I would have thought that GR is a scientific model that seeks to describe reality using geometry and that spacetime is a word used by the model which does not necessarily mean something like it actually exists. The model does not need an ether but what can we call space given the "stuff" that makes it up? Space is far from empty but the model does not need to address that fact it only needs to make predictions which it does with proven success. I look forward to a day when gravity can be described as a mechanical process that sets out how matter and space interact at a particle level. I think that the idea of attraction will be abandoned at that point. Alex
It's been a long hard road to find a validated QGT entailing quantized space. But we all live in hope!
It is used to explain this. If it is not, and stating something that is not matter expanded? Like if you expand your hard drive? Or you could say expand 1 to 3, but we say 1+2. Anyway, I am not telling you what to think, feel free to believe what you want, that's the idea, makes people different.
I really believe that gravity can only be a form of "pressure". Attraction just does not make sense to me. I think the "push gravity" idea is reasonable...I don't think it need be at odds with GR other than gravity can only be a force ...the fact that GR does not deal with it as a force is neither here or there as it is a model, however even though GR folk rail against the proposition there must be some particle play and I suggest that can be termed "mechanical" in some loose sense...however protectors of GR say the idea of a mechanical mechanism is just wrong...That it is in effect childish but without a mechanical operation all we are left with is magic and I am sure the interaction is devoid of magic. I was thinking only the other day that the notion that gravity comes from the centre of mass only comes from our attempt to apply mathematics ...I mean just think about it how could it work that way...attraction is our way to describe two objects moving toward each other but how could it work...I don't think you can find a mechanism to make attraction. It would require a message out and a message back for each and every object and although that is not impossible it seems in necessarily complicated and certainly a universal external pressure would be more simple. If external dark matter will go away. Alex
Paddo..if you are still there...I watched a video by that guy who wrote the "The Big Bang did not happen" and on the face of it he may have a point as to the Big Bang Theory failing for want of unfulfilled predictions. I was aware of the Lithium problem but it seems, on his interpretation that there is a problem with Helium as well. You read his book and I expect that would have been in it...any thoughts. Mind you I won't be able to address any posts..today I have a new observatory arriving..a roll off roof shed..not a dome...so I will be otherwise occupied. Alex
It was a long time ago Alex, and it was critiqued at the time by an Astronomer named Geraint Lewis, at Sydney university, and a young GR expert, on another, now defunct forum. Memory doesn't completely serve me well enough so I found this..... http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened" Errors in Lerner's Criticism of the Big Bang Errors in Lerner's Alternative to the Big Bang Miscellaneous Errors more at link.............. In actual fact the BB certainly did not happen, since that term, and what it conjurs up, was inferred by Fred Hoyle, in deriding that model and pushing his own "Steady State"model. It was not a big bang...it was an evolution of space and time [as we know them] from a hot dense state. Hoyle without doubt was an exceptional astronomer in spite of his opposition to the BB beginnings, and is certainly still recognised by the mainstream establishment as an otherwise great astronomer. My own thoughts align with something I read many years ago, that perhaps Hoyle simply denied the BB, as he was aware it would be exactly what creationists would hang their hat/s on...a beginning, where our laws and GR were not applicable! But the BB hung on while Hoyle's "Steady State" fell out of considerations along with the Oscillating model at that time in the mid/early fifties and sixties. While there are still some minor problems, the four prominent pillars are agreeable with the BB [1] Observed expansion: [mentally reversing that and we arive at a singularity of spacetime where our theories are not applicable: [2] The abundance of the lighter elements as predicted. [3] Galactic formation. [4] The CMBR at a predicted 2.73 K Sounds great Alex! Hope to see more startling awesome photos then?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am with Fred but they don't see it benefits their case is what is odd...well some do. Thanks for all of that The shed has arrived and they are putting it up. Alex
I spent 3 days stacking data using 3x drizzle ( thanks Hubble people) six groups 1.6 gig each but my processing software won't load the files..where is the axe. But I had about fifteen hours of exposures and just the stacked finials were jaw dropping. If I can get something to work it should be a decent final image Alex
Yes I'm sure both of you do . That is after all your thinking . So does gravity come first ? Before matter and space ? But how does gravity exist without matter and space ?
I really don't know but there seems a relationship that suggests each need the other We don't know that it does. What are your thoughts on gravity river? Alex
You won't get an answer Alex, other then another question in return Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's called avoiding an answer...... Anyway, some basic detail in the "tutorial " thread. What I would say is obvious with sane mainstream scientists....Most are of the opinion that we will eventually find a theory that succeeds in combining all four forces, but at present we have no such theory. Superstring theory would be the closest I believe but we are unable to observe at such levels. So as yet its proving difficult to know what the universe/space/time was like in the Planck Era. I'll see what I can find and add it to the "tutorial" rather then here with the trolling and stupidity that it will raise.
pad↑ Yes I'm sure both of you do . That is after all your thinking . So does gravity come first ? Before matter and space ? But how does gravity exist without matter and space ? Highlighted ; Hope pad ?
Liar, liar, pants on fire!!!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes it has river... unfortunately hope is all we have given science has delivered so little, it is so sad don't you think. But on the positive we have answered the question " which came first the chicken or the egg". Like so many things, as you no doubt know, the answer is obvious ... In front of us all the time but we just could not see it...anyways with that major question answered science can answer other pressing questions ..like...why can you not dig only half a hole..just imagine when we can answer that one. Alex
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Probably way over his head! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Reminds me of a good Irish joke...a visitor to Ireland observed two Irish council workers, on the footpath...the first had a shovel and dug a hole...the second had another shovel and filled the hole back up again. The visitor thought this was a bit weird, and curiosity got the better of him, so he crossed the road, approached the two council workers and asked them why one would dig a hole and the other fill it back up again. The second Irishman looked up and replied, "Ah you see laddie, there's supposed to be three of us, one to dig, one to put in the tree, and me to fill it in....But alas, Paddy who was to put in the tree, decided to have a sicky" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
