Was Isaac Newton wrong

[Skins]

Forget about the box.... or do you guys like to debate for the sake of debating.

 

Debate is a better word than argue.

[swansont]

 

 

Phi for all. I am willing to learn and I read a range of articles over the net, many of them go over my head. I can tell you guys work in this academic area and are extremely intelligent and I could read all I like I am not going to have the understanding most of you have but....

 

I presented an alternative and most likely far fetched hypothesis to gravity but only Imatfaal made a suggestion as to why this is not possible but I don't necessarily agree (and that might be because I don't have a good enough understanding of this phenomena). I would suggest that if two objects were close to each other both causing an overlapping distortion in space time then energy would be lost.

 

The earths rotational spin has been slowing for thousands of years and that is thought to be due to the gravitational effect of the moon. What if it was due to the energy required to distort space-time or a frictional coefficient due to the distortion of space-time between the two.

 

I still in no way would contend that my hypothesis is correct but to completely discount it, an argument should not be contestable.

 

So I would suggest that if from the model I presented a ball would not roll down a hill because of gravity but because as space flows into matter then time-space is warped and the ball would be following the contours of space-time which should converge toward the centre of the earth.

 

And as it has been put forward there is plenty of inferred evidence of gravity waves but none have been measured yet and so any inferred evidence may be explained in other terms.

 

 

"Explained in other terms" has to include a quantitative part, though. Science (and physics in particular) doesn't just stop with general statements about effects, you have to say how big they are and what the ramifications are.

 

"Objects go downhill" is a vague prediction, and not very rigorous science. Being able to predict the speed of the object, and make specific statements about the difference of speeds between a sliding and rolling object — which we can do — makes for much more powerful science. So unless you have a model that predicts how quickly the energy would be lost, a hazy prediction about planets getting further apart is not very useful and not worthy of serious consideration.

[studiot]

Well I don't agree with this discussion about the box, or the sanction of DevilSolution for discussing it further, although it is off topic.

 

+1

 

If folks really wnat to debate 'thinking ouside the box' then it should be in a separate thread.

 

This one is about Newton and gravity.

 

My answer is

 

By the standards and knowledge of his day, Newton was not wrong.

If we applied modern statistical techniques to the data known at the time of Newton's gravitational hypothesis it would support his hypothesis to a high degree of confidence.

 

He was, however, troubled about the concept of 'action at a distance', but observed that his hypothesis fitted the known facts and could be extended to make predictions that were then verified.

 

In my view, Newton was the greatest scientifc genius ever and his theory of gravity was ideally suited to the knowledge of mechanics available in his day.

Edited December 4, 2015 by studiot

[Strange]

The earths rotational spin has been slowing for thousands of years and that is thought to be due to the gravitational effect of the moon. What if it was due to the energy required to distort space-time or a frictional coefficient due to the distortion of space-time between the two.

 

The thing is, if you come up with an alternative explanation for something which already has a good explanation, then you are saying that the old explanation (tidal effects) is wrong: despite all the evidence in its favour. So now you need to come up with a new explanation for that. And that will probably invalidate some other bit of physics that you now need a new explanation for.

 

Science isn't about unrelated factoids. It is a complex and mutually supporting set of theories. You can't just change one part without needing to make massive changes everywhere else.

 

So I would suggest that if from the model I presented a ball would not roll down a hill because of gravity but because as space flows into matter then time-space is warped and the ball would be following the contours of space-time which should converge toward the centre of the earth.

 

That is pretty much what gravity is. It is not a force, it is things rolling down the curvature of space-time (mainly the time bit).

 

 

And as it has been put forward there is plenty of inferred evidence of gravity waves but none have been measured yet and so any inferred evidence may be explained in other terms.

 

But: (1) there is no suggestion for what those "other terms" are and (2) you would then need to discard general relativity and replace it with something else (see above).

[MigL]

I see this as merely a difference in interpretation, so correct me if I'm wrong Skins.

 

You interpret gravity as space-time 'flowing into massive objects, whereas the standard interpretation is a 'warping' of space-time by massive ( and energetic) objects. And as I've previously stated, this makes no difference as space-time is simply a co-ordinate system. Why wold you think there would be an energy loss if either the 'flow' was added to, or the 'curvature' was compounded ?

 

And why poor Newton is accused of being wrong, I don't nderstand; None of this is Newtonian gravity.

 

As to why you would want to model gravity on a 'flow' of space-time, yuo need to consider a 'source' for this space-time 'flowing' down a gradient into a 'sink'. This 'source' or divergence cannot be accounted for by space-time expansion ( dark/vacuum energy ) as that woldn't explain gravity within bound systems ( solar systems, galaxies, etc. ) where there is no expansion.

 

So what I'm saying is, the standard GR interpretation works ( extremely well ) and has none of the 'downsides' of your model.

 

And absoltely nothing abot boxes !

Edited December 4, 2015 by MigL

[Phi for All]

If folks really wnat to debate 'thinking ouside the box' then it should be in a separate thread.

 

Good idea. [/off-topic rants]

[Skins]

 

So I would suggest that if from the model I presented a ball would not roll down a hill because of gravity but because as space flows into matter then time-space is warped and the ball would be following the contours of space-time which should converge toward the centre of the earth.

 

 

 

 

That is pretty much what gravity is. It is not a force, it is things rolling down the curvature of space-time (mainly the time bit).

 

 

strange said this when I made the above description.

 

Back to I bought up an alternative to the warping of space-time and that is that space was being absorbed by (or flows into) matter and it was that that causes the effect of the space-time distortion rather than gravity.

 

I can't see how general relativity or anything else would change as a result of this description but that is again probably because my understanding is limited. At the end of the day whether it was gravity or the absorption of space that caused the warping of space-time I can't see how that would affect anything else differently.

