Speculation arising from the Paradoxical Nature of Black Holes

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

Active gravitational mass measures the gravitational force exerted by an object.

Passive gravitational mass measures the gravitational force experienced by an object in a known gravitational field.

 

Which "gravitational force" are you talking about? "Attractive" force or "consequence of deformation of space-time"?

 

Because you won't understand the event the same way with those two different concepts. This is the only thing I always talked about. And if that problem isn't solved I'll never understand anything.

[Mordred]

You can pick eithor or. they both amount to the same result.

 

Force is just a term, I already covered what it means. It isn't a thing unto itself. It's just a description for a type of interaction regardless of source.

 

In physics, a force is any interaction that tends to change the motion of an object. In other words, a force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or a pull.

 

If your foolish enough to let this prevent you from learning. I can't help you. No one will be able to.

 

space time curvature can cause an object with mass to change its velocity. So it counts as a force by the definition of force.

The only difference between gravitational force as compared to the electromagnetic, strong and weak force. Is it may or may not involve a boson.

 

The three forces are just names of interactions that causes change in velocity. Your just defining the source of the force. Just like mechanical force is one that involves an object ie weight on a pulley system.

 

If it makes you feel better call it space time curvature force.

 

It's pointless letting this get in the way

Edited July 23, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

Maybe you're right.

 

But force is active and deformation of space is passive. And that changes the comprehension of the event. If you get rid of all forces, the only thing left is topology of space-time; and giving two contrary motion resulting of it resolves about all the problems to explain the universe evolution.

 

Have energy following these two topologies and you get kinetic energy (which transforms in other kind of energy) and mass energy. It can't be simpler than that. Whatever equations are needed to explains the events that occurred during the time evolution changed things is something else. But those equations have to come from the original source of everything; the two topologies we observe in the universe: expansion and gravitation. That's all I'm saying. And that's why I'm interested in the mathematic notions you talk about. There should be a simple equation to describe this original source of everything.

E = Mc² could be it. If we understand it right.

 

[Mordred]

With what I've posted on space time. How can you have a topography gradient without particle to particle interactions exerting force upon each other.

 

For example ask yourself "Why do particles collect into a small enough volume to cause the deformation sufficiently enough to have measurable gravity ?

 

How would you explain that without force?

 

One thing to realize, pressure, density and temperature all depend on one another.

 

other properties are the same kinetic energy depends on momentum.

 

The big question of how a universe comes into being all have the difficulty, Where did the energy originate sufficient enough to form [latex]10^{90}[/latex] particles.

 

If I could solve that...

 

There's a key aspect of particles, you haven't looked at in this wide arena of subjects we covered. (Thus far in this post) Wavelength relations. "Why do all particles have BOTH wavelength and point like attributes," followed by "How do these wavelength properties interact with one another?"

(Lol I once read a description of Cosmology " It is a field of study that encompasses all of physics")

 

There was a caveat at the end, but can't recall it.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

For example ask yourself "Why do particles collect into a small enough volume to cause the deformation sufficiently enough to have measurable gravity ?

 

Let's look at it another way.

 

Physics says that energy doesn't exists on its own. And it's right when you take the premises physics takes.

 

But reality says that the whole universe is essentially energy (in fact: only energy). And this energy translates itself simply in movement. Everything in the universe is “in movement”; nothing is immobile. The proof is that you have to immobilise whatever point of referential you need, to analyse the movements of other things. Are you ready to say that the universe doesn't exist on its own? To this day, there's only 4,7% of matter that is observed and identified; the rest is energy; and since matter is also energy...

 

Furthermore this Brownian motion (movement) of the universe separates in two kinds of movements:

1) Free movement (flat space) and

 

2) Contained movement (curved space).

 

Coming back to your question; what is "measurable gravity"? Gravity is an "outcome" of deformation of space-time. When a particle (in fact its own center of gravity) enter such a deformation, it gains speed when going toward the center of gravity of the deformation it entered (and looses back that acceleration while coming out).

 

But even that is not absolutely certain. If a deformation of space is a decrease of its metric, the observed acceleration could be a "constant speed" traveling through a decreasing metric, which gives the impression of acceleration and slowing of time; and the apparent lost afterward could be always the same "constant speed" traveling through incteasing metric.

So if, like you already agreed with me, that "expansion" is an increase of metric and gravity is a decrease of metric, what do we do with acceleration and deceleration in a gravity field?

 

And not only collection of particles cause deformations to have measurable gravity; one single mass particle does the same thing. The mesurable gravity field of a proton is 10^-15 meter.

 

 

 

The big question of how a universe comes into being all have the difficulty, Where did the energy originate sufficient enough to form particles.

