as the Sun’s gravity to the point where it exerts no gravitational forces upon electrons. Although, it is not unreasonable to assume that vast majority of stars having neighbor stars only 5 light-years away in our galaxy, is the result of a typical stars gravitational field finding stability among other stars at that distance. This repulsive force could attribute to force currently known as dark energy. If gravity was displacement of the electromagnetic force then it could theoretically be shielded and even canceled out. Which could radically change our perception of faster than light speed travel. This is inferred from Einstein’s equation of E = mc²/v(1-v²/c²) by using a more detailed definition of mass such as Mass = Weight/Gravitational Acceleration as compared to the standard Mass = Volume*Density the true reason for why no matter can travel faster than the speed of light is revealed. Drag force is exerted on it by gravity’s carrier particles, drag that must be overcome by energy. However, when the gravity exerted on a mass becomes zero we get the same result in the equation as when the object reaches the speed of light. A zero in the denominator which is an illegal function, hence the equation no longer applies. Meaning if you can be 100% free of gravity acting on mass, the mass is now free to travel speeds faster than that of light. In calculating energy levels required by intelligently designed objects in space, the assumption that object density is more important than gravitational forces acting upon it is untested and unfounded. It is important to understand the significance of mathematics. Generic formulas like that of exponential growth can be used to calculate a plethora of processes from albedo to nuclear fission [9]. More complicated mathematical formulas will apply to more specific processes, but never entirely exclusive to any one process. Gravity Probe B used a gyroscope to measure the geodetic effect and frame dragging caused from the Earth warping space-time [11]. & However, the formulas used are incapable of determining if the effect is caused by a medium such as space-time, or a medium such as a field. Experiments such as the ones testing time dilation must be completely recognized as what they are. Equations used in predicting time dilation have no time dilation formula components, or a time dilation proportionality constant. They are simply showing an affect that has strength determined by distance from a source of gravity, or how fast an object travels through a gravitational field. The time keeping devices used are atomic clocks that work off of electron transition [6]. Electrons emit electromagnetic radiation as they decay to lower energy state orbital paths within the electromagnetic field of the proton [12]. But is electron transition immune to the effects of a large electromagnetic force field? How would the electrons ability to release energy vary as it travels through the field, or as the field itself becomes stronger? Predictions involving any technology based off of electron transition becoming inaccurate cannot be dismissed without proper investigation. The popular model of large celestial bodies creating depressions in the fabric of the universe is wrong. There is no reason to believe that anywhere in the universe there is an invisible fabric made from space and time woven together surrounding celestial bodies. The trampoline model showing the bending of space-time is nothing more than a visual graph showing the falloff rates of gravity’s affects. None the less, billions are spent building large interferometers such as LIGO. And ten years later not so much as one gravitational anomaly detected [4]. No collider has ever detected a graviton particle [5]. The universe continues to expand at a growing pace [8], something that is impossible if gravity is spontaneous and infinite. Dark flows are postulated to explain unconventional falloff rates of gravity [10]. Luminosity surveys and observed phenomenon’s suggest that as much as 90% of the universe must be made of undetectable matter [7], else admit that the current theory of gravity has a 90% error rate from equation to observation.
Klaynos Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Guess you can't answer my question then. Also electrons don't orbit.
ajb Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) Gravity is currently regarded as spontaneously forming from the curvature of space-time with no energy transfer and thereafter having infinite range and lifespan. Okay, we understand gravity as being something to do with the curvature of space-time. You need to clarify your comment on energy transfer. Even Einstein stated that a gravitational field and matter together must satisfy the Law of Conservation of Energy... Energy and energy conservation is very subtle in general relativity and generally we only have a local statement. For space-times that are not static the notion of energy is generally unclear. Also, defining local energy densities for the gravitational field is not really possible; there are some proposed objects but nothing completely satisfactory.. But there is another way to explain gravity, one that satisfies the Law of Conservation. Once presumption that gravity is confined to operate requiring energy to manifest. Please explain this Then freedom in choosing purposed methodology of gravity’s creation can arise solidly based on origins of energy feeding it. Please explain this That gravity does not perpetuate in waves, nor is there any such exotic graviton particle exerting the force recognized as gravity. Okay, but unfortunately detailed studies of binary systems suggests that gravitational waves are real. You would been to show that your theory (which we have not seen yet) is able to reproduce these results. As for gravitons, you maybe right. We know that quantum general relativity and things similar to it are not perturbatively renormalisable. However, there is evidence that such theories maybe asymptotically safe. That is well-defined quantum field theories, just not perturbatively well-defined (as much as these things usually are). Thus, quantum gravity may not be a theory of gravitons. Instead gravity manifests itself as a field. There are various ways of understanding the gravitational degrees of freedom as a field. Either as the metric or a connection or similar. Generating itself from the displacement of the electromagnetic force, particularly under extreme pressure and high temperatures found in the cores of celestial bodies. This is not to say that only celestial bodies are capable of producing displaced electromagnetic forces, the electromagnetic force is within all atoms. What do you mean by displacement of the electromagnetic force? When two large celestial bodies become in range to be affected by their gravity fields the result is dynamic, in that both bodies emit strong gravitational fields that are positive, and hence will repel each other. Antigravity? But both bodies contain electrons which are attracted to the positive gravity fields. Positive gravity field? (Positive Em field even?) I can't be bothered to question the rest, at least not for now. So can we see the basics of your theory? You have given us an interpretation and so I can accept that some of your statements are loose. So now we would like to see the basic elements of your theory. Edited April 12, 2015 by ajb
Strange Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Gravity is currently regarded as spontaneously forming from the curvature of space-time with no energy transfer and thereafter having infinite range and lifespan. Gravity IS the curvature of space-time, not formed from it. And there is energy associated with the gravitational field. And energy is not conserved in GR.
