# Space-time curvature is incorrect

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Frencheneesz, Aug 26, 2002.

1. ### FrencheneeszAmazing MemberRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
739
Hi,
I'd like to put an interesting thought into your mind. People try to draw similarities between space-time curvature and a dent in a peice of rubber or just like a pit.

My question is: if gravity makes a dent in space-time, what force is there that pulls the objects down the pit?

Because if you had this peice of rubber in near-0 gravity, a ball bearing or something would not roll down it. It is only BECAUSE of gravity that the ball would roll down into the curved pit.

It is my understanding that gravity is like any other force (well it is like the magnetic force), the closer you get to the source, the stronger the force is acted on you. So it makes a great graph that gravity is shaped like a curved pit, but in reality it is nothing more than a force.

I'm pretty convinced im right, but whats other people's ideas on this, no bashing please just give me proof.

Frencheneesz

3. ### jeffocalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
72
Frencheneesz

What if space was actually composed of four spatial dimensions instead of three spatial dimensions on one time dimension? Then the force of gravity could be define as the tangential forces associated with the curvature in the fourth spatial dimension with respect to three dimensional space. If you are interested in discussing the concepts of a universe consisting of four spatial dimensions and how it is related to the force of gravity and magnetism please visit Shadows < http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/shadows.htm > It redefines the force of gravity and magnetism in terms of four spatial dimensions.

Jeff

5. ### FrencheneeszAmazing MemberRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
739
wow, i dont have time for that right now, but let me get this straight.

Are you saying that matter makes a dent in space time, and then the (or probably more exactly, a) fourth dimension has a force that always pulls us toward it and the closer we are to it (the bigger the dent is, the "closer" to the force we are) and thus the force gets stronger?

Am i confusing you with my round about talk or do you get what i am saying. Further more, is this what you're saying?

This would be plausible, before this i was kinda thinking that the force of gravity made the dent, and there was another force that pulled us into it, but i just wasn't thinking.

But why is this a better theory then the theory that gravity acts as a force and nothing more? This view of a force would be quite hard indeed to fit more than one force into... which is not a good thing.

If you wanted to explain electromagnetism in this way, could that be done?

By the way, I have my phisics concepts down, just don't talk to me in math. Besides why does time have to be the fourth dimension?

Frencheneesz

7. ### jeffocalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
72
“If you wanted to explain electromagnetism in this way, could that be done?”

Frencheneesz

Yes it is possible to define and explain the geometry associated with Maxwell’s equations in terms of a physical mechanism with respect to four spatial dimensions.

Jeff

8. ### Merlijncurious catRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,014
It's only a model

(just like castle Camalot)

9. ### FrencheneeszAmazing MemberRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
739
Well Merlijn, model or not, if it doesn't make sence its out of here.

And Jeffocal? I tried to read some of that stuff, but it is a bit hard to read. Did you write those chapters all yourself?

I would definately appreciate a short explanation about it.

10. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,125
And Jeffocal? I tried to read some of that stuff, but it is a bit hard to read. Did you write those chapters all yourself?

Jeff has been trying hard to introduce his theories on various message boards. They are however, riddled with flaws. Jeff is adamant his theories are correct. He is well on his way to becoming a fully bonified crackpot. Stay tuned.

11. ### jeffocalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
72
“And Jeffocal? I tried to read some of that stuff, but it is a bit hard to read. Did you write those chapters all yourself?”

Yes I wrote all of the chapters however I like to think of it as a team effort. I have received considerable help in clarifying and in some case correcting the concepts they present. Discussions such as these have point out areas that need work or correction, which were incorporated in the shadows paper. Recently I have been very fortunate to meet two physicists and mathematicians Christian and Juan and who volunteered their time to develop the mathematics behind several of the Chapters. In fact, Christian derived some of the mathematics that appears in chapter 3 http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter3.htm

The basic postulate of Shadows is rather simple. Space is composed of four spatial dimensions and the alignment of the dimensional axis is responsible for all of the observed forces in nature. This is similar to how the orientation of the four axis of space-time in relativity is responsible for the force of gravity. However, shadows defines all forces in including electrical and magnetic forces in terms of the orientation of the axis of four spatial. Additionally shadows defines the quantum nature of space in terms of the resonate properties of mass and energy predicted by the relativistic relationship E=mc^2.

Part of the difficulty in understanding the concepts is probably due to the way they are presented

If you would like to help Please email the_imagineers@yahoo.com

Jeff

Last edited: Aug 27, 2002
12. ### FrencheneeszAmazing MemberRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
739
Q, I'd like to hear his "crackpot" ideas. Even if they ARE wrong, it would still give out interesting ideas. Why can't you take things seriously?

But to state it bluntly i agree with Q that the shadows stuff is a bit strange and definitely hard to read.

