Gravity : An alternative approach

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by RajeshTrivedi, Sep 27, 2016.

  1. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    I had very cautiously entered into this origin foray. It was meant to respond to your specific finite / infinite universe post. I will stick to gravity for time being lest the focus would shift.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    This is a lie. As you have admitted, you do not have any mathematics worked out. So you have no explanations and no predictions.

    I'm sorry to be so blunt, but since you have publicly claimed to have a concern with honesty, one has to be honest here. You have much less than a hypothesis. You have a half-baked fantasy about physics that has absolutely no application nor any hope of application. You, like many who have opposed GR before you, have little actual knowledge of physics and you substitute your fantasies for the content of scientific theories.

    I'm sorry if you have a serious mental illness that drives you to make these dishonest statements. If you are just a liar, though, I have no sympathy.
    paddoboy likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Understood. I mentioned earlier though that the physical/mechanical explanation of gravity is part of an interconnected set of invariant natural laws, and so cannot be derived without some regard for concepts like an "open" (infinite) or "closed" (finite) universe, and without regard for the consequences of "something from nothing" which offers no option for preconditions, vs. "always existed" which allows for the perpetual defeat of entropy. Not that there is anything wrong with someone trying to work it out independently

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    In 1915 when GR was proposed, the level of knowhow was much less. The quantum mechanics was not at all there. Einstein had SR under his belt, so people were willing to bet on him. It helped.

    Now in this era if a new idea is pushed in direct confrontation with mainstream, chances of it getting bumped at the threshold is very high.

    1.None asked Einstein to propose the theory of origin along with GR.
    2. None asked Einstein about mechanism of mass causing spacetime to curve.
    3. None asked him to give the exact solution to his equations.

    I am saying that space stretches, he said space curves. Not much difference in the quality of words.

    He did not say how, but I am stating how.

    The stretching in my case could cause curving too, but his curving does not envisage stretching in local area. So effectively, only maths can tell, if the curving of einstein can be derived from the stretching which I am proposing. If so then at least goodness of GR can be kept while having a relook at problem areas.

    Can I have any primary objection, thinking for time being that our knowledge bank is just at 1915 level. This way we will not jump directly to origin or QM etc.
  8. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Sure, because GR is consistent with universes that exist forever. The evidence for GR was entirely from solar system physics. Any supposed successor to GR must do as well or better than GR within the solar system; if it does not, then it is a failure.
    Sure, because Newton threw out these kinds of objections in the 1600s and almost every physicist knew this.
    Yes, because, since Newton, there was a tradition of using approximate solutions.
    Sure, but you have absolutely no way of creating and approximation. That means that you haven't even got a hypothesis.
    You can't have an objection to your ideas until your ideas can be considered a hypothesis. That is, until you can actually mathematically describe a physical system with your ideas, you just have fantasies.

    Given that you do not understand the meaning of "spherically symmetric solution", I'm guessing that you will never have something worthy of even an objection.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Science/cosmology is about creating models that align with experiments and observations, while making incredibly accurate predictions: Like others before you, [two in particular,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ] your implication that because the mechanism is unknown, that the theory is any the less valid or viable, is no more than the same sort of nonsense that god botherers use to insideously slip in their god of the gaps, while the real scientists at the coal face, with their heads down and arse up, continue on with the real research.
    Spacetime, as you have been informed previously is the correct term: And spacetime expands and curves, warps, twists and waves. So why not stick to conventional terms rather then your stretch.
    I believe you have SFA in actual fact. I believe as per your past nonsensical BNS and your efforts over at Cosmoquest, that you are simply railing against the accepted evidenced based scenarios, simply for the sake of it and possibly in time to slip in the god of the gaps.
    And of course, as you know, forums such as this are open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, that can propose anything they wish, without substantial evidence, and we have had many before you.
    So one must conclude that if you believe you have anything of a concrete nature, you would have it properly and professionally published and peer reviewed.
    Who knows? We may see you in Stockholm next year!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    [tic mode firmly on]
  10. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    So basically you have no objection. Only insults, derision and hand waving. That's a good way of discussing!
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Actually its you with both hands up in the air waving like crazy!
    Who do you believe you are fooling, other then yourself?
  12. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Apparently my job here is to drive threads like this to the closure that they deserve.

    So let me begin.

    Look at this piece of shit post by RajeshTrivedi. paddoboy points out that RajeshTrivedi is essentially doing a God-of-the-gaps argument and RajeshTrivedi does not address this objection, he merely says that there is none.

    This behavior is doubly bad since all RajeshTrivedi is offering on his own is a collection of vague ideas. He has no description of physical systems to any degree of accuracy, he has no predictions of things to any degree of accuracy. RajeshTrivedi is essentially telling untruths to reader after reader, from delusion or malice.
  13. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member


    No, it is not your job. I think there is a moderation team in place. You are just spreading venom and abuses thread after thread. Desist.