xyzt Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 Okay. So there are a lot of request for me to write a summary of my theory and why GR is bad despite my carefully prepared video. <snip regurgitation of fringe claims> So, no answer to my 3 simple questions, just a regurgitation of your fringe claims. Figures.
John Cuthber Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 I got this far before I gave up. " Once presumption that gravity is confined to operate requiring energy to manifest."
Mordred Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) GR also does not state space time as a fabric like substance. GR is a geometric model of gravities influence upon particles that resides in space. Space being volume only Also to be honest the majority of your post makes little sense. I would suggest you study the Einsten field equations specifically the stress energy tensor. Then look at the electromagnetic tensor. It's evident that you didn't look too deep into the mathematics. One key aspect your missing is the connection between energy/mass density and gravity in terms of space time geometric distributions of influence upon particles residing in the volume of space. In this regard all particle physics, QFT etc are differential geometry relations. In order to show how your model improves upon the existing model you must be able to accurately describe the existing model particularly in terms of the mathematics. Then compare your model in terms of mathematics to the existing. The other side note is the reason the universe is expanding is a consequence of the ideal gas laws, along with the cosmological constant. It's not based on gravity. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Covers geometry and how it relates to expansion. Page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ Http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau The last link will cover the metrics of GR then in the latter chapters Cosmology Edited April 13, 2015 by Mordred
Boohda Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 Guess you can't answer my question then. Also electrons don't orbit. According to the principles that govern DG the math would quite simply make Einstiens formulas look like childs play. Even with Einstien being arguably one of the best mathmaticians in the history of the world. It still took him 10 years and a legion of help from other fantasic mathmaticians. And he still messed it up and had to have it all redone as tensors to a 3d enviorment. I am no mathmatician. But I have figured thus far that for any objects gravatational interaction to be correctly caculated you would need to device a system similar to how calculas works in approximating over all values into smaller more managable segments, the more the more accurate the answer. You would have to account for the density changes in different layers of celestial objects as this changes, the inner core of the earth has a different density then the crust for example. Also since objects large enough to hold themselves together with gravity would also be emitting the positive repulsive force to other celestial bodies you have to account for this aswell, their dynamic interactions. In addition you would have to have the same principles found in Einstiens equations regarding how the external displace field that DG calls gravity is spinning and hence exerting force in that direction. Plus lets not forget the force exerted on our solar system from the milky was galactic black hole core, and black holes in DG are considered super celestial that violate principles of celestial interaction, such as no collisions. Anyways, no I have not figured out even a simpistic equation to govern the movements of the celestial bodies that is better then even Newton's. But let me make it clear to you that even if I had it would not make a difference, there are far too many unknowns to even get an answer if I could give you a full equation. Since we don't know things like the densities of planets at each specific layer or even our own planet for that matter, and according to DG the very accuracy of G must be called into question since almost all experments to calculate it use lead as the source of gravity, and remember in DG mass density changes the strenght of the Gravity field. But I was able to work out a very generic equation working into the estimated masses we have for all of our planets and the distances from them to calculate a sort of positive gravitational stress if you will, I can get you the formula and you can work it out for yourself if you doubt my ablities but I must retrieve if from work tomorrow as I don't have it with me, with these numbers you must realize DG would expect them to be simuliar, when I look at them and taking into account that we are talking astronomical numbers and objects I think they are simuliar to a degree, and keep in mind as I said this formula doesn't even begin to take into account everyting needed for great accuracy, its just looking for a ballpark figure at current form: Sun | Mercury = 29.79 Sun | Venus = 39.00 Sun | Earth = 29.56 Sun | Mars = 10 Sun | Jupiter = 62.46 Sun | Saturn = 28.34 Sun | Uranus = 6.13 Sun | Neptune = 3.81 Jupiter | Io = 301.48 Jupiter | Europa = 162.61 Jupiter | Ganymede = 171.85 Jupiter | Callisto = 89.50 Saturn | Mimas = 62.32 Saturn | Enceladus = 61.66 Saturn | Tethys = 104.82 Saturn | Dione = 86.73 Saturn | Rhea = 84.36 Saturn | Titan = 122.71 Saturn | Lapetus = 12.02 Sun | Alpha Centari = .013 Ida - .488.4 You haven't answered my question either. 