Point is, most probably the infinite quantities suggested by a mathematical Singularity, will probably vanish with a QGT.
Or the GR solution of wormholes and ERB's may come to fruition.
Gravity : An alternative approach
- Thread starter RajeshTrivedi
- Start date
Or the GR solution of wormholes and ERB's may come to fruition.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
That's not an answer. You copy paste from cosmoquest to put me down, and when confronted you chicken out.
Actually that sounds like what "the god" would say.
And no, not to put you down, simply to show what happened over at cosmoquest.
Again, you have your answer.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Actually that sounds like what "the god" would say.
And no, not to put you down, simply to show what happened over at cosmoquest.
Again, you have your answer.
I do not know who will say what but it is very much clear that you have no meaningful argument to counter.
Your argument was countered in the BNS thread/s and your other anti mainstream cosmology threads, and obviously countered over at cosmoquest.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Gentlemen hashing over the past and Cosmoquest and Rajesh's presentation won't get us anywhere.
Let's face it even a professional would have a difficult run over there.
Moreover I don't think the forum owners here would not enjoy another forum getting exposure here.
Can we discuss gravity?
We are in a section that offers perhaps a little freedom and so I ask again is there any scientific review upon the observation we call attraction?
Does GR recognise attraction or is it unnecessary in that model.
Say we have two spheres hanging on a string (cord chain whatever) and to pick a number say 100 klgs each..at sea level.
The spheres are at the same level above sea level.
As we moved the spheres closer to each other I think we would observe they move toward each other a little past the vertical line of the string or cord holding up each sphere.
They would seem to be attracted to each other.
So will anyone comment on what is happening.
Does science say such and such is going on?
Does science consider there is any curvature of space?
Is the action attributable to gravity or say another force.
Any comments or input gratefully received.
What is the mainstream description or explanation.
Alex
Let's face it even a professional would have a difficult run over there.
Moreover I don't think the forum owners here would not enjoy another forum getting exposure here.
Can we discuss gravity?
We are in a section that offers perhaps a little freedom and so I ask again is there any scientific review upon the observation we call attraction?
Does GR recognise attraction or is it unnecessary in that model.
Say we have two spheres hanging on a string (cord chain whatever) and to pick a number say 100 klgs each..at sea level.
The spheres are at the same level above sea level.
As we moved the spheres closer to each other I think we would observe they move toward each other a little past the vertical line of the string or cord holding up each sphere.
They would seem to be attracted to each other.
So will anyone comment on what is happening.
Does science say such and such is going on?
Does science consider there is any curvature of space?
Is the action attributable to gravity or say another force.
Any comments or input gratefully received.
What is the mainstream description or explanation.
Alex
As a lay person and in layman's terms, gravity in both models, Newtonian and GR is attractive: The cause of this attraction in Newtonian is not considered, other than it varies as the inverse square of the distance between two masses.
Can we discuss gravity?
We are in a section that offers perhaps a little freedom and so I ask again is there any scientific review upon the observation we call attraction?
Does GR recognise attraction or is it unnecessary in that model.
In GR gravity is not a force but simply the curvature of spacetime, and imo, the best, although limited representation of this is the stretched rubber sheet or trampolin and the bowling ball in the middle.
The "attractive effect" would be minimal due to the size, and other aspects that may spoil the result such as atmospheric disturbances etc.
Although "Focault's Pendulum" does come to mind.
The curvature/Twisting and waving of space, in the presence of mass, has been demonstrated with GP-B and aLIGO.
"Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve"
John Archibald Wheeler:
While Newtonian and GR re able to give and make correct predicitions, re gravity, within their spheres of applicablity, the cause and why of the apparent attraction is unknown.
Newton recognised that fact, and could not explain why masses attract, and Einstein recognised that in not being able to explain why mass curves spacetime, and why such curvature, and twisting [Lense Thirring effect] causes gravity.
Another point, if two masses were put at opposite ends of the known universe, given time, they will gravitate together.
That's the general mainstream picture of gravity, although there are other less effective models around such as MOND.
Our supreme gravity model GR simply tells us that gravity is geometry of spacetime.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Thank you Paddo boy for that excellent overview, if that is the correct description, you have somewhat confirmed my suspicions there are still un answered questions.
Do you know of any work trying to answer the question what is the conversation between mass and space?
Thanks again.
Alex
Do you know of any work trying to answer the question what is the conversation between mass and space?
Thanks again.
Alex
Last edited:
No probs! As I said, pretty basic....I'll answer your question with a video of a similar explanation by another great.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Great video.
