distortion of space time

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by ecclesiastes, Jun 22, 2004.

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Got my hands full with UniKEF as it is but you are welcome to join:

    http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm

    Throw your ideas around there and let the members kick them around.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. vslayer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,969
    okay then *kicks the idea out the window*
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ecclesiastes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    82
    *catches it n throws it back*

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    MacM:

    Perhaps you should have actually read my post when you quoted it in your reply. I have plenty of ideas. But if I have no evidence which supports them, they're just pie in the sky.
     
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    James R., don't get sensative on me. I merely quoted your post. In it "YOU" said "I have no idea what gravity is".

    Am I correct that you have on numerous occasions also said "I don't need to know", "I don't want to know", etc?

    If you are shifting your stance a bit I would see that as a positive and welcome move. But please don't accuse me of not reading your post or mis-quoting you.
     
  9. Paul T Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    460
    MacM,

    Let me remind you. You mis-interpreted my posts so...so many times. You also often mis-interpreted what written in the books. I would say that is one of your serious weakness. Even when someone suggested you to relook into your own post to correct your own mis-interpretation, you refused. That was another of your weakness, being sloopy and stubborn. Do you think to be a good scientist, someone need not quote from others or books accurately? Well, I know you are not a scientist and also you are not young anymore...so, you don't have to worry so much about those qualities.

    Anyway, this is just a wake up call for you. You can carry on sleeping, nobody care.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Ditto to you.

    That is in fact rare and your opinion is worthless.

    Bullshit.

    Sloppy? Only when it comes to those that want to knit pick posts rather than address the issues. I grant you that ome here are sticklers in that regard.

    Funny. Ever hear the adage the knowledge and experience of the elderly? You might do well to come down of your self imposed mount and learn some also.

    Better napping than brain dead.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    MacM:

    I have never changed my position on this. Perhaps my point of view is a bit subtle for you to understand.

    My conception of "what gravity is" is based on science, not fantasy. While I might dream up all kinds of underlying "mechanisms" for gravity, to do so would be worthless, as such mechanisms are inaccessible to scientific investigation. I can imagine little green pixies pushing particles around in such a way that all the laws of gravity are reproduced, but do the pixies add anything useful to our pixture of gravity? Of course not.
     
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Ditto


    Unless of course the truth of it is that gravity is little green pixies pushing particles around.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Why would you assume that any underlying mechnisim is inaccessable to research? The only guarantee of that is if one does not attempt to look for the mechnisim.
     
  13. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    You're still missing the point. Your 'underlying mechanism' is nothing more than a guess.

    It would be one thing if you had some form of logic or proof to support it. You have neither.
     
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I do not here intend to make more of it than it is but only point out that there is good logical reasons to believe the "guess".

    Indeed I am looking forward to having the mathematical basis to adjust the time-space dimensions of the universe per UniKEF to fit Mercury's orbit and then use that scale of the universe to see if the UniKEF integration falls in line with observed rotational anomaly of stars around galaxies.

    If those two points fit then I suggest you should take another look at the concept. If not then it will finally be over but not before.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2004
  15. zanket Human Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,777
    I think relativity theory does not have a conventional answer.

    My idea, an unsupported hunch at this point, is that gravity (the distortion of spacetime by mass) is Lorentz contraction (special relativistic length contraction). Distances are measurably reduced by Lorentz contraction, which in turn is caused by acceleration. Particles as tiny as electrons accelerate within all matter. Perhaps this acceleration contracts the spacetime around matter in a way that adheres to the inverse square law. This explanation doesn’t require gravitons, hypothesized particles that work between the earth, say, and every other object in the universe to enable the gravity. Lorentz contraction is effectively action at a distance.
     
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    We could agree to here.

    I don't make that connection.

    Ufortunately the inverse square law is grossly invalid on cosmic scales.

    I do agree only that gravity may be a quantum affect and "action at a distance".
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    How so?
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Reference the following attachment (Link)

    http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2974&stc=1


    The blue symbols are actual star motion observations. The MOND Curve stands for Modified Newtonian Dynamics, a new theory advanced, Ad Hoc, to change the mathematics of Newton's 1/r^2 to make it fit observation. Newtonian gravity is shown on the lower curve and is grossly in error except for a range limited to approximately 0.1 light years distance.
     
  19. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    I will have to disagree with you here, Mac. I don't know where you got that diagram,
    (MOND site, perhaps?) but it is not correct according to the actual latest observations
    and data from WMAP and SDSS. MOND was considered, but failed to produce the
    results that were consistant with the data. It has been rejected, as I have told you
    before and gave you links to the WMAP data and results. Newtonian mechanics did not
    give 'grossly inaccurate results', it indicated a presence of unseen mass, Dark Matter
    of course. It has nothing to do with cosmic distances to the galaxies, but the mass
    of the galaxies themselves and MOND could not explain the unusual rotations within
    the galaxies and speed of the rotations either.
     
  20. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I am not a MOND supporter. I am showing the difference between Newtonian (inverse square) and actual star velocity. If one assumes the presence 4-5 times the observed mass, just located in the right locations, then yes things can be claimed differently. But Newtonian inverse square based on actual mass known to exist does not compute.

    It would appear that tests that seem to indicate Dark Matter may very well also indicate a failure of the Newtonian concept and not presence of Dark Matter. Until it is somehow verified directly neither solutions has a claim to truth.

    Since my own work favors the integration concept which appears to supply a means of changing gravity mathematics to coincide with observation, I take presence of Dark Matter with a grain of salt (as well as my own concept).

    Either or Neither may be the truth.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2004
  21. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    And, of course, neither would UniKEF since it is only 'slightly' different than inverse square. And neither did MOND or any other alternative theory of
    gravity.
     
  22. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Oh dear.. you shouldn't have said that 'coz now all hell is gonna break loose again

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    No. You clearly do not understand the concept and the subsequent mathematics that would support it.

    The following is a crude graph in the difference of the functions.

    http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2975&stc=1

    Rather than turning this into another UniKEF debate and getting off topic, the following link gives adequate explanation as to how such curve becomes generated.

    http://www.paygency.com
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2004

Share This Page