Ok. Lets explore just what gravity is as represented by curved spacetime. Certainly space curvature is nothing I can visualize.

1) When we say space is curved or warped, is this just a convienient way to describe the effect to laypeople, but has no real physical analog?

2) Are there any speculations regarding what may be going on (with gravity) at the quantum (Planck) scale of spacetime?

Lots more questions...

Ok. Lets explore just what gravity is as represented by curved spacetime. Certainly space curvature is nothing I can visualize.

1) When we say space is curved or warped, is this just a convienient way to describe the effect to laypeople, but has no real physical analog?

2) Are there any speculations regarding what may be going on (with gravity) at the quantum (Planck) scale of spacetime?

Lots more questions...

You may rightfully choose to ignore this recommendation since what I present is not professionally done nor is specifically detailed in terms of QM but it is believed to function at that level.

If curious for food for thought go to:

http://www.unikef-gravity.com/

See specifically the Gravity Testing Section and Calculus Section.

If this test is ever duplicated and verified it clearly shows GR is a false concept in that gravity does not appear to function from the view of center of mass.

For those that actually wish to think and not simply show bias or predjudice here are a couple of comments from others:

********************* Extract *******************
Post
Well, you're starting to talk some sense, at last! In view of your post above, I have taken a closer look at your site and the scientific paper it purports to represent. Please understand that all criticism below is intended solely to be constructive, and to aid, I hope, in your being able to present UniKEF in a more coherent and scientifically valid manner.

In view again of what you posted above, I've restricted what I've reviewed to the testing. I will admit to initial absolute skepticism regarding what tests you could possibly have devised and built on an amateur basis that would show something new about gravity - since the frontier of physics requires testing using accelerators that cost billions of dollars and teams of hundreds. Upon reviewing your testing section, however, I must admit, I'm quite impressed. (Emphasis added MacM).

************ Extract Posted by a Mathematician ***************
Post
Hi JamesR. All of the work needed is in Allard's notes on MacM's webpages. They are a bit hard to read, but if you squint your eyes just right, filter out the uneeded pages, and make a few corrections you can come to the same result. There's really not much to it.
************************************************** ***

Dr Allard was a Physicist friend that did the original calculus for the theory.

MacM: Just went through your gravity concepts again; very interesting, but I don't think you're home free yet. Yours seems to be an offshoot of the push gravity concept that made the rounds in the 60's. There was exhaustive mathmatical analysis that showed some promise, but Richard Feynman pretty much shot it out of the mainstream by showing that if their math was correct, planets would slow in their orbits and the universe would run down.
Some Push Gravity Links (http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html)

I like the concept of a universe consisting only of fields of force. You can solve for gravity in such a concept.
My Scheme Link (http://photontheory.com/gravity.html)

1) When we say space is curved or warped, is this just a convienient way to describe the effect to laypeople, but has no real physical analog?

2) Are there any speculations regarding what may be going on (with gravity) at the quantum (Planck) scale of spacetime?

I suspect that your take of 1) is just about correct except that the concept shows the mathmatical "analog" technique that works to solve for gravity.

In answer to 2) My Scheme Link (http://photontheory.com/gravity.html) is my take on it. I think QM has given the graviton a set of properties such as spin states etc. that work mathematically but don't improve on GR's predictions. GR and QM are not compatible. If one is true, the other is false; both work, however to predict what is observed.

MacM: Just went through your gravity concepts again; very interesting, but I don't think you're home free yet. Yours seems to be an offshoot of the push gravity concept that made the rounds in the 60's. There was exhaustive mathmatical analysis that showed some promise, but Richard Feynman pretty much shot it out of the mainstream by showing that if their math was correct, planets would slow in their orbits and the universe would run down.
Some Push Gravity Links (http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html)

I like the concept of a universe consisting only of fields of force. You can solve for gravity in such a concept.
My Scheme Link (http://photontheory.com/gravity.html)

Thanks. I would agree on being a long way from home free. But I disagree that Feynman has made an acceptable case for disregarding the concept. His rejection is based on to many assumptions about graviton flux, etc.