That makes me feel better because it seems apart from the difficulties in answering a "why" question it seems clear there is no answer as yet to the questions in my mind.
Alex
Hi Alex
While we wait for the scientific community on the topic of gravity, I have concluded that you already have the best answer, as indicated by your signature that says, "What is reality when everyone enjoys their own version".
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Yours truly has just proposed that.
In GR as on date we do not know about the mechanism of how mass curves the space-time or how spacetime tells the mass to move.
My proposition is very simple, if we can stretch or bend matter, then surely we can stretch or bend energy.
The matter stretches, so does the energy. This stretching of energy at the time of formation of matter (higher energy density) is gravity.
The bigger mathematical question in front of me is, this stretching will surely curve the energy, will this curving of energy follow Einstein Tensor Equations? If so then I have the maths on platter, with certain qualitative changes.
It looks like you are saying that there chould be a mechanistic explanation for gravity involving the physical bending and stretching of matter and spacetime. At the same time, you have not expressed a problem with Einstein's field equations (EFEs), and might agree that the EFEs are, to date, the best mathematical solution. So are you saying that if we already have the math that supports GR, then your proposed physical bending and stretching of matter and spacetime might fill in the missing part, and complete the theory of GR as a mechanistic solution as well as a mathematical solution?
Last edited:
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Quite different.
I am not using space-time, which has no physical connect. My premises is to treat energy as stretchable massless entity.
If I define the space as full of energy, massless form, and matter as massed form thus higher density energy. When higher density energy that is matter forms, the stretching takes place, this stretching manifests itself as gravity.
Gravity under my proposal is some kind of radial stretching of energy field, which is not contemplated under GR. I am trying to figure out if curving of space-time of GR can be equated with curving of energy field around an object. What is positive is that most of the observation can be explained under this, of course qualitatively as of now. It does not appear that any of the observations falsify this.
I agree with you in some ways, but I didn't read your thread very carefully, and didn't realize that you were suggesting an alternative to spacetime. I think you are touching on something there.
By way of disclosure, I have been working on a model along the lines that spacetime can be replaced by a wave energy density model. It would be consistent with the EFEs, but would include that all space is filled with wave energy, in the form of light and gravitational waves.
Matter, on the other hand would be composed of wave energy, but the energy of particles would be "contained" within the particle space by a standing wave pattern, with inflowing and out flowing wave energy components. The inflowing wave energy would be from the energy that fills all space, and comes from the out flow of surrounding particles and objects. The out flowing component would be spherical from the particle and objects and would fill space until it was absorbed into the standing wave pattern of other particles and objects.
I apologize for mentioning my views, but I wondered if you have considered the idea that an energy density model might be substantially a wave energy model?
Last edited:
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
No I am not differentiating between matter and energy. I am not even talking about gravitational waves as pre condition.
I am not addressing the origin of universe as yet, although this is also the part of this proposal, a naturally retrofit.
I will once again state the motivation, why and how is that a tiny hydrogen atom (think of electron or smaller as well) is able to create gravity at any distance? The Andromeda galaxy is influenced by a tiny hydrogen atom at the center of our galaxy, moreover it does not matter if this atom changes to other form.
If the influence is dynamic and travelling at certain speed, however high, then we would get recordable vibrations/ jerks everymoment, but it does not happen, one of the simple explanation is that this atom did something when it or its ancestor was getting formed from energy. The key is conversion of energy into higher energy density (matter), this instant only mattered for gravity as this caused the stretch. After that it does not matter if this hydrogen changes to Helium or Fe.
I hear you. You haven't really gotten to pinning down the preconditions to what now exists, but right now are concentrating on the concept that gravity has a potentially infinite reach.
It might be happening in an undetectable way, but at the level of the most massive events, there are the LIGO detections of gravitational waves, which, to some degree fit the definition of recordable vibrations/ jerks.
Maybe so, but the answers are in a model where all of the observations are accounted for by one set of invariant natural laws, so I would encourage you not too get to invested in a single aspect of your cosmology, but try to develope many aspects along side of each other to make sure they are all internally consistent as you go.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
For GR none is asking even after a century that how mass curves the space-time, but any new theory will face massive scrutiny, that too if at all it is taken up for consideration.
My thoughts are that in GR the concept of stretching and curving of some entity is there, it's mathematical but it is given physical significance (even though none exists in reality), so why can't a theory be developed around some entity which stretches and curves in presence of mass with direct physical connect? That's the attempt which covers sub nucleonic regime to cosmological level, explaining all the observations.
RajeshTrivedi
Valued Senior Member
Thank you and your welcome.