There's only one answer possible; it comes from Planck's epoch.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

Honestly the best answer is "How is the metric defined". In order to measure something, you need something to measure. Plus you need a reference frame. Then describe how they interact. (GR 101)

 

That range of questions don't come easy.

 

Like your reference to Brownian motion, its an exceptional example of interactions to pressure relations without container walls.

 

(Extremely rough, assymptotic fluid).

 

One beauty of the ideal gas laws, in Cosmology application is the FLRW metric and also the EFE. Incorporates the Avogrodos number.

 

Look back on my posts on Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac equations. (Brownian motion is involved) though accounted for under degrees of freedom. ( The three forces, (electromagnetic, strong,weak)+entropy,chemical etc ))

 

Cosmology formulas uses large-scale approximations on the gas laws.

I posted a paper on the hydrodynamic aspects of curvature.

(PS that last post was well presented.)+1

Edited July 23, 2015 by Mordred

[ajb]

Topology change only occurs in the presence of mass/energy density. Once you remove mass/density there is no remaining deformation.

How did you get on to the subject of topology?

 

General relativity says almost nothing about the topology of a given space-time; the theory only gives you the local geometry. From the local geometry you can look at topologies that are consistent with this, but generally you cannot determine the topology exactly. So you usually if needed stipulate some fixed topology.

 

Topology change is really only considered outside of the classical theory. Intuitively, a path integral formulation of quantum gravity requires you to sum over all possible geometries and topologies. This allows for a microscopic picture of space-time as 'boiling' changing topology all the time.

[Mordred]

How did you get on to the subject of topology?

 

General relativity says almost nothing about the topology of a given space-time; the theory only gives you the local geometry. From the local geometry you can look at topologies that are consistent with this, but generally you cannot determine the topology exactly. So you usually if needed stipulate some fixed topology.

 

Topology change is really only considered outside of the classical theory. Intuitively, a path integral formulation of quantum gravity requires you to sum over all possible geometries and topologies. This allows for a microscopic picture of space-time as 'boiling' changing topology all the time.

Agreed, I'm trying to translate the OPs post in terms I think he's trying to translate. In particular

 

Maybe you're right.

But force is active and deformation of space is passive. And that changes the comprehension of the event. If you get rid of all forces, the only thing left is topology of space-time; and giving two contrary motion resulting of it resolves about all the problems to explain the universe evolution.

Have energy following these two topologies and you get kinetic energy (which transforms in other kind of energy) and mass energy. It can't be simpler than that. Whatever equations are needed to explains the events that occurred during the time evolution changed things is something else. But those equations have to come from the original source of everything; the two topologies we observe in the universe

[ajb]

Okay, I am at a loss as to what Andre is talking about.

[Strange]

I'm not avoiding them; I don't have them. And nobody else has them either.

 

That is a bizarre thing to say. It is obviously not true as you have been shown much of the maths in this thread. The reason we know that the theories that you reject (such as GR) work is because the equations make quantitative predictions which can be tested against reality.

 

Against that, all you present is opinion and waffle.

Which "gravitational force" are you talking about? "Attractive" force or "consequence of deformation of space-time"?

 

Because you won't understand the event the same way with those two different concepts. This is the only thing I always talked about.

 

These are simply two different, but equivalent, descriptions of the same thing. You can use whichever is more appropriate to the problem you are trying to solve.

 

 

And if that problem isn't solved I'll never understand anything.

 

You have chosen not to understand.

[Mordred]

Okay, I am at a loss as to what Andre is talking about.

Might be an indicator

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

Honestly the best answer is "How is the metric defined". In order to measure something, you need something to measure. Plus you need a reference frame. Then describe how they interact.

 

Let’s try our best and come back to some things we already saw to analyse it:

But first:

 

@ ajb

 

Okay, I am at a loss as to what Andre is talking about.

 

I don’t think you are. Because you said: “From the local geometry you can look at topologies that are consistent with this, but generally you cannot determine the topology exactly. So you usually if needed stipulate some fixed topology » and whatever metric (and not topology) you define, you’ll always have that illusion of increasing/decreasing velocity. We’ll see what defines topology further down in this post.

 

Mordred said:

 

space time curvature can cause an object with mass to change its velocity.

 

1) Then it’s passive and I agree; because “can cause” doesn’t mean it is “active”; it means that the result is a consequence of a passive state (situation of curvature) and not of an active force.

 

2) Everything in the universe is “in movement”; nothing is immobile. So nothing we can observe is passive.

