Where is most "gravity", inside or out?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by nebel, Feb 29, 2016.

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

    Messages:
    39,383
    Realise that what we have are two models of gravity. Both of them make testable predictions about nature. Both of them have proven to be extremely useful. Both of them are still used on a daily basis by scientists and engineers. The Newtonian model, moreover, is more than adequate for many purposes.

    It's dangerous to think in such absolute terms. Scientists are very well aware of a number of problematic features of general relativity. Just for starters, it's not a quantum theory. There's no reason to think it is the "final theory" of gravity, by any means.

    Physical bodies don't "shield" gravity. We already covered that previously, didn't we?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    39,383
    But I just told you, previously, that space is not a fluid or a physical object.

    Didn't you believe me when I told you that? If not, why not? Explain.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    39,383
    I think that river and W4U are having a discussion that doesn't connect with science at any particular point. A discussion about gravity that doesn't actually connect with science seems like a bit of a waste of time, as far as I'm concerned. Still, like I said, I guess that's why this thread is in Pseudoscience.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,043
    I am speaking of fluidity rather than liquidity. IMO, fluidity is a defined metaphysical potential.

    The wave function is a manifest potential of fluidity of space. Wave interference patterns are a result of fluidity. Metaphysical fields (Higgs field) are examples of spacetime fluidity. The universe itself exhibits a wavelike geometry exhibiting fluid behaviors, no?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidity
    I don't understand why that is controversial.

    The term Plasma in connection with the BB is everywhere. Plasma is fluid or has fluidity.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

    And then, we know that atoms vibrate. Any medium which would permit such behavior
    would have to have fluidity as a required passive property, IMO

    Perhaps you noticed, I do not agree with 'river' but my responses are in context of river's perspective.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2019
  8. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    this thread's theme was "more gravity outside?", like gravitational waves travelling million of light years fron really small singularities merging. so: are these waves in space? or the gravitational field?
    should the question have been "is there more space outside than inside" ?
    Perhaps off topic comments can lend any proposition in fringe /alternative / pseudo classification.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    Write4U:

    What's a metaphysical potential?

    And why are you bringing metaphysics into a discussion about physics?

    That sentence doesn't mean anything to me.

    What is a "manifest potential"? What does it mean a fluid to have "manifest potential"?

    How can space be a fluid?

    I mean, I already explained how a fluid would have a rest frame, and how space does not appear to have any such thing. But here you are, still insisting that space is a fluid. How are you going to justify that claim?

    So you said, above. But how? Explain to me how wave interference patterns arise from fluidity.

    The Higgs field is a physical field, not a metaphysical one.

    I don't even understand what a metaphysical field would look like. What is it?

    Also, it sounds like you're saying the Higgs field is spacetime. It isn't. It's separate.

    I don't know. Explain to me what a "wavelike geometry" is. I've never heard of such a geometry.

    What is controversial, from my point of view, is that you and river are both using terms that sound like they are scientific but which don't connect to any actual scientific usages of those terms that I am aware of. To me, your posts on this topic, and river's, read like people randomly tossing jargon around in the hope that it might make sense to somebody, somehow.

    I think that if you want to have a meaningful discussion about physics, you first have to understand what accepted physics actually says. You have to become conversant with how physicists actually use terms. It's no good just mixing word salad.

    Plasma is matter. Spacetime is not matter.

    I've been trying to explain to you that spacetime is not a medium. It's not "made of" anything. It's not matter. It's not "stuff". As such, it isn't a fluid, or anything like a fluid.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,043
    Perhaps it is worth it to define the properties of space before we start making assumptions about its behaviors.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,043
    A potential is a latent ability which may become expressed in reality. A hidden (latent) pattern which implies that (ability) which may become reality.
    Potential may remain latent and unexpressed and therefore remain a metaphysical ability in expressed nature.

    Platonic solids are idealized patterns (metaphysical potentials) found in nature. I showed examples previously.