1.) I thought I did, GR predicts an static or collasping universe, and in the last 10 years we know according to redshifts that we are in an expanding universe. Hence Dark energy 2.) GR fails at accurately describing the motions of stars in galaxies by a factor of 90%, hence dark matter 3.) GR fails at even describing the motions of the planets in our own solar system, to correct numbers another planet larger then jupiter would have to be orbiting our sun. 4.) GR has no explanation of how Mass effects space/time, it comes down to magic or a maricle, 5.) According to GR the fact that our planets are all orbiting the same direction and are sorted by size is mere coincidence, 9 planets orbiting the same direction is one hell of a coincidence don't you think? Okay, we understand gravity as being something to do with the curvature of space-time. You need to clarify your comment on energy transfer. Energy and energy conservation is very subtle in general relativity and generally we only have a local statement. For space-times that are not static the notion of energy is generally unclear. Also, defining local energy densities for the gravitational field is not really possible; there are some proposed objects but nothing completely satisfactory.. Please explain this Please explain this Okay, but unfortunately detailed studies of binary systems suggests that gravitational waves are real. You would been to show that your theory (which we have not seen yet) is able to reproduce these results. As for gravitons, you maybe right. We know that quantum general relativity and things similar to it are not perturbatively renormalisable. However, there is evidence that such theories maybe asymptotically safe. That is well-defined quantum field theories, just not perturbatively well-defined (as much as these things usually are). Thus, quantum gravity may not be a theory of gravitons. There are various ways of understanding the gravitational degrees of freedom as a field. Either as the metric or a connection or similar. What do you mean by displacement of the electromagnetic force? Antigravity? Positive gravity field? (Positive Em field even?) I can't be bothered to question the rest, at least not for now. So can we see the basics of your theory? You have given us an interpretation and so I can accept that some of your statements are loose. So now we would like to see the basic elements of your theory. Hehe, I am sorry, this is a lot to address, I will do the best I can. Displacement of the electromagnetic force is the mechanism for creation of gravity in DG, it simply assumes that the electromagnetic force which has carrier particales of virtual photons behave the same way encroaching magnetic fields that have the carrier partical of virtual photons. That two separate fields will interact with each other for form one larger field that is larger in space then the original field before it was combined. And as with fields there is a positive and negative entity, DG assumes aswell that the majority of the electromagnetic force is carried by the proton, since it is much larger and is the more unstable unpaired partical then an electron (the negative entity). So yes, there is a repulsive gravitational force that only comes into play between celestial bodies, small objects will not have that repulsive property, so I don't think the term antigravity realy applies here. And as for the binary gravitational waves they have detected that they are moving slowing (at least we think) and an explanation for this is lost energy from gravity waves, that is hardly hard proof. For all we know there could be some other reason why this binary star system is slowing down, and if gravity waves were real then why has LIGO and its counterparts not detected them, they were made to detect gravitational waves well beyond what was predicted, yet there is none. You cannot dismiss all the evidence against gravitational waves inlight of one sole binary star system that is slowing down. And as for gravitons, the graviton was coined because all the other fundamental forces use carrier particales, so it was assumed that so must gravity. Yet 70 years later, that assumption still has no proof. And what about my comment on energy transfer? do you mean that according to DG that the force of gravity would cease to exist if the entire universe were to be frozen to absolute zero? This is a prediction of DG, but according to GR the universe even at absolute zero would still have gravity unchanged. Obviously this cannot be proven on any level yet. So I think it just important to think of it more of an theorectical understanding on how DG works. As I said, I have spent many years sleepless nights thinking about DG and GR, I stand firmly that my theory of DG explains the universe we observe ten fold better then GR ever has. And unlike GR, DG actually explaines how gravity works from the ground up. Gravity IS the curvature of space-time, not formed from it. And there is energy associated with the gravitational field. And energy is not conserved in GR. Lets not split hairs in terminology, espicially when GR has no explanation of how or why mass curves space/time. And according to GR there is no energy that takes place between mass and space/time to create gravity, it just happens. Like magic and then goes on for infinaty OK, I sat through your presentation. You claim that GR does not completely explain the advancement of the perihelion of Mercury and that another planet accounts for that. Two questions: 1. Prove your statement that GR doesn't completely answer. 2. Show how "Dynamic Gravity" explains the advancement. Use math. hand waving doesn't count. 