Until we know more about it and understand the workings one cannot rightfully make such assumptions.

Yes, UniKEF is a Push Gravity concept, however, where it differs is in the recognition of the detailed mathematics as to how it would work and in that recognition the fact that pushing gravity offers the opportunity to also account for galatic star rotation velocities without multiples of AD HOC Dark Matter and the fact that extended to cosmological scales it becomes a repulsive force which could account for the accelerating expansion of the universe without the AD HOC creation of Dark Energy.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy seem to be two concepts which function in opposite manners which must be collectively combined and distributed in some unique fashion to actually be the answer.

I have previously looked at your work as well and it too is interesting but I get somewhat lost in the details of how it physically functions. :D

I suspect that your take of 1) is just about correct except that the concept shows the mathmatical "analog" technique that works to solve for gravity.

If you haven't seen it let me suggest you goto page 4 and view the issues about "Variable Distance" and Graph #2 showing the same type of warped or curved space-time of GR but as a function in UniKEF.

In answer to 2) My Scheme Link (http://photontheory.com/gravity.html) is my take on it. I think QM has given the graviton a set of properties such as spin states etc. that work mathematically but don't improve on GR's predictions. GR and QM are not compatible. If one is true, the other is false; both work, however to predict what is observed.

This is the root problem. All this Relativity and QM seem to skirt the issue with some success but have assumptions which are not physically real that causes them to each fail at some point.

You may rightfully choose to ignore this recommendation since what I present is not professionally done nor is specifically detailed in terms of QM but it is believed to function at that level.Could we stop this shit already? You could just as easily have said 'my theory is completely unsupported, but I believe it to be right'. What's the point of even mentioning it?
************ Extract Posted by a Mathematician ***************
Post
Hi JamesR. All of the work needed is in Allard's notes on MacM's webpages. They are a bit hard to read, but if you squint your eyes just right, filter out the uneeded pages, and make a few corrections you can come to the same result. There's really not much to it.
************************************************** ***By your own admittion your verision of gravity presented does not vary with mass as it is supposed to.
All this Relativity and QM seem to skirt the issue with some success but have assumptions which are not physically real that causes them to each fail at some pointDoes an apple 'fail' because it doesn't taste like an orange? Using your defintion, every branch of science 'fails' at some point. Your claim of 'not physically real' is simply ignorant and wrong. Both relativity and QM agree with what is observed. You not agreeing with the metaphors used to explain it is not a failure of the theory.
Yes, UniKEF is a Push Gravity concept,Odd, you claimed repeatedly that it wasn't....

Your theory has more 'disclaimers' than a loan agency commercial on late night TV... and is just as trustworthy.

SuperL,
Let us start from very beginning…
1. The first of all let us agree on the most fundamental notion “ a space-time”. What we mean pronouncing this term?
2. Do we mean the continuum of 4D-points (x, y, z, t) in sense of SRT? It means that we
 Accept the philosophy of SRT
 Accept the fundamentals of SRT
 Accept the mathematics of SRT
3. Do we mean the something that is not connected with SRT? Then what?
The situation here is the same as somebody is using term “wave function” but does not specify it in sense of Quantum mechanics.
4. We can stay on the old Newtonian philosophy of World and talk about Space and Time as two independent entities of Nature. But two fundamental features of Nature will appear every time – "the identicality" of all physical results of all physical interactions of things in Nature for all inertial observers and the experimentally established fact of absoluteness of speed of light. The most strongly these features will reveal themselves in such facts as absence of simultaneousness of events in different inertial reference frames, increasing of mass of particles with their speeds, etc, etc. We will be forced to find the right answers on all these phenomena before we will be able to go further in our investigation of the features of Space and Time. In other words, we have to substitute SRT with some another theory to get in state when we will be able to speak on features of Space and Time.
So, dear superL, choice is yours: you should explain us what you mean saying “space-time” in your initiative questions of this thread… Depending on your answer our conversation will go in different ways…

I view spacetime in what I understand to be the context of SRT. Please adjust the following understanding if flawed. Spacetime is a single entity. There is no space seperate from time, and vice-versa. We live in a gigantic space-time diagram. Space and time are intimately connected as demonstrated by a host of SRT experiments. Objects and events obey the rules derived from the postulates of SRT.