    The Fibonacci Sequence is a metaphysical mathematical exponential progression.
    It has no physical existence, but can be expressed in many physical forms and patterns.
    Because gravity is a result of warped spacetime. Can't really say gravity is a physical force like magnetism, can we?
    I specifically qualified that I am not talking about fluids, but about fluidity......difference.
    It has a tendency to fill its enclosure, no?
    I am not. I am not talking about fluids, but the phenomenon of "fluidity".
    The rest frame of spacetime would be the universe, no?
    I don't see how waves can easily form in a solid or in nothing. Whereas liquidity seems to have the potential ability to form waves and thus their resultant wave-interference patterns.
    I'm not so sure. The only time we have been able to "produce" a Higgs boson was under very strict conditions. Those bosons did not exist in physical form until we forced the Higgs field to produce them by violent collisions. Virtual particles have no physical existence, AFAIK.
    I submit that the Higgs field is an intermediate state between pure potential and physical expression of potential.
    It looks exactly the same as a physical field, just not yet expressed in a real physical pattern. Bohm calls the metaphysical potential for an event to become manifest the Implicate, the non-physical image of that which is to become expressed in reality, from the very subtle to gross expression in reality. Probability wave function

    But ask, if spacetime is void of "physical resistance", why is SOL the maximum allowable speed of physical matter. If it isn't void of resistance, then the next step would be a sort of fluidity, the ability for deformation and the production of waves.

    The point is that fields cannot be physically solid. Their essence is fluidity.
    Yes, but it conforms to spacetime, because it fills spacetime.
    The Pilot Wave model.
    http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses/p212/lectures/node34.html
    I'll be happy to clarify the meaning of my use of certain phrases and the context in which I use them (with links).
    I do not use word salad. I am very careful in my terminology and I can always refer to a specific definition I used in context of the general thrust of my argument. If people are not always familiar with the definition I am using , then hopefully they will understand after I refer them to my sources.
    The Plasma is the spacetime. The universe is a thing and it has fluidlike properties. It's not really difficult to understand . Do I need to get more scientific?
    OK, your turn. If spacetime is not anything then what is it, where does it get its properties, or do you maintain spacetime has no properties of any kind?

    This seems to disagree with your posit. It may be wrong.
    https://www.researchgate.net/post/W...in_the_framework_of_general_relativity_theory
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2019
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,043
    @ James R,

    It seems this idea of fluidity is not quite as exotic as you make it sound. Apparently, if true, it would solve a lot of problems.
    Please note that I did not advance the idea of a fluid substance, but more like a state of fluidity which allows for certain phenomena to emerge and become reality.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/superfluid-spacetime-relativity-quantum-physics/

    My perspective is that we only know about physics about half way to Planck scale. There are many levels of reality we have no clue about. Mainly because we aren't looking, because we cannot make observational measurements at that scale.
    There is a great observational and knowledge gap between electron microscope limits of physical objects and Planck scale physics, where our knowledge is not very helpful at all.
    Things happen differently at that level.

    Again, I believe this is what Bohmian Mechanics is founded on. And in view of lack of concensus theories in cosmology, I don't think we should automatically rule out the concept of a spacetime geometry with certain fluid-like properties. A "superfluid" or just plain logically "fluidic" in essence.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2019
  13. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    "-If it is true that spacetime is a superfluid and that photons of different energies travel at different speeds or dissipate over time, that means relativity does not hold-"
    Write4U: here is an excerpt from the linked SA article above. (thank you). Do measurements not show that "c" is constant? Anyway in my world picture, spacetime and timespace are a more rigid framework, it is the content that is fluidy, gets shortened, in masstime that we live in since the Big Bang.
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,043
    Yes, but is it universal?
    A photon may spend a thousand years inside the sun, but once it escapes it takes 8 minutes to reach earth.
    How would we know the difference?
    Suppose spacetime is so ''thin" or "light" it offers no resistance to any other particle. Or if it does it is so rare as to never having been observed.
    Comes to mind the Higgs field. AFAIK, the Higgs field is instrumental in the acquisition of mass. Might that have any relationship to the acquisition of mass through acceleration to near SOL?