3. Explain gravitational redshift via "Dynamic Gravity. Use math. 1.) Read a couple paragraphs up, I just answered that in this reply 2.) There are so many predictions that DG makes, and all of them but one is observed. I already explained why just simply one man creating the math for DG isn't likely to ever happen in this reply a couple sentences up. But as some of the many predictions DG makes, all have been observed: Normal celestial objects will never collide, planets will tend to be arrnaged from smallest to largest going from sun, planets will all travel in the same direction around the sun with the direction of the sun, Stars will tend to be about the same distance apart if they are about the same size, stars in galaxies will orbit almost the same speed in outer rings as the inner ones due to the repulsive force in DG (there is no need for dark matter in DG), we will live in an expanding universe since super celestial (galactic black holes mainly) will consume near by stars growing in mass producing larger gravity field (positive part in DG that repels other celestials) hence there is no need for dark energy in DG, and there is a speed limit the speed of light for anything that is affected by graivty, protons will not be pulled in by gravity (we cannot weigh a proton), and gravity would travel at the speed of light (not yet observed but predicted), the list goes on and on of how the universe operates if DG is indeed correct. 3.) The interaction of light and gravity according to DG can be explained this way, electrons are affected by the electromagnetic force within the atom, and according to DG, gravity is essentially just the displacement of the electromagetic force, hence we are bathing in an immense electromagnetic force constantly here in the earths gravity field, this is obviously going to affect how electrons behave even in releasing photons, this could easily account for redshifting you describe. Now this explanation doesn't exactly fit well with me, and I believe if anything will disprove DG it will be the insanity of the photon. And as for equations, that is more of a quantum mechanical event and our understanding of the quantum world is spotty at best. I do believe that Einstiens equations are 99% correct, I think he just got it wrong on what the equation is actually calculating. I got this far before I gave up. " Once presumption that gravity is confined to operate requiring energy to manifest." Sad, do you always give up on the first paragraphs on all your readings? GR also does not state space time as a fabric like substance. GR is a geometric model of gravities influence upon particles that resides in space. Space being volume only Also to be honest the majority of your post makes little sense. I would suggest you study the Einsten field equations specifically the stress energy tensor. Then look at the electromagnetic tensor. It's evident that you didn't look too deep into the mathematics. One key aspect your missing is the connection between energy/mass density and gravity in terms of space time geometric distributions of influence upon particles residing in the volume of space. In this regard all particle physics, QFT etc are differential geometry relations. In order to show how your model improves upon the existing model you must be able to accurately describe the existing model particularly in terms of the mathematics. Then compare your model in terms of mathematics to the existing. The other side note is the reason the universe is expanding is a consequence of the ideal gas laws, along with the cosmological constant. It's not based on gravity. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Covers geometry and how it relates to expansion. Page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau The last link will cover the metrics of GR then in the latter chapters Cosmology Please, lets not split hairs in terminology, or we can spend our entire lives arguing over what the best word phrase to be used is to explain something and never actually figure anything out. You know nothing more then according to GR mass somehow magically warps space/time, because that is all Einstien ever said about the matter. His equations as I stated are not invalid, they just don't take everything into account, and Einstiens reasoning as to why energies fall off and behave as they do is incorrect. I would have no problem accepting GR in its entirety if it didn't fail in so many ways, and still never even mention how mass interacts with space/time. As for the mathematics of it all, I said something about that a few paragraphs up. Its quite simply too advanced to complete Einstiens equations to complete the equations to make them 100% accurate. And I did not study Einstiens equations formally in a university because I did not take graduate level classes on the subject, so I do not even pretend to know them as well as others, but I do not need to spend a lifetime study GR to know and understand how it fails according to astrophysics, and purpose another mechanism for gravity that does not fail in those ways. Was it not Newton who was praised as a mathmatical genuis for calculating how gravity affects the planets and calculating their orbits? Yet time has proven his math is wrong, but we still use it when launching satelites into orbit because wrong or not, its accurate. And we just discovered the universe is expanding not that long ago, to say that this is all explained by ideal gas laws is a statement I don't think you will get any astrophysist to agree too. the very existance of dark energy defies all reason in all theories of gravity, except mine, mine predicts it. I would like to think that at least should afford that my theory can be taken seriously.