 

3) If a deformation of space is a decrease of its metric, the observed acceleration could be a "constant speed" traveling through a decreasing metric, which gives the impression of acceleration and slowing of time. Then, acceleration and deceleration are only impressions; in fact object have definite stable proper (personal/intrinsic) speed.

 

 

 

The three forces are just names of interactions that causes change in velocity. Your just defining the source of the force.

 

1) Those forces exists only if there’s no metric that exists. If metric exists, there’s no change in velocity; only changes in metric. So the forces are illusions.

 

2) Expansion (Increase of the metric) of the original “size of the universe” (10^-35 meter) produces all possible “intervals” (metrics) between original and actual “size of the universe”. And it’s the velocity of an object that defines the metric that supplies the topology it responds to (trajectory).

 

3) Which means that whatever the results given by considering forces, it doesn’t explain, or even informs us, what the events we observe are about. All those results are false information because the basic of the notion behind them is wrong. Forces don’t exist.

 

 

Force is just a term, I already covered what it means. It isn't a thing unto itself. It's just a description for a type of interaction regardless of source.

 

Then it’s passive and I, again, agree. But if forces don’t exist because metric exists, then we have no clue whatsoever of what gives the different velocities to particles.

 

 

And that brings back what I said previously:

 

 

Furthermore this Brownian motion (movement) of the universe separates in two kinds of movements:

1) Free movement (flat space) and

2) Contained movement (curved space).

 

A) So if metric exists, the only difference of velocity of particles observed, have to be related to the “quantity of movement” contained in a particle; since a particle is now a “curved space” containing movement. We know that this contained movement (energy) is mass energy.

 

B) Since there’s nothing else than those two kinds of movements that exist, they’re the only things that can really interact in the universe.

 

 

C) So this mass energy of a particle (contained movement) would define its velocity in a free movement space-time. That would be the production of its “proper” velocity.

 

Conclusion:

 

If, like you already agreed with me, that "expansion" is an increase of metric and gravity is a decrease of metric, the universe is composed of:

 

1) Free movement, with no pressure possible, producing flat space-time.

 

2) Curved spaces containing movement which are mass particles with “proper” velocity in that flat space-time.

 

Particularities of each events:

 

a) The flat space-time is in expansion.

 

b) The curved spaces tend to join together increasing the size of its curved volume.

 

c) Increasing volume of curved space-time increases the accretion of particles.

 

Last question remaining is:

 

Does accretion of particle slows down the velocity of those particles?

 

My answer is yes for the translation; but no for movement. Because since their translation is transferred into a rotation (because the accretion of particles produces a rotation of the group of particles around its center) the movement (energy) accumulated can’t decrease and the total movement (energy) stays equivalent.

 

What did I miss? I'm sure I did.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Strange]

What did I miss? I'm sure I did.

 

The maths and evidence supporting all these claims.

[Mordred]

I agree, if your making claims you need to back them up with the math.

Other than that I'm tired of repeating corrections.

Again we come back to " How is the metric defined and measured".

You keep thinking a metric can cause ... a metric isn't a physical thing. It's only mathematics.

 

 

Space time metrics is a coordinate system. A coordinate system does not cause motion.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

You're right

 

An I'm not 5'10'' cause lenght is only mathematics.

 

So everything is settled thanks everyone.

 

Except that it's the metric that causes a curved trajectory. If ever you have time draw a decreasing metric and make a particle travel through it. You'll see.

[Mordred]

You're right

 

An I'm not 5'10'' cause lenght is only mathematics.

 

So everything is settled thanks everyone.

 

Except that it's the metric that causes a curved trajectory. If ever you have time draw a decreasing metric and make a particle travel through it. You'll see.

Metrics don't cause anything. Metrics is mathematics not a thing. That's the point you miss.

In order to have a metric you need something to measure.

 

In order to have any interaction you need two or more objects or particles.

 

Metrics only describe interactions, they don't cause interactions.

Space time curvature results from stress energy density. I've already posted the relations to energy density and pressure. As well as included a hydrodynamic coverage of GR in the master geodesic article

Edited July 23, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

Mordred;

 

I want to ask you a simple question:

 

If the universe started at a diameter of 10^-35 meter and from that point on began expanding, wouldn't 10^-35 meter a basic metric to mesure the universe in regard of the ratio of expansion and elapsed time, since it's the smallest lenght possible to exist?

Edited July 23, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

The loop Quantum gravity article should answer that. Google spin foam. Basically it's a coordinate map of probability amplitudes. It's not intended to state space time is a substance made out of foam. It is a coordinate map of specific actions. In particular wavefunctions.

Spin foam is the more modern form of quantum foam.

Pop media articles tend to refer to it as a substance. It's not.