    Simply put; In water, a boat is restricted to "hullspeed", the maximum speed any boat with a specific length waterline is allowed to occupy a wavelength of the water.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    <----------------------

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It is impossible to apply enough energy to exceed hull speed. The boat becomes "trapped" in the trough of the hull wave. The boat is now subject to the wave's "guiding equation".

    In space, a photon is also restricted to its hull speed, the maximum speed a particle of a specific mass is allowed to occupy its position in the greater spacetime pilot wave. It would take all the energy in the universe to push a particle faster than SOL (hull speed of a photon).

    From which Bohm derived his "guiding equation".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2019
  15. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    Weite4U: the point of your terrific Scientific American link was, that a photon, once emitted does not need further push to maintain it's speed "c", or if considered a wave, in conventional spacetime.
    Thinking of space as a fluid introduces that complication. Speed Sailing is now done on foils. foiled the fluid trough trap. Anyway,
    No matter how you look at gravity, this thread's proposition was, that gravity is an exterior phenomenon, All truly inside gravity is cancelled one way or another.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,043
    It would seem that way. Of course, there may be a problem in identifying what really does happen to spacetime inside a pattern. If gravity can exist inside a pattern, then it might be possible that the universe will collapse from its own internal gravity.

    Just ran across this new discovery.
    Gravitational Waves Could Solve Hubble Constant Conundrum

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://www.space.com/gravitational-waves-may-solve-hubble-constant.html?utm_source=notification
     
  17. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    Yes, the problem might be how opposing gravitational "pulls" overlap or cancel, but still produce time dilation in the "interior".
    re: " Hubble Constant Conundrum" please go to post #822 on the "ALMA" thread in the alternative theories forum section.
    In it nebel theorizes, that the expansion of the Universe through time allows it to gather further energy, forestalling a gravity-caused collapse.
    Going from one forum to another, but nebel proposes here in "Pseudo Science" that there is more gravity outside an entity than it's inside.
    In "Alternate theories" . "ALMA" he asserts that there is more energy outside the Universe than inside. (certainly was before the Big Bang), so, no fear of a big crunch here
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2019
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,043
    Yes, all that sounds reasonable, but if the universe itself produces an external gravitational field, how can that become manifest outside the boundaries of the universe (space-time) itself?

    Perhaps the universal expansion is a result of the wavelike expansion of spacetime gravity waves themselves?
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2019
  19. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    Prefer to discuss the cosmic questions on the cosmic "ALMA" thread, but briefly in this (no holds barred pseudo) "outside" discussion,:
    Going from uncreated energy into formed matter at the Big Bang, it is plausible to conclude that there was uncreated energy existing before that event, outside the then non-existing universe. That condition would be timespace and energytime. That energy would be a source of gravity already, and more so in the more dense form of matter , and existing outside into the infinite energy- only pre-BB medium.
    Could waves be involved? hope so, but I my age, the time for catching waves is over.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2019
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,043
    In the pioneering spirit,
    IMO, before the BB there was no countable time or pre-existing energy, but a metaphysical permittive condition with a cosmic imperative to collapse into itself, creating energy in the process, which when compressed into a mega massive singularity, would inevitably be forced to eventually release that energy, and BB happened?
    Or,
    A prior universe that has all its energy converted into mass and its gravitational collapse no longer countered by energetic expansion?

    I always visualized an instantaneous and total self-collapse of a pre-BB vacuum or massive condition into itself until a singularity threshold was exceeded and the BB occurred and expressed as a mega-quantum event, releasing all "compressed" energy in the same place at the same time (a WH with the exact opposite function of a BH) and expanding at faster than SOL (inflationary epoch), which was moments later to become the early energetic Plasma (chaotic spacetime) from which the first elements eventually emerged during various cooling, heating, and gravitational pressures stages.