xyzt Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) 1.) Read a couple paragraphs up, I just answered that in this reply No, you didn't. You just waffled. Please post math, not waffling. 2.) There are so many predictions that DG makes, and all of them but one is observed. I already explained why just simply one man creating the math for DG isn't likely to ever happen in this reply a couple sentences up. But as some of the many predictions DG makes, all have been observed: Normal celestial objects will never collide, planets will tend to be arrnaged from smallest to largest going from sun, planets will all travel in the same direction around the sun with the direction of the sun, Stars will tend to be about the same distance apart if they are about the same size, stars in galaxies will orbit almost the same speed in outer rings as the inner ones due to the repulsive force in DG (there is no need for dark matter in DG), we will live in an expanding universe since super celestial (galactic black holes mainly) will consume near by stars growing in mass producing larger gravity field (positive part in DG that repels other celestials) hence there is no need for dark energy in DG, and there is a speed limit the speed of light for anything that is affected by graivty, protons will not be pulled in by gravity (we cannot weigh a proton), and gravity would travel at the speed of light (not yet observed but predicted), the list goes on and on of how the universe operates if DG is indeed correct. I asked you for math, not for waffleng. 3.) The interaction of light and gravity according to DG can be explained this way, electrons are affected by the electromagnetic force within the atom, and according to DG, gravity is essentially just the displacement of the electromagetic force, hence we are bathing in an immense electromagnetic force constantly here in the earths gravity field, this is obviously going to affect how electrons behave even in releasing photons, this could easily account for redshifting you describe. Now this explanation doesn't exactly fit well with me, and I believe if anything will disprove DG it will be the insanity of the photon. And as for equations, that is more of a quantum mechanical event and our understanding of the quantum world is spotty at best. I do believe that Einstiens equations are 99% correct, I think he just got it wrong on what the equation is actually calculating. ...and even more waffling. Look, the language of physics is math. You do not have ANY math, so you do not have any theory, you just have a giant waffle. Edited April 13, 2015 by xyzt
Mordred Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 There is too many mistakes on your last post to even break it down. Let's start with some basics, first off our current mathematics is fully capable of describing how the Four forces interact and work. Secondly your model of electromagnetic fields and gravity being connected is a very common idea often posted on this forum. Always by those that aren't too keen on particle physics. So this part is easily countered. Gravity can and does exist in particle interactions that have no electromagnetic interactions. All forms of energy can generate mass. Regardless if it's the strong, weak or electromagnetic. In point of fact the majority of the mass in an object is due to the strong force. Some particles do not interact with the electromagnetic force, nor the strong force yet still interact with gravity. If you've never studied the math of GR nor physics ie Maxwell equations and it's connections with Lotentz boosts. Then how can you determine what GR states or doesn't state? In particle physics the SO(3) group is called the Lorentz group. It covers the relativistic rotations. SO(3.1) more specifically. The standard model of particles being covered under SO(3)*SO(2)*U(1). All four forces are covered in the above groups. SO(5) is your super symmetric particles. SO(10) is the SM groups plus Patti Salam (the Higgs field falls under this category) The stress energy tensor of the Einstien field equations accounts for energy/mass density regardless of object. We can model planets inner cores using GR and the ideal gas laws. You obviously have no knowledge just how capable our current metrics and models really are. I can use for example the ideal gas laws and GR to model any gas, liquid or solid body. Yes the ideal gas laws can and do model solids. Einstein happens to have a technique just for that application. I strongly suggest you study the current theories before making a new model. Particularly since you obviously have no non pop media understanding of GR. You have no basis of knowledge in what our current knowledge can predict nor can't predict. For that matter without the math your model can't make ANY predictions. Predictions requires the math. 2
Boohda Posted April 13, 2015 Author Posted April 13, 2015 No, you didn't. You just waffled. Please post math, not waffling. I asked you for math, not for waffleng. ...and even more waffling. Look, the language of physics is math. You do not have ANY math, so you do not have any theory, you just have a giant waffle. Like I said, the math involves a lot more parameters then GR and is hence a lot more complicated. If you love math so much over theory then how about you give me the math to explain dark matter? or Dark energy? or even an equation that is 100% accurate to explain the movements of the planets. Because GR does none of these, yet you parade it because of its complexity overlooking all of its failures. You know very well that Einstien didn't do all his equations alone, the notion of a lone mathmatician figuring out the equations that govern astrophysics hasn't been realistic in over a century. Your expectations are unrealistic my friend. If your one and only point is that I, like every other soul that has ever lived have failed to produce perfect equaitons to describe gravity, then it has been made. Now I challenge you to find them before you post again, since that does seem to be the overlining tone of your post is it not? Are you not basically stating that if anyone no matter what evidence they bring unless they are capable of single handedly fabricating perfect equation to apply then their opinion is obsolute? I am sorry, but I just simply don't subscribe to that logic. For every time you can name of a mathmatical equation being perfect that has held true through the test of time, there are multiples more of the math plain out right being wrong, but it was convencing enough to fool everybody, yet wrong it still was proven to be. I prefer to deal in predictions of observable events. And from where I am sitting your paraded GR has failed, it must be modified if it even can be, or erased all together. There is too many mistakes on your last post to even break it down. Let's start with some basics, first off our current mathematics is fully capable of describing how the Four forces interact and work. Secondly your model of electromagnetic fields and gravity being connected is a very common idea often posted on this forum. Always by those that aren't too keen on particle physics. So this part is easily countered. Gravity can and does exist in particle interactions that have no electromagnetic interactions. All forms of energy can generate mass. Regardless if it's the strong, weak or electromagnetic. In point of fact the majority of the mass in an object is due to the strong force. Some particles do not interact with the electromagnetic force, nor the strong force yet still interact with gravity. If you've never studied the math of GR nor physics ie Maxwell equations and it's connections with Lotentz boosts. Then how can you determine what GR states or doesn't state? In particle physics the SO(3) group is called the Lorentz group. It covers the relativistic rotations. SO(3.1) more specifically. The standard model of particles being covered under SO(3)*SO(2)*U(1). All four forces are covered in the above groups. SO(5) is your super symmetric particles. SO(10) is the SM groups plus Patti Salam (the Higgs field falls under this category) The stress energy tensor of the Einstien field equations accounts for energy/mass density regardless of object. We can model planets inner cores using GR and the ideal gas laws. You obviously have no knowledge just how capable our current metrics and models really are. I can use for example the ideal gas laws and GR to model any gas, liquid or solid body. Yes the ideal gas laws can and do model solids. Einstein happens to have a technique just for that application. I strongly suggest you study the current theories before making a new model. Particularly since you obviously have no non pop media understanding of GR. You have no basis of knowledge in what our current knowledge can predict nor can't predict. For that matter without the math your model can't make ANY predictions. Predictions requires the math. No offense, but there are a few errors here with your data. For one I do not claim that an electromagnetic field is related to gravity, but rather the electromagnetic force, I understand the question has been raised before numerous times of why the electromagnetic force doesn't consist of gravity somehow, but I have taken it upon myself to create a full fleshed out theory of exactly how it could. And the ramifications that my theory expects are exactly what is observed, is that not reason enough to break away from the failed theory of GR for at least a few minutes to properly evaluate it? Do you not agree with the all the astronomers that if GR is correct as it is, then Dark Matter and Dark Energy should not exist? Yet they do. Second all known matter in the universe consist of Protons, electrons, and a nuetron which is simply both combined. All the rest of the standard model is essentially made from high energy interactions, such as particle accelerators. We have no way of measuring the gravitational pull of any sole particle, we can only measure how much they are deflected in magnetic fields, unless you can refer me to an actual experiment that successfully measured the gravitational attraction of anything at a subatomic level? Which is pretty much impossible since there are so many other forces that guide sub atomic particles. And any particle that has no mass goes the speed of light, such as neutrinos. And to all the other data you threw out there out of context, I can only assume you are trying to establish some sort of crediability to your argument. I don't doubt that you are very knowledgable about such matters, but perhaps you can refer me once agian to an specific experiment based of any of these princibles that disproves my theory? Because I feel like you are not making any specific point here, just simply bragging about your knowledge of the many endevors of Einstien. I agree Einstein was a fantastic mathmatician. But that doesn't prove his theory that mass magically warps space/time. it only proves that the elements in his equations are factors in the truth. Obviously he is wrong, or we would be able to reconsile observation with calculation, yet we can not. And I fail to see why throwing his work on gas laws aids his work in astrophysics, two different things my friend. And as for your comment as to me being an expert on all leading theories for Gravity before I dare insist that they are wrong and I have no right to challenge them, that is a trap. I don't have to spend decades or even my whole life trying to master every aspect of every theory and master all the math to understand the basic concept and decide if it explains what is observed. The only duty I owe anyone is to understand my own theory, if you think GR is so perfect then once again I besiege you, use it to completely explain dark matter or dark energy. If you can not perhaps the reason is not because you haven't wasted enough of your life trying to learn it, but rather it is wrong. To put it in another way, I am not a carpenter, but I still can tell the difference between a well made house and a crappy one.