I personally do not wish to debate SRT at all, ever again. I accept it like the sunrise.

Now, what I am interested in is this. What does it mean to say spacetime is "curved" beyond a mathematical description that fits the observed facts? If that's as far as it goes, then so be it. I will accept it as I accept the wind and the rain, and be at peace.

So, SL, let's go ahead on that base
I view spacetime in what I understand to be the context of SRT. Please adjust the following understanding if flawed. Spacetime is a single entity. There is no space seperate from time, and vice-versa. We live in a gigantic space-time diagram. Space and time are intimately connected as demonstrated by a host of SRT experiments. Objects and events obey the rules derived from the postulates of SRT
1. First of all let me start with some easy case: the classical #D-space of the ancient Greeks, that finally was “metrisized” by Decarte.
As you know according to these good people, they understood the Space as a flat, uniform, isotropic and infinite entity of Nature – the scene on which everything happens, some kind “stock of everything“. But even into this simple and well understood Space we could distinguish some hyper-spaces – the scenes of a smaller dimensions – like Surfaces of different shapes: spheres, cones, etc, etc. All such hyper-spaces have their own “internal geometries”, which can be absolutely different kinds of curvature. The “residents” of those hyper-spaces would live usual lives, not even knowing that they are living in … curved Spaces. Only some very special experiments can show them that their Space indeed has an internal curvature. So, here we deal with cases, when Universe can be genuinely curved, no matter how many matter presents in it.
So it can be … with us: may be we live in such a Universe! My Lecture “The model of the World of Vacuum” starts with exactly such a proposition. Such genuine curvature of our Space can have a little of internal ties with SRT: SRT will accept it as it is!
It would mean that our Universe lives and develops not on the flat scene, but on a genuinely curved one; that Minkowski 4D-coordinate system is not a rectangular one, but curved one: let say “a spherical one”. The SRT guarantees, that any genuine curvature of Space by necessity will induce some curvature of space-time, because according to SRT Space and time are internally connected.
2. And absolutely another question is: What the matter does with our space-time? And here come the brilliant ideas of Einstein that brought us to GRT.
But to go there, I should be sure that you understood what I already said. Do you follow me?

Yep. Go on.

Could we stop this shit already? You could just as easily have said 'my theory is completely unsupported, but I believe it to be right'. What's the point of even mentioning it?

Because to make such a statement would be false. Instead of running off at the mouth you might try to explian the test data.

By your own admittion your verision of gravity presented does not vary with mass as it is supposed to.

You are nuts. I damn well does. You have just shown why nobody should listen to your BS, you don't have any idea of what you are talking about.


Does an apple 'fail' because it doesn't taste like an orange? Using your defintion, every branch of science 'fails' at some point. Your claim of 'not physically real' is simply ignorant and wrong. Both relativity and QM agree with what is observed. You not agreeing with the metaphors used to explain it is not a failure of the theory.
Odd, you claimed repeatedly that it wasn't....

Your theory has more 'disclaimers' than a loan agency commercial on late night TV... and is just as trustworthy.

Typical Persol babble.

superL,
1. So, how the matter influence on space-time? First of all we should ask: Why this question arrived, at all? Why the matter should be connected with space-time’s features, or why space-time’s features should be somehow connected with presence of the matter? In Newtonian physics nobody even thought in that way….
Actually, this is not true. Even in the Newtonian physics we have an alternative vision of the features of Nature. And this vision, better word here is “an approach” was developed by D’Alambert. Only because gigantic authority of Newton in eyes of his apologists it was created a situation that only the students of the faculties of the theoretical physics learn this approach.
The D’Alambert’s approach starts from noticing that the only dynamical evidence of the flat uniform and isotropic Space is the law of inertia, i.e. existence of the inertial motion of bodies in Nature. “Out of action of any force form other bodies, any body moves with constant velocity”, i.e. has acceleration equal to zero. Moving so any body will … move forever and never will appear in any point it already was… That is a dynamical prove (actually – reflection) of the flatness, uniformity and isotropy of our space. Then here comes Newton and says: “At action of an external force F the body of with inertial mass m will expirience acceleration a = F/m into the same flat, uniform and isotropic Space”.
“No, you are incorrect,sir” – says D’Alambert, - “The body still remains in inertial movement, but the space it now exists was changed for this body: the force F induced curvature of Space experienced by this body. This curvature of space generates a new force – so called inertial force f = – ma, so that our body is now at action of two forces, F and f. And moving still by inertia it actually stays in the point of equilibrium into this curved space. As you know, the condition of equilibrium is F + f = 0, or ma = F.
If there are some “couples”, i.e. some additional restrictions of possible motion, they act on the body too and this forces also should be taken into account, because they too are ‘curving’ the space existing for this body".

Such an approach is totally equivalent to whole Newtonian Mechanics. It is not popular in the same measure because of… I do not know why! But, do you see, how close this approach is to GRT?
Any questions on this stage?

This is for Persol:
Please, stop! Do we need this crank in this thread? Let him alone,may be he will shut up...

...“No, you are incorrect,sir” – says D’Alambert, - “The body still remains in inertial movement, but the space it now exists was changed for this body: the force F induced curvature of Space experienced by this body. This curvature of space generates a new force – so called inertial force f = – ma, so that our body is now at action of two forces, F and f. And moving still by inertia it actually stays in the point of equilibrium into this curved space. As you know, the condition of equilibrium is F + f = 0, or ma = F.
If there are some “couples”, i.e. some additional restrictions of possible motion, they act on the body too and this forces also should be taken into account,
because they too are ‘curving’ the space existing for this body".

No Yuriy, I wasn't aware of this "D’Alambert" and his views. Very interesting. Please continue.

2. And there comes AE with his incredible, unbelievably simple and clear analysis of space-time relations that led to SRT. Of course, soon or later guy as AE has to come to the most obvious logical uncertainty in whole his conception of SRT: Why so strange exclusivity of the inertial reference frames? What makes inertial reference frames so special, so exclusive that Nature has to obey to Principle of relativity in respect to inertial reference frames and not any reference frames? Why observer who prefers to watch World, sitting on carrousel should be deprived of possibility to see and describe Nature the same adequate manner as his colleague in the inertial moving train does? Does the fact of rotation of observer create some new results of some events in Nature that really absent for an inertial observer? No, then why we are specifying inertial reference frame in the formulation of the Principle of relativity? Should not it sound like that: “All results of all events in Nature are the same in any reference frame”? AE could not find any objection why it should not sound like that…
And what stopped us to accept such a formulation of the Principle of Relativity? Of course, the inertia did. We knew that for any non-inertial observer there appear some inertial forces that cause the changes the order of things in Nature in respect as we have them for any inertial observer. For example, bodies without any interaction with any other bodies become … accelerating! No real force acts on them, but they are accelerating! Does it looks like in any inertial reference frame? … Unfortunately, AE did not know the D’Alambert’s approach (as the matter of fact, I never heard of his any testimony or mentioning of the D’Alambert’s Principle)… But AE knew amazing fact – the equivalency of the inertial and gravitational masses! From that he concluded his wonderful Principle of equivalency of gravitation and acceleration. It was a straight way from gravitation to geometry of the real space-time continuum. The difference in approaches was huge. As I said, D’Alambert’s approach has shown that any interaction (forces) actually are equivalent to the deformation of space available for the body that experienced actions of those forces. But this fact was always considered as a formal – mathematical – circumstance. By two fundamental reasons:
a. Nobody generalized D’Alambert’s approach for SRT (before AE formulated GRT); so the curved space in D’Alambert’s approach was remaining separated from time, which still was a Newtonian absolute time.
b. Nobody sow any phenomena of Nature that would show that D’Alambert’s curve space is indeed a reality.
AE was prepared to establish ties of matter and space-time continuum much better then D’Alambert was: AE knew SRT, AE knew the equivalency of mass and energy, so he had no problem with massless (i.e. absence of the rest mass) of things, and could enroll in his concept as bodies, so fields, like EM-field; and finally AE found at least one evident case of the real equivalency of force and geometry – the gravitation.

