GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}

wow! One of those great posts we sometimes see around here. I'll have to go over it five ot ten times to digest some of it. Already I have the germ of a few new ideas looking at it. Thanks.

thanks. it did come out better than I thought at first blush.

One of the thoughts that I have had recently, is that what we are seeing as quantum level fluctuations are more like oscillations back and forth in time of the probability field matrix, and this ties us to close proximity with those other "time slices" thus acting much like multiple dimensions with the added benefit of the mass distribution closely matching the viewed time instant distribution.the ghost of universe past and the ghost of universe future acting on the ghost of universe present.If time really is a dimension then what does it look like? Long branching strings of everything from beginning to end? Would not that affect the gravity behavior of systems if there was {mass\energy} distributed along the time axis?I would think that would provide a means to correlate minutes to miles ...the only problem I see is that it makes the universe pretty deterministic, already written into the future yet to be revealed.or the time link is only into the past, and the present is expanding like a supernova ... chaotically ...(click)and we are riding on the tsunami wave of timeor was that the Marrakesh Express?I'm rambling ... enjoy.{{edited to link picture to website}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-23-2005 17:47 AMThis message has been edited by RAZD, 01-23-2005 17:50 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

One of the thoughts that I have had recently, is that what we are seeing as quantum level fluctuations are more like oscillations back and forth in time of the probability field matrix, and this ties us to close proximity with those other "time slices" thus acting much like multiple dimensions with the added benefit of the mass distribution closely matching the viewed time instant distribution.
the ghost of universe past and the ghost of universe future acting on the ghost of universe present.

​

If time really is a dimension then what does it look like? Long branching strings of everything from beginning to end? Would not that affect the gravity behavior of systems if there was {mass\energy} distributed along the time axis?

​

I would think that would provide a means to correlate minutes to miles ...

​

the only problem I see is that it makes the universe pretty deterministic, already written into the future yet to be revealed.

​

or the time link is only into the past, and the present is expanding like a supernova ... chaotically ...

---

Or that the spiritual is also at work here. As things get smaller, perhaps it gets into the door between the physical and spiritual? Gravity, in heaven is , if there is any at all, not a limiting factor. Sorry, I lost my cosmo password, and don't much care.This message has been edited by simple, 10-09-2005 04:16 AM

Or, as the buddhists say, all is illusion, the only reality is the {being that is not being}love the new avatar.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yes Yes Yes Yes, it does...Now, just jump into your time-machine, race back 100 years, and it will be RAZDs General Theory of Relativity

heh.thought you would see this when it got bumped.now just go find me two gravity particles and were off and running eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

RAZD, most of the stuff you've mentioned is in General Relativity.I'm going to ask you now "What do you think General Relativity says and what is it about, what is it a theory of?"You say that the idea of Dark Matter is dogmatic in physics, but surely of all the thousands of physicists trained over the past few decades, some of them would have come to the conclusion that the Dark Matter idea was wrong if the flaw was so obvious.The reason Dark Matter is accepted, is literally a combination of the Scientific Method and Occum's Razor.
It had the most observational observation, far more than alternate theories of gravity.
Also the fact is that General Relativity has withstood so much tests within Solar Systems (not just our own).
So the first thing you presume when subbing in all the Stars in a galaxy for T(u,v) and you don't get the right galaxy rotation curve isn't "General Relativity is wrong", but that perhaps there are sources of Stress-Energy we missed.So far this assumption has more evidence than an alternate theory of gravity.Thats Dark Matter.As for Dark Energy, it's already in General Relativity and isn't an epicycle in any manner.What your saying is a perfectly valid criticism when it comes to Dark Matter, but of the two options "Dark Matter" and "New theory of Gravity", the former has the most evidence and thats why we go with it.Look at the microlensing searches that ran from the 1970s (and in earnest from the 1980s) and are still running.
Most importantly those that looked at the large Magellanic cloud.

Well, I just looked up this old thread, because I ran into someone who thought gravity was quite cut and dry, and I remembered you seemed to question it here somewhat.
My angle now with it is looking at how and if there was gravity in a universe (like heaven) where there is both the spiritual and physical. Obviously, it would not be a limiting factor, if there was any, because people there can fly. Horses, even can fly. The idea came up about if there was this merged world in our past, could gravity have been different? All kind of far fetched I know. I did look up something about gravity, as well, to give the guy, that seems to show it is less than a totally exact, known thing.
""Perhaps no one has so elegantly expressed the objection to such a concept better than Sir Isaac Newton: "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it." (See Hoffman, 1983.) But mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagate at infinite speeds since that would require infinite energy. So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it."
"We conclude that the speed of gravity may provide the new insight physics has been awaiting to lead the way to unification of the fundamental forces. As shown in (Van Flandern, 1993, pp.80-85 and Van Flandern, 1996), it may also be connected with the explanation of the dark matter problem in cosmology. Moreover, the modest switch from SR to LR may correct the "wrong turn" physics must have made to get into the dilemma presented by quantum mechanics, that there appears to be no "deep reality" to the world around us. Quantum phenomena that violate the locality criterion may now be welcomed into conventional physics."
"
While relativists have always been partial to the curved space-time explanation of gravity, it is not an essential feature of GR. Eddington (1920, p.109) was already aware of the mostly equivalent "refracting medium" explanation for GR features, which retains Euclidean space and time in the same mathematical formalism. In essence, the bending of light, gravitational redshift, Mercury perihelion advance, and radar time delay can all be consequences of electromagnetic wave motion through an underlying refracting medium that is made denser in proportion to the nearness of a source of gravity. (Van Flandern, 1993, pp. 62-67 and Van Flandern, 1994) And it is now known that even ordinary matter has certain electromagnetic-wave-like characteristics. The principal objection to this conceptually simpler refraction interpretation of GR is that a faster-than-light propagation speed for gravity itself is required. In the context of this paper, that cannot be considered as a fatal objection.Lastly, we note experimental evidence from neutron interferometers that purports to demonstrate a failure of the geometric weak equivalence principle, that gravity is due to a curvature of space-time. (Greenberger & Overhauser, 1980) This experiment confirmed the strong equivalence principle (local equivalence of a uniform acceleration and a gravitational field), but its results are incompatible with the geometrical weak equivalence principle because interference effects in quantum mechanics depend on the mass. This is because the wave nature of the neutron depends on the momentum of the neutron, which is mass times velocity. So all phase-dependent phenomena depend on the mass through the wavelength, a feature intrinsic to quantum mechanics.""It seemed incongruous to allow for the finite speed of light from the body to the Earth, but to take the effect of Earth's gravity on that same body as propagating from here to there instantaneously. Yet that was the required procedure to get the correct answers."
"Indeed, it is widely accepted, even if less widely known, that the speed of gravity in Newton's Universal Law is unconditionally infinite. (e.g., Misner et al., 1973, p.177) This is usually not mentioned in proximity to the statement that GR reduces to Newtonian gravity in the low-velocity, weak-field limit because of the obvious question it begs about how that can be true if the propagation speed in one model is the speed of light, and in the other model it is infinite.The same dilemma comes up in many guises: Why do photons from the Sun travel in directions that are not parallel to the direction of Earth's gravitational acceleration toward the Sun?Why do total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moon's gravitational forces align? How do binary pulsars anticipate each other's future position, velocity, and acceleration faster than the light time between them would allow? How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because escape speed is greater than the speed of light?"
Meta Research Bulletin of 6/15/94The more I hear of gravity, the more it seems that it just doesn't work the same way in a merged universe, but that doesn't make it not real here, like your monks seem to think.

Closed.

Thread copied to the GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe} thread in the Big Bang and Cosmology forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.