 

Google quantum harmonic oscillator, Heisenburg uncertainty principle, De Broglies wavelength, Schrodingers equation and see how Planck length is defined.

 

Another useful link is Google zero point energy.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Mordred

[Andre Lefebvre]

Thank you Mordred;

 

Meanwhile here is what happens when an object travels through the metric of a space-time deformation with speed superior to escape velocity:

 

 

Naturally, If the geodesic of the deformation has a metric of 10^-35 meter, the trajectory of the object will be a curve trajectory.

 

If you think about it, while the object is going through decreasing metric, it seems to increase velocity and time seems to slow down; while passing through increasing metric, it seems to decrease velocity and time speeds up; but in fact, the object always keep the same velocity and comes out at the same speed as when he entered the space-time deformation.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

How is geodesic of deformation defined ?

 

Geodesic follows the principle of least action.

 

[latex]\mathcal{L}[/latex]

 

is known as the Lagrangian density. The Lagrangian density is divided into two parts, the density for the orbiting particle [latex]\mathcal{L}_p[/latex] and the density [latex] \mathcal{L}_e [/latex] of the gravitational field generated by all other particles including those comprising the earth,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_motivation_for_general_relativity

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

How is geodesic of deformation defined ?

 

We're talking about the geometry of space-time. The basic lenght is 10^-35 meter. This lenght define the "intervals" of the metric. The actual metric of the universe is its size (diameter) in lightyears; all the previous "sizes" have been a metric of the universe. It's the velocity of an object that defines the metric it travels.

 

 

 

Geodesic follows the principle of least action.

 

And the object follows the shortest trajectory according to its velocity.

 

 

 

and the density of the gravitational field generated by all other particles including those comprising the earth,

 

Density of a deformation of space-time isn't increased by objects orbiting around the main object of the deformation. Simply because the center of gravity of the orbiting object (moon) isn't "merge" with the center of gravity of the main object (Earth). That's one of the "inexactitudes" caused by the notion of "attractive forces". There is no such "active" force.

 

On the drawing I made, any object can take an orbit around the center of the deformation in accord with its velocity. If it's not fast enough, it directs itself to the center of gravity because of the topology an not because of "attraction"; and when it gets there it increase the mass energy (pressure) on the center of gravity which results in increasing the "size" of the deformation and pushes that center point further back in the previous metric.

 

On the other hand, density increases with the decreasing of metric; so how can the object keep the same speed? That's the best argument you have and I can't answer to it (for now). I'll think about it.

 

Thanks a lot Mordred.

Edited July 23, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Mordred]

 

And the object follows the shortest trajectory according to its velocity.

The shortest path is a geodesic. Geodesics are defined by the principle of least action. Your not going to be able to avoid the energy density relations of curvature

 

"At such small scales of time and space, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles and then annihilate without violating physical conservation laws. As the scale of time and space being discussed shrinks, the energy of the virtual particles increases. According to Einstein's theory of general relativity, energy curves space-time. This suggests thatat sufficiently small scalesthe energy of these fluctuations would be large enough to cause significant departures from the smooth space-time seen at larger scales, giving space-time a "foamy" character."

 

Quantum foam.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

 

Here is the problem tests of quantum foam show space as smooth not lumpy.

 

At least to the Planck scale.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/searching-for-a-quantum-foam-bubbling-through-the-universe/

Edited July 23, 2015 by Mordred

[Strange]

We're talking about the geometry of space-time. The basic lenght is 10^-35 meter. This lenght define the "intervals" of the metric. The actual metric of the universe is its size (diameter) in lightyears; all the previous "sizes" have been a metric of the universe. It's the velocity of an object that defines the metric it travels.

 

You don't actually know what a metric is, do you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor#Definition

[Andre Lefebvre]

 

 

Geodesics are defined by the principle of least action.

 

In my mind, the geodesic is the geometry of a volume of deformed space-time; I could be mixing up with topology, which is for me what the trajectory follows. So a trajectory follows the topology of a geodesic (in my mind; am I mixing up terms?).

 

 

 

You don't actually know what a metric is, do you?

 

Maybe not. How do you call the different intervals of 10^-35 meter that space-time went through while expanding? What is the name of the equivalent, in space-time, of the increasing wavelength of electromganetic?

Edited July 23, 2015 by Andre Lefebvre

[Strange]

 

In my mind, the geodesic is the geometry of a volume of deformed space-time; I could be mixing up with topology, which is for me was the trajectory follows. So a trajectory follows the topology of a geodesic (in my mind; am i mixing up terms?).

 

You really don't know what any of these words mean, do you. And yet you throe them around with such confidence.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Geodesic.html

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Topology.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect