I do not doubt that the following hypothesis is false. I'm only asking why it is false.

Rather than saying that the earth is holding us to its surface by shooting gravitons at us, we could say that gravity is actually the "ether wind" that Michelson and Morley were searching for. Instead, it's an ether "rain" that we are perpetually showered by. Gravitons are actually ether particles (etherial rain-drops).

Why are the ether corpuscules showering down on us? They are not not. We are running into them.

Why are we running into them? (here is the tricky part) We are running into them because the earth's surface and everything on it (along with all the matter in the universe) is actually inflating omni-directionally at a perpetually accelerating rate (an extension of the equivalency principle).

Why is all matter expanding omni-directionally? Ever seen a 3-D object (a cone) get pushed through a 2-D plane (point-first/base-last)? The result is a 2-D circle (conic section) that expands in both dimensions. Ever seen a 4-D cone pushed point-first through a 3-D space? If you've ever been in free fall long enough to see the earth expand beneath you as you float there, then you have. Its a 3-D sphere (4-D-conic section) that expands in 3 dimensions. In the style of up/down, right/left, and front/back, the 4th dimension can be in/out or maybe small/big.

Why are we moving and not the ether? Because we feel the ficticious force caused by the accelerated (omni-directional & inflationary) motion of the earth's surface.

Why don't we see the earth expanding now? Because while on its surface, we expand as one object, at identical accelerated rates of expansion.

I guess I'm looking for the QM facts or macro-sized empirical facts that falsify this claim, plus all of your opinions. I'm not gonna fight anyone over this, but I am specifically looking for honest criticism.

:m:

I guess I'm looking for the QM facts or macro-sized empirical facts that falsify this claim, plus all of your opinions. I'm not gonna fight anyone over this, but I am specifically looking for honest criticism.

You use circular reasoning: first you say

Why are we running into them? ... We are running into them because the earth's surface and everything on it ... is actually inflating omni-directionally ...

then

Why are we moving and not the ether? Because we feel the ficticious force caused by the accelerated ... motion of the earth's surface.

Secondly, you will not find any QM arguments concerning ether. The idea has been dropped somewhere around 1905 by the scientific community, while QM in its present form has been written down around 1920 by Schrodinger and Heisenberg.

Concerning your macro-sized empirical facts, look at all the "no ether detected" experiments.

Bye!

Crisp

I am not so much fighting as I am asking for clarification. Above I claimed that the ficticious force (gravity/inertia) is a consequence of the accelerated motion of the earth's surface against our feet (like the carseat against our back in an accelerating car). Please expose my circular reasoning.

When I said I wouldn't fight anyone over this, I should have been more specific and said that I wouldn't oppose real, legitimate criticism. Show me I'm wrong and I'll whole-heartedly accept. Simply saying that my reasoning is circular without showing it does not count; it does not show me where I am wrong.

I would love to know what an "etheral particle is?"

or in another way...Why does Gravity have to consist of particles in the first place?

It doesn't have to consist of particles, in my opinion (even though it is NOT a matter of opinion). But if we are gonna go with the notion of gravitons then I propose a model inwhich we are getting pummeled by gravitons from "above" rather than the other way around.

An etherial particle is my way of saying a "particle" of the spatial fabric itself. We gave up the idea of an ether yet we still refer to space as a fabric. Call it what you want, it sounds like ether to me (a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...). The spatial fabric is ether slightly-redefined and re-named.

And so my proposal above is that we are being pushed against the spatial fabric by the accelerated omni-directional expansion of the earth. Gravity is like air-resistence only it is actually spatial or etherial-resistence.

Gravity is us being caught in a matter/space sandwich with matter (the earth in our case) pushing "up" and space pushing "down".

CTEBO, As much as it might surprise you I don't see anything wrong with your position and hypothesis, and as you say it may be just as true as any other. The difficulty with all these Ideas is in the proving of them and making them more that just a theory or postulation.

Current thinking has just got more evidence to support it that's all.

if we were expanding omni-directionally and feeling the effects of it constantly, we'd have be be travelling at a constant accelerating rate. But if that were the case the distance between the sun and the earth would decrease rapidly because both create seperate gravity (or both are expanding, theyd eventually touch each other). If your argument is that the entirety of the universe is expanding, then one side of the earth would cause you to fly into the air wouldnt it? Maybe i'm not understanding your thesis: if thats the case, sorry.

I think he meant that every single point in space is expanding omnidirectionally...and I'd think that if that were the case, we wouldn't be able to percieve the expansion...

I'm rejoining this discussion way late. I stopped checking up on it a while ago. I doubt anyone is still checking either, but, hey, its worth a shot.

Cazov's last comment was dead on. Space expands and matter expands, so every point expands. Its just that matter expands at an accelerating rate and space at a constant rate. Depending on the ratio of matter to space in a certain "gravitational relationship", the space between the two bodies exhibits EITHER a net contraction, OR a net expansion, OR equillibrium. It takes the amount of space that separates galaxies to yield a net expansion of space, and instants of equillibrium are rare.

TANGENT BELOW; IF YOU'RE GONNA READ (AND RESPOND TO) ANYTHING, THEN JUST READ THE ABOVE, PLEASE!