I would like an explanation that is written in this forum so that it can be discussed without having to read 25 pages of stuff.

Frencheneesz

13. ### FrencheneeszAmazing MemberRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
739
It would be helpful to me if you could explain how the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force opperates in your theory. Please no citations, just an explanation.

I did try to read some to find the gravitational and electromagnetic force, but I couldn't get the right stuff out of it.

If you would explain it to me here maybe i could help you out a bit with your theory.

hey by the way, help me with my theory, its a ton less complicated but i want to put it to the test. Just ask me to explain a concept with my theory and ill try it although it might sound a LOT like the current theories.

ok? Frencheneesz

14. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,125
French

Q, I'd like to hear his "crackpot" ideas. Even if they ARE wrong, it would still give out interesting ideas.

Crackpot theories are far from interesting, humorous yes, but certainly not interesting.

Why can't you take things seriously?

As opposed to a serious crackpot ?

jeff

In fact, Christian derived some of the mathematics that appears in chapter 3

Back to the classroom for Christian.

15. ### jeffocalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
72
“It would be helpful to me if you could explain how the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force operates in your theory. Please no citations, just an explanation.”

The force of magnetism is the result of a torque generated by the energy vortex Shadows associate with electromagnet energy, which causes a “tilting” of the W axis of the fourth spatial dimensions.

Electrical forces associated with electromagnetic energy are a result of forces directed parallel to the surface of three-dimensional space. These forces are generated by the rotational energy of the energy vortexes Shadows assoicates with electromagnetic energy that is parallel to the W axis of the four spatial dimension

Gravitational forces are the result of perpendicular forces on the surface of three-dimensional space, which causes the depression in the surface of three dimensional space shadows associates with a gravitational field.

That’s it in a nut shell. All of the rest of the shadows paper is devoted to explaining how these three concepts relate to the physical universe.

I would like to simplify the shadow model but I don’t really know how. I suffered a neurology injury that makes mathematics extremely difficult. Therefore, I tried to define the forces in terms of the geometry of four spatial dimensions instead of mathematics involved. This presents problems because is not a linear theory in that one conclusion leads to another. Most of the conclusions revolve around and support one central postulate that space is composed of four spatial dimensions. For example, the spokes of a wheel not only support the rim but also support the hub. This is why I felt it necessary to internally interconnect and constantly refer to other sections of the paper to support the arguments which may be one of the reasons why it is a "difficult read"

It may be difficultly for us to discuss these ideas in this forum because of the interruption of a few very rude people who seem to be bent on preventing us and others from continuing. However if they become to annoying I can be reached at the_imagineers@yahoo.com I can put a block on the email address if they bother us their

Jeff

Last edited: Aug 27, 2002
16. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
19,125
jeff

It may be difficultly for us to discuss these ideas in this forum because of the interruption of a few very rude people who seem to be bent on preventing us from continuing.

If we don't agree with your theories, we are considered rude. Classical crackpot response.

However if they become to annoying I can be reached at ... I can put a block on the email address if they bother us their.

I have decided to become too annoying.

17. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
Frencheneesz:

Excellent question methinks. I’ve had the same question. Eventually I found a book (Relativity Visualized) that said (paraphrasing) “the rubber sheet model is misleading, so strike it from your mind!”

What the rubber sheet is really trying to convey is that spacetime warps in the presence of mass, such that the diameter of a star, say, will be greater than “expected” given the star’s circumference. For example, the circumference of a circle is pi times its diameter. Given a star with a diameter of pi, the “expected” diameter is 1. But general relativity theory says that the diameter of the star will be measured as greater than 1, perhaps far greater. The theory calls this discrepancy an “excess radius.”

What you should strike from your mind is the idea that objects fall into the pit because of the pit. The rubber sheet model is just as valid if you turn it upside down to make a hat shape. And if you picture the rubber sheet as instead silk, lain as flat as possible onto a table, you can picture the pit as wrinkled material rather than a smooth bowl, and that is also a valid model. So the rubber sheet isn’t meant to convey what pulls objects down into the pit, but rather just the excess radius.

In my opinion (I'm not a physicist), the closest the theory comes to saying or implying how gravity pulls an object into the pit, without gravity being a force, is that the surface of the mass effectively accelerates outward to move closer to the object, rather than pulling the object toward itself. I say “effectively” because the earth for instance is not enlarging itself, near as we can tell.

The theory seems to backtrack when it (or books that describe it) mentions the undiscovered graviton particle as the agent of gravity. Again in my opinion, gravity is best described like this: the surface of a body accelerates outward in such a way that, rather than the body enlarging itself, space moves toward the body, including any objects within the space. In this way a “falling” object feels no acceleration, as it is stationary relative to its surrounding space. (The object may however experience a tidal “force,” which is a tangential issue.)