    This is alternative section, and your argument is that I have no maths. Having maths not ready yet and failing with maths are two different things. If you are knowledgeable why not give some maths and prove me wrong. Can you?

    Do you understand what is God of the gaps argument, and how my idea falls under that category and how this is full of malice and lies? If you cannot support this argument, then be a sweet boy, retract and stay on fences.
  14. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    You keep saying things that just aren't true. As far as I can tell, moderation has ended, at least for all but, probably, pornography and racism.
    Oh, I'm spreading venom, but at least I am spreading venom against the kind of pseudo-science that you are peddling rather than simply responding to genuine criticisms with content-free venom or lies.
    I don't have to provide "maths" to prove you wrong. You are not even right, because you have no content.

    Of course I can support this argument: you are claiming that a flaw of GR is that it has no mechanism, a gap, and you are trying to provide a mechanism, supposing that this makes you idea in some way superior. It does not.
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Malice and lies? There are many insidious ways that various people can imply their "god of the gaps" argument......Being evasively dismissive of accepted science is one...sort of promoting a picture, "they don't know what they are talking about" and implying the malice and lies you accuse others of.

    Science, scientific theories isn't about searching for truth...that's philosophy, and/or what god botherers deem that they have found.
    Science does not know everything, and probably never will, but it is a discipline in perpetual progress, by professional experts, with access to many state of the art equipment and probes, not any trio of glorified electricians, directors or any other irrelevant profession.
    Inflated egos and delusions of grandeur, are also other aspects of those secretly pushing their god of the gaps.
    Certainly some isolated aspects of science and/or cosmology that are accepted mainstream theory, may genuinly be doubted by some, even by other professional scientists.
    But when we have a trio of individuals, that invade a science forum, and are opposed or object to virtually all 21st century cosmology, then something certainly is rotten in the state of Denmark!
    And when that sane trio avoid any and all requests for citations and/or links supporting their fabricated stance, well it's not too hard to fathom out that they certainly have excess baggage.
  16. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    I agree with you on this.
    The subject knowledge and ability to maintain the decorum, both are missing here.
  17. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Adults should need no moderation.
    It is wrong to blame the moderators when it is the members who lose control.

    And I am the first to admit I have lost control here but hopefully never again.

    It is each members responsibility to avoid name calling and the use of terrible language.

    Just because one may not like someone or thinks they are wrong or lack education that does not open the door to bad behaviour being acceptable.

  18. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    No, the problem must be curbed in the bud itself. I hate to make a parallel but you are aware of cosmoxxxxx, no mundane post is permitted there, instant moderation! That helps.

    Here Mods wake up when members have peaked their abuses and slowing down themselves, by that time damage is done.
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    You are right.

    I have been spoilt over at the astronomy forum because we self regulate.
    Often a member may overstep a line but no one says anything and mostly that member comes back the next day and apologises to the forum.

    I said some not so good things about Christians once an someone pointed out I was a bigot.
    Well the next day I realised they were right and apologised to all the members.

    I think moderation is good but it can restrict free speech.
    Cosmoxxxx is a good example in that one would have to be very careful what one says such that even an honest mistake could bring down the axe.

    I try to understand the other person and what I may have done that they could see as upsetting.
    It is no good saying tuff think what you want I don't care etc..
    If someone gets upset one should at least make sure you have not hit a nerve or Olen wound and do all one can to make them understand insult was not your game.

    We all have different social styles and often each of us may not realise we can be offensive because we have crossed another's line which is invisible to us.

    I feel good about this forum and I hope it can do better than cosmoxxx in the long term.

    I doubt if one could talk about a spongy universe there or say one does not like the theory of inflation.

  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    In fact in the various science forums at Cosmo, only accepted mainstream theories and "genuine " questions are accepted.
    No balony tactics, no hidden implications of any nonsensical alternative, just real plain known, accepted science.

    Of course if you believe you have anything non mainstream of any substance, then you are invited to put it and argue it for a month, for acceptance and validation or otherwise in a separate forum.
  21. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    How do you curb a bud?
  22. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    The theory offers that there is nothing like Dark Matter particles. The revised M term in Poisson equation explains the Galaxy speed distribution curves.

    The apparent increase in the orbital speed is due to stretched gravitational energy not due to presence of any DM particle as being searched around.

    Extending the same philosophy, the Neutron (and Proton) Mass is also due to this stretched gravitational energy only. Neutron Mass is 939 MEV but it's constituent quarks rest Mass is just 12 MeV, so I propose that substantial portion of this balance 927 MeV comes from gravitational energy when G is proposed as high as around 10^39 around quarks. The point is, cause of increase in Mass of Central bulge of Galaxy and very high Mass of hadron, is same, that is no dark matter but gravitational stretch energy.

Share This Page