Marginally Relevant Tangent: (set-up): Typical allegory for relative motion: You are floating in empty space. No local markers so you regard yourself as a standard of rest. To your left you see someone else. She is very small. Progressively, she gets bigger and simultaneously moves toward the center of your field of vision. For a moment she is large and directly in front of you. From that moment on she gets progressively smaller and moves to your right until she is both too small to see and to far to the right.
You have never seen anyone fly past you before and so, for lack of sensory experience, you conclude logically that if she looked small-to-big-to-small to you, you must have looked big-to-small-to-big to her. You call her up on her walkie-talkie (thats right, you've never seen her but you have matching walkie-talkies) to ask her how big you looked, but she beats you to it and asks you why you looked so small. You jet-pack back to each otherin order to verify the discrepancy but the very act of moving back together corrects the unbalance.

NOW picture the same two people. For simplicity's sake they are not in space suits but glass bubbles. They are floating in empty space, each within a glass insulated bubble. The two people are positioned side-by-side, each faces opposite directions. In other words, if the single line that runs through all four shoulders (2 peeps = 4 shoulders) is the y axis, then she is facing the negative x direction and he is facing the positive x direction. They are not shoulder to shoulder of course on account of the bubbles but you know what I mean.
Currently, they are both roughly an inch tall inside bubbles that are about 2 inches in diameter. They have a distance of 2 feet separating them. Therefore, there is a distance of 26 inches between the centers of each bubble. Their centers are fixed in space.
Neither center moves. Both bubbles, people and all, begin to expand at uniform, non-accelerated rates (1 radial inch per sceond) and SIMULTANEOUSLY both bubbles begin to spin (slowly) on their "up/down" axes at a rate of 5 degrees per second. After 18 seconds, both people are facing each other eye-to-eye and have expanded so that they are now each 19 inches tall inside bubbles with 38 inch diameters.
Most importantly, at this 18 second mark, there are only 5 inches separating the surfaces of the 2 bubbles, while a constant distance of 26 inches between the two bubble's respective centers was always maintained.
For every second after the 18th second, the bubbles and people shrink at the same 1-radial-inch-rate and continue to turn just as slowly until after 36 total seconds, both bubbles have 2 inch diameters again with 2 feet separating their surfaces and each person is now to the other's right instead of how they started which was to each other's left.

The above may be a model for uniform-velocity-motion that could possibly sheds new light on the equivalence of rest and relative motion.

CTEBO,

Cazov's last comment was dead on. Space expands and matter expands, so every point expands. Its just that matter expands at an accelerating rate and space at a constant rate.

In which case we should see the material universe as contracting, not expanding. Matter would soon run out of space to expand into.

Also "Where did your original space come from, if not part of the Big Bang?"

No. Space and time did not exist before the big bang. The universe does not expand into anything. Nothing exists outside the universe in 3D, Hence the definition of Universe. If something did exist outside the Universe then the defintion of Universe includes that region, hence you have a logical inconsistancy. However the distinction must be made between universe and Observable universe, the latter being a result of Causality.

Mac let me ask you, do you consider time to be equivalent to the 3 spatial dimensions?

Time is not a spatial dimention. It behaves as an imaginary spatial dimension. Whatever that means...

Omnighost is that some kind of philosophical statement?

Oh, and gravitons are an EXCHANGE partical. We wouldnt be bombarded with them, but rather be exchanging virtual gravitons in much the same way nucleons exchange mesons in the strong nuclear force.

It is not philosophy. It is from the general relativity textbook. Filosofifritt forum hoppas jag!

It is not philosophy. It is from the general relativity textbook. Filosofifritt forum hoppas jag!

:) Tja svenne.
Lät lite så utan en demonstration av dess matematiska egenskaper!
Varifrån Sverige är du?

Sorry about the chat in swedish but: Du kan skicka ett mail genom att klicka på namnet.

Depending on the ratio of matter to space in a certain "gravitational relationship", the space between the two bodies exhibits EITHER a net contraction, OR a net expansion, OR equillibrium. It takes the amount of space that separates galaxies to yield a net expansion of space, and instants of equillibrium are rare.

This quote from my previous post directly addresses MacM's point. While matter is always expanding at a perpetually accelerating rate and space at a perpetually constant rate, we are currently in the post-big bang stage inwhich the "constant spatial velocity" is still greater-than the "accelerating material velocity". There would come a crucial point when matter accelerates past the spatial expansion speed and from that point on the universe would contract, exactly as MacM suggested it should and exactly as cosmological theory suggests it should IFF there is enough matter to halt the over all expansion.

Picture a flat disc. There is paint on it. Suddenly the point at the center of the disc begins to move in one direction along the path perpendicular to the plane of the disc. As it does this it immediately turns the disc into a cone; a cone whose height is steadily getting higher. As the height of the cone gets higher the area of the surface of the disc-cone increases. This causes the paint to crack. Islands of space begin to form as the cracks widen. At some point, islands of paint will form as a result of so much surface expansion. This analogy models the Big Bang and the creation both matter AND space. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE THAT HAS TO BE MADE is that the islands of "paint" expand at accelerating velocity. The surface of the cone (space) is expanding at a very high constant rate and the paint is expanding at a slow but perpetually accelerating rate.

Yes? No? Probably Not? Maybe?