For example, a free falling parachutist feels the air rushing by, but does not feel an acceleration. The air rushes by because the earth including its atmosphere is effectively rising in an accelerating manner to meet the parachutist.

With the viewpoint given above, gravity need not be a force. General relativity describes how gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration in small regions. This principle of equivalence is saying that gravity and acceleration are two aspects of the same thing. As you sit in your chair, you are accelerating, which indirectly causes you to feel your weight. When you drop an object to the floor, does the object accelerate or does the floor? All signs point to the floor. The object does not feel the “force” getting stronger the closer it gets to the floor and indeed it feels no force at all. When you hold an object in your hand, you feel its weight because your hand is accelerating the object upwards (you being attached to the floor that is likewise accelerating) and so the object, having inertia that resists the acceleration, pushes against your hand.

Incidentally, no one has figured out the mechanism that accelerates the surface of a body to cause gravity. I think the graviton is ruled out, unless gravitons are created when you accelerate in your car. The book I mention above says that gravity is caused by the spacetime curvature, but I see that as an effect rather than a cause, and I’ve seen no other book declare that or another plausible cause for gravity.

Sure, I’ll try. How does your theory [“that gravity is like any other force”?] explain that a falling object feels no force, whereas a person on the surface does (indirectly via the electromagnetic force) feel an accelerating force called gravity? If the person on the surface is accelerating in the direction of the object, why would the falling object need to be under the direct influence of a force?

18. ### FrencheneeszAmazing MemberRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
739
Ok, thats the first question here, ill answer it. Just remember that the princibles of my idea are that there are forces not changes in geometry of space. Besides why is it so important to express forces as changes in geometry anyway?

"How does your theory [“that gravity is like any other force”?] explain that a falling object feels no force, whereas a person on the surface does (indirectly via the electromagnetic force) feel an accelerating force called gravity?"

Well, we have to take a look at how someone feels something. Obviously we won't see it, or hear it, or taste or smell it, but we might be able to feel it with touch indirectly. Our sence of touch can only sence pressure, but sences it with enough presision to feel whether something is rough or smooth.
If you are in free fall in an atmosphere-less planet (given that you don't die) you can not feel any force because there is nothing to push on your skin (ie particles).
Yet a person standing on the surface can indirectly perceive that he is being acted on by a force because he can feel the pressure of his own weight. There is the ground to push up on him (using the electromagnetic force) that makes the skin sence the pressure. The interesting thing is, while the man in free fall can not preceive that he is accelerating, the man on the ground can and does preceive that he is accelerating when he is actually stationary (with respect to the planet).

An accelerometer works by something like a lopsided seesaw. When you accelerate in one direction, the seesaw stays in the same spot yet gets pushed by the moving case of the accelerometer. It creates a pressure that can be infered as acceleration. But with gravity the same thing happens when you are NOT accelerating. Gravity tries to accelerate you but only succeeds in making you heavy. The seesawcreates pressure on the case because it is being forced down by gravity while the case is being forced up by the electromagnetic force of the ground.

Ill leave THAT at that.

"If the person on the surface is accelerating in the direction of the object, why would the falling object need to be under the direct influence of a force?"

Im sorry but i don't understand the question. The only thing i can say is that the person standing on the surface of the planet is not accelerating compared to the planet (given that he isn't moving relative to the planet, he can't be accelerating) (except the infintesimal residual bouncing up and down created by the electromagnetic ground.

Ill also decide to answer you this sentence that can be turned into a question:

I think the graviton is ruled out, unless gravitons are created when you accelerate in your car.

First of all, which do you think is more plausable: that when you accelerate the car, the whole universe moves but not the car, or that the car is the only thing (mostly) involved in the motion. Im sure you can agree it would take quite some car to move the entire universe.
A car's acceleration is completely derived out of the electromagnetic effect. You can visualize that the pistons move the wheels so it is only for me to explain the pistons. Actually lets go with an electric car, much simpler:
The moter in an electric car spins the little moter axel using electricity. The moter spins and is connected to the wheels making them spin. The wheels spin up against the ground and force the wheels in the opposite direction that they are spinning against the ground. The ground's electrons repel the wheels electrons and the car moves forward.
I don't see any reason that gravity would be involved in this process. Just because there is no sence that can sence gravity or acceleration means that we have to infer it. And just because there is no way to infer a measurement of pressure to either be related to gravity or acceleration does not mean that they are the same thing.
Lets just say all we had was a scale (effectively just an other pressure sensor) and we tried to use it to distinguish a ton of feathers and a ton of bricks. Just because there would be no way to tell the difference does not mean they are the same thing... Do you get it? Im not saying your wrong im just saying i think im right.

So whats your idea on all of this?

19. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
Frencheneesz:

As far as I can tell you are giving the same explanation, of gravity as a force, as is given by classical physics. There may be nothing wrong with that interpretation. When applied within a formula, it may give the right answer. But I think that that interpretation may block new insight into gravity, as it might have done for Einstein before he adopted the principle of equivalence.