    If any of that is plausible, I have no idea......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2019
  21. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    In my view, it was not one kind of universe outside collapsing "Roger Penrose-stile" into another, inside-only, spacetime unit, but just one point in infinite time needed. and,
    not "all" energy was involved, only some of an infinite uncreated supply outside. .
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Because without an energy source it would eventually die out .

    ( That's why BB is incomplete . Energy dies out . )

    Which leads to nothing ; and nothing can never be something .

    Hence there is in the Universe , through a Superfluid of extreme cold , and extreme high heat plasma energy a cycle of hot and cold , and cold and hot . In No particular order .

    Quantum Universe , the quantum in space gets its energy from the Superfluid cold . Because that's where the quantum resides , in the super cold space .
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2019
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    Write4U:

    Physicists typically use a rather more technical definition of "potential".

    It's only a choice of which model we're using to talk about gravity.

    I think you're splitting hairs. In my opinion, fluidity is descriptive of the properties of a fluid.

    No. Space isn't a substance that fills enclosures. Nor does it flow around like a fluid.

    Spacetime doesn't have a rest frame. It is not a substance that can be moving or at rest.

    Waves in solids are very common. Put your ear to a closed door and you can hear sound from the next room carried as a wave through the solid door.

    As for "nothing", an electromagnetic wave (for example) is a wave in the electromagnetic field, not in "nothing".

    Higgs bosons take a lot of energy to produce. Nevertheless, they are physical particles whose detection has been confirmed with high confidence.

    Then what's the use of them? As I understand it, virtual particles are physical particles that transmit forces between other physical particles.

    I can't make any sense of that statement.

    So we can compare, what would be an example of a "physical field", according to you, representing a "real physical pattern"?

    Does he? Maybe I need to read more Bohm to get a handle on what you're talking about.

    The speed of light limit has to do with the nature of spacetime itself, not with it providing "resistance". Spacetime isn't like a fluid that has viscosity, impeding the motion of objects through it by some kind of "drag".

    A "solid" is a state of matter, and fields aren't matter, so of course fields can't be solid. It makes no sense to use terms that apply to one kind of thing to a completely different kind of thing.

    Are you saying you think the Higgs field is like a flowing fluid, now? It's a scalar field. How can such a field "flow"?

    The problem, from my end, is that I don't think you really understand the references you're trying to use to bolster your argument, such as it is. I think they're talking about one thing and you're using them to try to talk about something very different.

    Plasma, like a solid or a liquid, is a state of matter. Spacetime is not matter. So how does it make sense to say that spacetime is a plasma, or plasma is spacetime? They are two different kinds of thing.

    You keep telling me that the universe or "spacetime" has fluid-like properties, but the only such property you've put forward so far has been "it conforms to its container". In other words, you think that since spacetime "fills" the universe, therefore it must be somehow like water that fills a glass, or something. But the fundamental feature of a fluid is that it is made of matter which can flow in bulk from place to place. You haven't made a workable analogy between a fluid and anything to do with spacetime, so far, at least as far as I can tell from what you've written.

    I didn't say spacetime is "not anything". I just said it's not made of anything. It's not made of a matter-like substance (e.g. one that could have properties similar to fluids composed of matter).

    You ask me where does spacetime get its properties. Which properties are you thinking of, specifically? Can you list a few of the "properties" that you think that spacetime has?

    You ask me if I maintain that spacetime has no properties. That's hard to answer, since I'm not yet certain about what you think of as a property of spacetime. I mean, for instance, is Lorentz invariance a "property" of spacetime, or is it a feature of certain other things that happen in spacetime? Is the curvature of spacetime a "property" it has?

    Is this you, or a quote from someone else?

    There's no explanation of how spacetime could have chemical properties there, for instance. You need atoms for chemistry, don't you? No atoms; no chemistry.
     
    exchemist likes this.

Share This Page