3. All followed was a simple “technicalities”. Although AE build his first version of Mechanics that satisfies to the Principle of the General Relativity by his own way, there came mathematicians (Grossman) who explained him that there is a special branch of mathematics that satisfies to all his requirements to the description of the curving of the space-time continuum of SRT – the differential geometry. And very soon, invating very powerful rule of summation by the repeating indexes AE and Grossman did rewrite AE’s ideas in the form of the contemporary GRT.
And what about D’Alambert’s Principle, was it forgotten? No, it wasn’t. Moreover, he reappeared in … the Dynamics of Quantified Vortices. And with much more amazing results than even whole GRT! But this is another theme for another thread…
Are you still with me?

Sure.

There has been recent talk about gravity as a multi dimensional force.

i believe that it has been proposed that gravitons on the universe's brane (spacetime) can escape/leak into extra dimensions at cosmological distances, and may do away with the need for dark energy ...

http://www.hep.anl.gov/berger/anlsusy2k/dvali/dvali.html

Yes. I've seen this. People are also puzzled by the overwhelming weakness of gravity wrt to the other fundamental forces. Could "leaks" into other dimensions of spacetime account for this somehow? Interesting...

superL,
4. And finally, let us ask “What happened with AE’s dream to build Physical Theory of the General Relativity, in which all phenomena and all events of Nature look the same for any observer? Was this goal achieved? As you can understand, such theory is the theory of Unification of all interactions possible in Nature in frames of the SRT where space-time is curved by any interaction. This goal was not achieved. Contemporary Physics went ahead by other way (QFT) and unified weak, electromagnetic and strong interactions in …the flat Minkowski space-time, i.e. without any connection of those interactions with curving of this space-time. GRT in the form it was accomplished describes curvature of the Minkowski space-time by the presence of the matter (in form of mass or energy), i.e. by gravitation. Actually GRT can answer how any interaction curves the space-time because any interaction means changes of energy of the system of the interacting bodies. But this answer will be “disconnected” with a real situation because GRT can not answer on the next natural question: And what happens in that curved space-time with this system of bodies, whose interactions just caused reported curvature?
And the reason why we have this strange situation is very simple.
QFT can not include gravitation because we do not now how to quantify the gravitational field: all known schemes of quantification of fields do not “work” in case of gravitation. Problem is clear: when we quantifying any field due to known procedure of quantification, we come up with some specific integrals. Some of those integrals are finite, some appear to be infinite. After a huge, tremendous efforts and brilliant resolution of many dramatic situations, we learn how to avoid divergences of those integrals not braking SRT (the theory of Renormalization). But none of known schemes “works” for integrals we get on this way for a gravitational field: some of integrals remain to be infinite! Why it happens? Is gravitational field non-quantifiable in principle, or we simply did not find yet a right way of quantification of it? Nobody knows a right answer on this question ether…
So, what you think about this "story"? I would like to hear from you...

Please, stop! Do we need this crank in this thread? Let him alone,may be he will shut up...

Take your own advice. Crackpot.

