Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 205 (179693)
01-22-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
01-22-2005 12:27 PM


grist for my mill
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 12:27 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 3:42 PM simple has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 205 (179696)
01-22-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by simple
01-22-2005 3:30 PM


Re: grist for my mill
thanks. it did come out better than I thought at first blush.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 3:30 PM simple has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 33 of 205 (179996)
01-23-2005 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
01-22-2005 12:27 PM


More thoughts of much gravity, with more to catch?
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 time
or 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 AM
This 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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 12:27 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by simple, posted 10-09-2005 4:15 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 10-09-2005 2:44 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 38 by Son Goku, posted 10-09-2005 3:50 PM RAZD has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 205 (250228)
10-09-2005 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
01-23-2005 5:44 PM


Re: More thoughts of much gravity, with more to catch?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2005 5:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2005 1:26 PM simple has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 205 (250279)
10-09-2005 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by simple
10-09-2005 4:15 AM


Re: More thoughts of much gravity, with more to catch?
Or that the spiritual is also at work here. As things get smaller, perhaps it gets into the door between the physical and spiritual?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by simple, posted 10-09-2005 4:15 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by simple, posted 10-09-2005 3:57 PM RAZD has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 36 of 205 (250285)
10-09-2005 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
01-23-2005 5:44 PM


Re: More thoughts of much gravity, with more to catch?
If time really is a dimension then what does it look like? Long branching strings of everything from beginning to end?
Yes
Would not that affect the gravity behavior of systems if there was {mass\energy} distributed along the time axis?
Yes
I would think that would provide a means to correlate minutes to miles ...
Yes
the only problem I see is that it makes the universe pretty deterministic, already written into the future yet to be revealed.
Yes, it does...
Now, just jump into your time-machine, race back 100 years, and it will be RAZDs General Theory of Relativity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2005 5:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2005 2:53 PM cavediver has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 37 of 205 (250289)
10-09-2005 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by cavediver
10-09-2005 2:44 PM


Re: More thoughts of much gravity, with more to catch?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 10-09-2005 2:44 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by cavediver, posted 10-11-2005 6:02 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 52 by cavediver, posted 10-11-2005 6:15 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 205 (250295)
10-09-2005 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
01-23-2005 5:44 PM


Re: More thoughts of much gravity, with more to catch?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2005 5:44 PM RAZD has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 205 (250296)
10-09-2005 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
10-09-2005 1:26 PM


Re: More thoughts of much gravity, with more to catch?
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 6/15/94
The 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2005 1:26 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by cavediver, posted 10-10-2005 4:13 AM simple has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 40 of 205 (250300)
10-09-2005 4:33 PM


Not a coffee house topic.
Closed.

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 41 of 205 (250361)
10-10-2005 2:30 AM


Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 42 of 205 (250365)
10-10-2005 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by simple
10-09-2005 3:57 PM


Re: More thoughts of much gravity, with more to catch?
If you want to know about gravity, I suggest not reading crank sites. It is all very well being critical of GR, but if one does not have a first clue about the nature of GR (vanFlandern) then one tends to look rather stupid...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by simple, posted 10-09-2005 3:57 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by simple, posted 10-10-2005 5:20 AM cavediver has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 205 (250369)
10-10-2005 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by cavediver
10-10-2005 4:13 AM


trying not to be short with someone being short
Well, says you. From your paragraph, I detect a dislike for the guy. But where does the 'being critical of GR' stuff come from? Did I say I didn't like general relativity, or gravity? No.
All I said was it seems that it is less than perfectly understood, and offered a possibility it may be because of limitations one faces not realizing there is more than a physical universe.
Now, I guess the guy who was quoted in the paper I clipped is so 'stupid' that his points are not worth refuting, or clearing up, where the poor deluded soul went so drastically wrong. Fine.
By the way, do you know what causes gravity exactly? Why do objects pull towards each other?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by cavediver, posted 10-10-2005 4:13 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 10-10-2005 10:20 AM simple has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 44 of 205 (250405)
10-10-2005 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by simple
10-10-2005 5:20 AM


Re: trying not to be short with someone being short
From your paragraph, I detect a dislike for the guy
No, not at all; just a dislike for his arrogance or ignorance displayed in not appreciating
1) that all of these points are more than well understood and explained/refuted by the multitude of serious players in the field of GR and gravity;
2) his own lack of understanding when it comes to GR.
If there were such serious problems, do you not think that scientists would jump at the chance for some original research? Believe me, everyone working in the field of relativity would love to be the first to write about a real problem.
GR does have a real problem, in that it doesn't quantise consistently. The bulk of the papers in theoretical physics are related to trying to sort out this problem...
But where does the 'being critical of GR' stuff come from? Did I say I didn't like general relativity, or gravity? No.
I was referring to vanFlandern, not you. I was urging you not to listen to his rubbish, which is totally contrary to GR, despite whatever he says on the matter.
Now, I guess the guy who was quoted in the paper I clipped is so 'stupid' that his points are not worth refuting, or clearing up, where the poor deluded soul went so drastically wrong. Fine.
It's just been done so many times... I don't have the time or inclination. I'm sorry if my post came out as agressive towards you, that was not my intention. I would simply suggest (as a one-time professional in the field) that you not trust his "work". If you are interested in this area of science, search out a good book such as Brian Greene's, or of course there is always A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell. Perahps others here can suggest some more titles. I tend not to be too aquainted with the popular texts.
By the way, do you know what causes gravity exactly? Why do objects pull towards each other?
Objects curve their surrounding space-time. An object follows the straightest path it can find through space-time. The straightest path for a small object near a large object is directly towards the larger object, or around the larger object in what we call an orbit; which one depends upon the initial conditions of the objects.
Your straight path through space-time is towards the centre of the Earth. However, the solid ground is preventing you from following your path by exerting an upwards force upon you. That force is what you call gravity. There is no pulling
This message has been edited by cavediver, 10-10-2005 10:21 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by simple, posted 10-10-2005 5:20 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 10-10-2005 2:19 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 46 by simple, posted 10-10-2005 5:47 PM cavediver has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 205 (250439)
10-10-2005 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
10-10-2005 10:20 AM


Re: trying not to be short with someone being short
However, the solid ground is preventing ...
solid?
~99% empty with very tiny little thingies zooming around inside (or fighting over who has the best seat at the center) and which are also composed of tinier little thingies ....
Has QM ever figured out why we see solid surfaces between some {chemical\molecular} interfaces and not between others? Is it a horizon problem? (too big scale for QM)
Don't know as I've ever seen a good explanation of what makes a surface seem to be a surface.
As you can see, my little peeve with gravity has been posted before.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 10-10-2005 10:20 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Son Goku, posted 10-10-2005 6:40 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 50 by cavediver, posted 10-11-2005 5:46 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024