 

Space in our universe is very interesting in itself and I know that no one has a good understanding of what space actually is.

I have seen it suggested that it could be made up of strings (in string theory) and given String theory suggests numerous dimensions and the properties of these are not understood then perhaps space exists in one of these dimensions in a way that looks different to what we see.

 

Space stretches, contorts and expands, it acts as a medium for magnetism light and most likely gravity and this does not sound like nothing. Space must be something and not nothing as it has properties. Given string theory suggests that the laws of physics came about shortly after the big bang and other multiverses may have other laws then if this is true it would suggest that space must obey our laws of nature.

 

That leads me to another question the universe is expanding into what, is it space; another type of space or something else? If it is and there are other multiverses with different laws then what are the laws of the space our space/universe is expanding (displacing is an alternative word) into. Will this space if that's what it is, have laws.

 

This leads me to believe more that our space is something, it obeys our laws of physics and has properties, many of which we don't understand. Is it a dimension as presented by string theory? Now you're not going to like this but I think yes (I know - no evidence) and seeing it looks like nothing if you were to give it a dimension then what about dimension zero? I know we see it as part of our four dimensional space-time.

 

It is probably only for my thoughts on space have I suggested the possibility of the flow of space as an alternative to gravity. Space is not nothing because it has properties. I don't think I will be alive when someone can put a bit of space in a bottle and tell me they know all about it and how it works.

 

I know I'm not an academic in this area and I hope I'm not upsetting anyone with my thoughts but what I like about science is that we know so little and it leaves lots to ponder and dream about so please don't be too hard on me let me dream a bit.

 

Thx for your patience so far.

 

 

 

 

 

[Strange]

Back to I bought up an alternative to the warping of space-time and that is that space was being absorbed by (or flows into) matter and it was that that causes the effect of the space-time distortion rather than gravity.

 

This is jthe same thing; it is ust a matter of coordinate choice. See, for example, the mapping from the Schwarzschild description of black hole to the Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates. These describe the exact same thing, but have a different physical interpretation (curvature of space-time verse the flow of space-time).

 

 

That leads me to another question the universe is expanding into what, is it space; another type of space or something else?

 

Space is not expanding "into" anything - this is the problem with informal descriptions like "the expanding universe"; it can create the wrong impression. What "space is expanding" means is that, in the absence of any force to keep things together, the distance between points in space will tend to increase. So it may be better to think of it as the universe becoming less dense, rather than getting bigger.

 

 

Is it a dimension as presented by string theory?

 

It is three of the dimensions in relativity. (It may have more dimensions if string theory, or something like it, turns out to be correct.)

[MigL]

Correct me if I'm assuming too much, Skins.

It seems to me you are confusing space with the co-ordinate system, which is nothing more than x, y, z, and ict.

It is the co-ordinate system in the mathematical model which is warped by mass-energy.

If you actually expect to see a curvature in space ( much less time ), its not going to happen.

 

We 'see' things moving in space-time along certain paths, and this is consisent ( extremely ) with geodesics in the warped co-ordinate system of our mathematical model, which is GR.

 

So no, GR doesn't change as a result of your interpretation, but why introduce unnecessary complexity where none is needed?

It doesn't account for any previously unexplaned observations, and may introduce some problems with the 'source' of the space-time flow. If yor interpretation gave some insight as to how gravity behaves at the qanutm level or at discontinities/infinities then, it might warrant further investigation. which is what string theory and loop qantum gravity are trying to do

 

And string theory, with your interpretation, only complicates things further.

While elegant ( so I'm told, I can't follow the math ) it doesn't explain anything from first principles ( yet ).

 

Sorry seem to be having problems with a stck 'u' on the keyboard of one of my laptops.

Edited December 5, 2015 by MigL

[Theoretical]

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

 

"Although gravitational radiation has not been directly detected, there is indirect evidence for its existence.[5] For example, the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for measurements of the HulseTaylor binary system which suggest that gravitational waves are more than theoretical concept. Various gravitational-wave detectors are currently under construction or are in operation, such as Advanced LIGO which began observations in September 2015.[6]"

 

"Gravitational waves are not easily detectable. When they reach the Earth, they have a small amplitude, meaning that an extremely sensitive detector is needed, and that other sources of noise can overwhelm the signal.[43] Gravitational waves are expected to have frequencies 10−16 Hz < f < 104 Hz.[44]"

[friendlyweirdo]

i have had a similar idea. hard to wrap head around, imagine the whole universe was 'falling' and spinning. lots of 'points in space and time' appear which is just space plugged up with matter. (apparently light particles that cooling down) if they didnt cool down they would just keep 'swimming around ' from every conceivable direction in the darkness of space. some particles go through matter with no slowing down of course, but essentially all light goes through the same points and eventually they will cool and 'hit' larger bodies as there has to be a start point and end point for all. It would also explain that it is possible to travel large expanses of universe if you get the right 'track' (wyrmhole). rather than gravity being just large objects attracting smaller objects, the 'course taken' by all energy leads to matter appearing in the same places and is inevitable to gaining mass. and larger objects appear to attract matter, because quite simply they have followed the same route and eventually cool down. gravitational waves being just vibrations of large amounts of energy being converted to matter

Edited March 10, 2016 by friendlyweirdo

[Raider5678]

This would be an interesting theory, perhaps the "plug" is gone and that's where all the dark matter is going.... Either way, they are right about thinking outside the box. The only time to do that is in the hypothesis stage, and even then its not always the best idea. Once you pass that you start to look for evidence, and boom. It supports a few things, but it contradicts everything else, and it's clearly a wrong theory. Also, newtons basic laws have been standing for a long time, and no one has ever proved them wrong. I also know that this discussion was finished a while ago but I like reading old topics.