Your story is fine Yuriy. I suppose I was looking for some intuitive way to picture a "curved" space the way we picture a curve in a road. I think the only way to describe this is by the math. Just like higher physical dimensions. Can't picture them, but the mathematical constructs allow you to use them to explain things... So, mass, by its very nature "curves" spacetime and we percieve this as gravity. And mass (or even light) in a gravity field will follow the geodesic through the curved space near the mass. I accept and go on in peace...

SL:

Of course you can at least kind of visualize it. It just takes a while. I hear the book Flatland helps.

I can kind of see it, but it's difficult for me to describe it. I thought yuriy had it right on the money pretty much with the whole spherical doodad he was talking about. Ack. I'm struggling to come up with another way to say it but if you just focus long enough on what he said you should be able to do the same.

Hmm..

It's kind of like air. You can't see it, yet it's all around you. If you imagine that things that are flat to you are really quite curved from a lower or higher dimension... or something. Imagine yourself confined to a plane, trying to understand cubes. It doesn't quite fit in your head, but then again... if you imagine yourself as a line trying to make sense of you as a plane...

Bah. Weak! Pardon. I know I'm talking dimensionality, but the analogy seems perfectly applicable.

When I consider gravity I consider it not as a sphere but as an inverse sphere...

Quantum Quack: Could you further describe an inverse sphere? I am not familiar with it.

Hum,
yeah what exactly is an inverse sphere?
Radii can only be zero or positive, er, unless you mean something like the classical singularity...
Or perhaps you have cunningly fused the inverse-square law with a sphere...
;)

There is a geometric object called a pseudo-sphere, which has constant negative total (or Gaussian) curvature. An ordinary sphere has constant positive curvature. See one of the following sites.

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

http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/zoo/diffgeom/pseudosphere/

http://www.coolphysics.com/4d/pseudospherical/pseudospere/pseudosphere.htm
You can rotate the image at the above URL.

The symmetric versions of the pseudosphere are not true representations. I am not sure that a pseudosphere can be embedded in a Euclidean space. Look at the MathWorld graphic. I think the surface gets very weird if the larger end is continued.

Imagine moving a patch of a surface from one place to another. For example: Fit a cap snugly on the Arctic part of a sphere. That cap can be moved by sliding it over the surface without stretching or tearing it. You cannot do something similar with a torus. Planes, cylinders, spheres, cones, and various other surfaces have this property (I forget what it is called). In the case of a cone, you have problems near the point, but otherwise you can slide a small patch anywhere without stretching or tearing, although the shape changes. The pseudosphere has this property.

I forgot where I found the following.As a result, a sphere has a closed surface and a finite area, while a pseudosphere has an open surface and an infinite area. In fact, although both the two-dimensional plane and a pseudosphere are infinite, the pseudosphere manages to have more room! One way to think of this is that a pseudosphere is more intensely infinite then the plane. Another result of the pseudosphere's negative curvature is that the angles of a triangle drawn on its surface add up to less than 180°

I make no claim to making a cryptic association with any other sciences. To me gravity and mass are inversely related.

In my terminology, it means that with in mass there is more space than outside that mass.

The inverse sphere concept struck me a few years ago as I considered a sphere where the outside volume and the inside volume where swapped around so that the inside was on the outside and the outside was on the inside. thus any center of mass is the compressed volume of everything outside it.

Sorry if i have confused any one. But i find the best symbolic way of showing this consept is to use an )( to replace a 0.

The thinking behind it all is that in the center of mass I have hypothesised that the mythical Higgs particle or field is in fact non-existent [being in fact an inverse particle or field ] in fact nothing at all. It is this nothingness that provides a self goverened singularity that generates mass.
So with in mass is an infinite amount of space thus an inverse sphere. Gravity is an outcome of this compression around nothing. Gravity being space [nothing] plus time [something] so gravity exists as an effect only and not substance....[mythical gravitons must therefore be massless]

Any way these are just my abstractions that I have developed over time. Not to be taken too seriously..... :)

The pseudo sphere dinasaur links to I think is quite close to the concept.