xyzt Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Like I said, the math involves a lot more parameters then GR and is hence a lot more complicated. Then show the math. Or admit you have nothing. Because GR does none of these, yet you parade it because of its complexity overlooking all of its failures. Based on the above, you have nothing, you are just another sad sack relativity denier. Edited April 13, 2015 by xyzt
Klaynos Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 According to the principles that govern DG the math would quite simply make Einstiens formulas look like childs play. Even with Einstien being arguably one of the best mathmaticians in the history of the world. It still took him 10 years and a legion of help from other fantasic mathmaticians. And he still messed it up and had to have it all redone as tensors to a 3d enviorment. I am no mathmatician. But I have figured thus far that for any objects gravatational interaction to be correctly caculated you would need to device a system similar to how calculas works in approximating over all values into smaller more managable segments, the more the more accurate the answer. You would have to account for the density changes in different layers of celestial objects as this changes, the inner core of the earth has a different density then the crust for example. Also since objects large enough to hold themselves together with gravity would also be emitting the positive repulsive force to other celestial bodies you have to account for this aswell, their dynamic interactions. In addition you would have to have the same principles found in Einstiens equations regarding how the external displace field that DG calls gravity is spinning and hence exerting force in that direction. Plus lets not forget the force exerted on our solar system from the milky was galactic black hole core, and black holes in DG are considered super celestial that violate principles of celestial interaction, such as no collisions. Anyways, no I have not figured out even a simpistic equation to govern the movements of the celestial bodies that is better then even Newton's. But let me make it clear to you that even if I had it would not make a difference, there are far too many unknowns to even get an answer if I could give you a full equation. Since we don't know things like the densities of planets at each specific layer or even our own planet for that matter, and according to DG the very accuracy of G must be called into question since almost all experments to calculate it use lead as the source of gravity, and remember in DG mass density changes the strenght of the Gravity field. But I was able to work out a very generic equation working into the estimated masses we have for all of our planets and the distances from them to calculate a sort of positive gravitational stress if you will, I can get you the formula and you can work it out for yourself if you doubt my ablities but I must retrieve if from work tomorrow as I don't have it with me, with these numbers you must realize DG would expect them to be simuliar, when I look at them and taking into account that we are talking astronomical numbers and objects I think they are simuliar to a degree, and keep in mind as I said this formula doesn't even begin to take into account everyting needed for great accuracy, its just looking for a ballpark figure at current form: Sun | Mercury = 29.79 Sun | Venus = 39.00 Sun | Earth = 29.56 Sun | Mars = 10 Sun | Jupiter = 62.46 Sun | Saturn = 28.34 Sun | Uranus = 6.13 Sun | Neptune = 3.81 Jupiter | Io = 301.48 Jupiter | Europa = 162.61 Jupiter | Ganymede = 171.85 Jupiter | Callisto = 89.50 Saturn | Mimas = 62.32 Saturn | Enceladus = 61.66 Saturn | Tethys = 104.82 Saturn | Dione = 86.73 Saturn | Rhea = 84.36 Saturn | Titan = 122.71 Saturn | Lapetus = 12.02 Sun | Alpha Centari = .013 Ida - .488.4 There's a few points I want to make here. Yes provide your equation but also how you can't up with it. Your numbers seem pretty meaningless, where are the units? Without a fully or even mostly formed mathematical model how do you possibly think this idea can displace Newtonian or Einsteinian gravity? Also you should look into the skill of concise writing. Otherwise people won't read your writings.
Strange Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 I got this far before I gave up. " Once presumption that gravity is confined to operate requiring energy to manifest." To be fair, I assume he is not a native speaker and gave him some slack for the writing.
ajb Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 Displacement of the electromagnetic force is the mechanism for creation of gravity in DG, Okay... ...it simply assumes that the electromagnetic force which has carrier particales of virtual photons... Okay, the quanta of the electromagnetic field are photons... ...behave the same way encroaching magnetic fields that have the carrier partical of virtual photons. Meaning? That two separate fields will interact with each other for form one larger field that is larger in space then the original field before it was combined. The two electromagnetic fields? And as with fields there is a positive and negative entity, Electromagnetic fields do not carry charge, so I am at a complete loss with this statement. Without explaining this properly your 'theory' is quite dead. It might be easier to show me your mathematics and a quick calculation rather than trying to explain in words. So please present this 'displacement' properly. And as for gravitons, the graviton was coined because all the other fundamental forces use carrier particales, so it was assumed that so must gravity. Well, you can linearise GR and discuss gravitons in the effective theory, and that is the best we can do right now. Yet 70 years later, that assumption still has no proof. You mean they have not been detected; okay that is true. And what about my comment on energy transfer? do you mean that according to DG that the force of gravity would cease to exist if the entire universe were to be frozen to absolute zero? This is a prediction of DG, but according to GR the universe even at absolute zero would still have gravity unchanged. Obviously this cannot be proven on any level yet. So I think it just important to think of it more of an theorectical understanding on how DG works. I have no idea what your 'DG' predicts as I have not seen the theory and so have not seen or calculated myself any predictions. As I said, I have spent many years sleepless nights thinking about DG and GR, I stand firmly that my theory of DG explains the universe we observe ten fold better then GR ever has. And unlike GR, DG actually explaines how gravity works from the ground up. Great, write it up and submit it for publication. Lets not split hairs in terminology, espicially when GR has no explanation of how or why mass curves space/time. How is explained in the field equations. Why is not really a physics question.
Strange Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) 1.) I thought I did, GR predicts an static or collasping universe, and in the last 10 years we know according to redshifts that we are in an expanding universe. Hence Dark energy Impressive. GR predicts an static or collasping universe: WRONG in the last 10 years we know according to redshifts that we are in an expanding universe: WRONG Hence Dark energy: WRONG Perhaps you should learn a little bit about GR before trying to criticise it. 1. Please show how your theory predicts the observed red shifts. 2.) GR fails at accurately describing the motions of stars in galaxies by a factor of 90%, hence dark matter That has nothing to do with GR. 2. Please show how your model predicts the velocity curves of galaxies. 3.) GR fails at even describing the motions of the planets in our own solar system, to correct numbers another planet larger then jupiter would have to be orbiting our sun. 3. Please provide a reference to support this claim. 4.) GR has no explanation of how Mass effects space/time, it comes down to magic or a maricle, What? We will ignore that as meaningless. 5.) According to GR the fact that our planets are all orbiting the same direction and are sorted by size is mere coincidence, 9 planets orbiting the same direction is one hell of a coincidence don't you think? That has nothing to do with GR. So the "flaws" in GR seem to be flaws in your understanding. Disappointing. Like I said, the math involves a lot more parameters then GR and is hence a lot more complicated. Without the math, you have no way of knowing if your "theory" is correct or not. And there is no reason for anyone else to take it seriously until you can provide such evidence. Edited April 13, 2015 by Strange 1
ajb Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 If you love math so much over theory.... Now I am very confused. A theory is a mathematical model of nature. If you do not have a mathematical model then you do not have a theory. This thread can then be closed. ...even an equation that is 100% accurate to explain the movements of the planets. I am even more confused. As a model of nature the best we can do is look if the model is good or bad. That is does it agree well with nature to some specified accuracy taking into account the domain of validity, experimental errors and so on. I don't really know what you mean by 100% accurate. Because GR does none of these, yet you parade it because of its complexity overlooking all of its failures. Most of us are quite aware of the difficulties of general relativity. It is not expected to be a complete theory and something should lie behind it. So far we are at a loss as to exactly what that could be. You know very well that Einstien didn't do all his equations alone, the notion of a lone mathmatician figuring out the equations that govern astrophysics hasn't been realistic in over a century. Your expectations are unrealistic my friend. If your one and only point is that I, like every other soul that has ever lived have failed to produce perfect equaitons to describe gravity, then it has been made. Now I challenge you to find them before you post again, since that does seem to be the overlining tone of your post is it not? Are you not basically stating that if anyone no matter what evidence they bring unless they are capable of single handedly fabricating perfect equation to apply then their opinion is obsolute? I am sorry, but I just simply don't subscribe to that logic. For every time you can name of a mathmatical equation being perfect that has held true through the test of time, there are multiples more of the math plain out right being wrong, but it was convencing enough to fool everybody, yet wrong it still was proven to be. You really don't understand theoretical physics and what a theory is. Read up on this please. I prefer to deal in predictions of observable events. Without mathematics how can you predict anything? ...these princibles that disproves my theory? You have yet to show us your theory, and reading the above I think you don't have a theory. Anyway, as you are the one making the claims it is up to you to suggest evidence in support, not for us to provide evidence against. In this case, as so many others, without a proper theory it is hard for us to say exactly what is wrong. I don't have to spend decades or even my whole life trying to master every aspect of every theory and master all the math to understand the basic concept and decide if it explains what is observed. The only duty I owe anyone is to understand my own theory, if you think GR is so perfect then once again I besiege you, use it to completely explain dark matter or dark energy. If you can not perhaps the reason is not because you haven't wasted enough of your life trying to learn it, but rather it is wrong. To put it in another way, I am not a carpenter, but I still can tell the difference between a well made house and a crappy one. You have not shown that you have much of a clue what theoretical physics is, what a theory is and so on. Sorry.
Recommended Posts