You are correct when you say “Just because there would be no way to tell the difference does not mean they are the same thing.” Yet Einstein’s philosophy was: if you can’t tell the difference, then assume they are the same thing and deduce from that. He deduced, for example, that since moving clocks are observed by stationary observers to run slow, then of two clocks, the one closer to the ground (the one accelerating at a higher rate) should run slower. This was a deduction based on an assumption, but later experiments proved him right, and showed the power of Ockham's Razor (roughly, “simpler is better.”)

The principle of equivalence tells me that gravity is not a force like the electromagnetic force, where an agent particle has been found that interacts between two objects. It is simpler for me to see that I am merely accelerating towards a “falling” object. Rather than have to explain the physical interaction between myself and a galaxy a billion light years away, I need only see that I am effectively accelerating toward the galaxy, and vice versa. No agent particle is needed. No force is needed.

If we didn't, we couldn't explain how a perfectly spherical star's circumference is less than pi times its diameter. We also couldn't fully explain the precession of mercury's perihelion.

For example, if I am accelerating toward the moon thanks to gravity, then why must the moon be under the direct influence of a force of gravity? In other words, why must there be a physical interaction (such as gravitons) between myself and the moon? After all, the Apollo astronauts closed the gap between themselves and the moon just by accelerating towards it.

Not at all. I am quite stationary relative to my car when I'm driving it. So it seems the car is moving the entire universe along my axis of motion. Either viewpoint is just as plausible. Classical physics agrees, in that a piece of space dust a billion light years away from earth does pull us, along with our entire galaxy, toward it. (Newton’s third law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.)

Jeffocal:

In “Shadows Chapter 23 Experimental Verification of Shadows” it says “Similarly, the inertial properties of the mass component of space would provide resistance to a space probes movement causing it to slow or decelerate.” How then, in laymen’s terms please, does Shadows explain that the planets are not slowed in their orbits?

Last edited: Aug 27, 2002
20. ### jeffocalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
72
“In “Shadows Chapter 23 Experimental Verification of Shadows” it says “Similarly, the inertial properties of the mass component of space would provide resistance to a space probes movement causing it to slow or decelerate.” How then, in laymen’s terms please, does Shadows explain that the planets are not slowed in their orbits?”

zanket

If the shadows concepts are correct, planets are also being slowed by the inertial properties of the mass component of space. This resistance and slowing effect shadows associates with the mass component of space predicts the perihelion advances of Mercury. Please remember that relativity also predicts the perihelion advances of Mercury. This is one indication that Shadows and relativity are identical with the exception of the units used to derive the forces of nature. Shadows concepts do not conflict with relativity they support it.

Jeff

<a href=http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter23.htm> Chapter 23</a>

21. ### zanketHumanValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,777
jeffocal:

Thanks for the explanation. On the face of it, it seems that mercury's perihelion advance is tiny relative to Voyager's discrepancy of 0.003% in just 30 years or so. If the planets are decelerating in their orbits at anything close to that rate, wouldn't they have long ago fallen into the sun? Also as I understand it, mercury's perihelion advance represents a boost rather than a (opposite) deceleration. In other words, it is an advance not a decline. Can you comment?

22. ### jeffocalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
72
I don’t believe that the slowing effect of the inertial properties of the mass component of space is large enough to cause planetary orbits to decay enough to fall into the sun. Remember the mass component of space is extremely small and therefore would provide considerable less resistance to the movement of planets than the interplanetary dust particles would. However, the only way we can be sure it to mathematically quantify the resistive forces associated with the mass component of space that are acting on the voyage space probe and then extrapolate them to the planetary orbits and see if we can them use that value to make accurate predictions of the planetary orbits.

Juan is presently attempting to do this. We will announce our findings as soon as they are available.

No I believe that mercury's perihelion advance represents a decline not a boost based on the geometry defined by shadows that would governor planetary orbits.

Jeff

Last edited: Aug 28, 2002
23. ### jeffocalRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
72
zanket

Just a quick observation. I believe the Voyager's discrepancy of 0.003 percent you mentioned in your article refers to the discrepancy between the value of “deceleration” predicted by relativity and the observed value. It does not mean that the probe lost 0.003% of it total velocity in the thirty years time that has past. Shadows predicts that this additional .003 percent deceleration over and above what relativity predicts is due to the inertial properties of the mass component of space. This represents an extremely small quantity of mass. According to the calculations that Christian provided in chapter three http://home.attbi.com/~jeffocal/chapter3.htm the total quantity of mass contained in each mattercule or quantum unit of space should be numerically equivalent to Planck’s constant or 6.547 X 10^-27 grams.

Jeff

Last edited: Aug 28, 2002