There are no problems, if you cant understand the problems I've alluded to. Googling on the fly cant help you with this thread, you've actually got to think for yourself. Im not disputing that relativity models and produces the correct results (it does) or that we dont understand the effects of gravity, we understand the effects of gravity very well. Im disputing that its not whats physically happening from the classical mechanics POV "the cause of gravity". Im saying that curved space time cant be responsible for the cause of gravity as many believe it is. It can also just be my understanding, which none have corrected.
Gravity is modeled quite adequately excpet of course for the quantum/Planck level. GP-B has further supporetd our GR picture of gravity.' But yes, there is further room for a better understanding........a validated QGT would do the trick.
Start with the first Englsih word, and get your self a dictionary. If you still cannot figure it our I can try to assist you. "If" is the 'I' section of the dictionary. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! r6
In the above two scenarios the Earth and feet are the fulcrum-like leverage point. If we live in a finite Universe, then there is no fulcrum-like leverage point, outside of/beyond the finite Universe, to allow any push-IN and maintain the consistency of the 2nd law of thermodynamics i.e. naught can be lost or become disingetrated from our finite whole Universe. However, with a pulling-IN force, perhaps gravity, which is itself the outside membrane that embraces and contains Universe, it also permeates all of Universe's fermionic and bosonic particle parts, so, it may be that gravity can use the parts of Universe, on whole, as its fulcrum-like leverage point, to pull-IN the Universe as integral whole. To simplify the whole Universe scenario above, we can go back to just two particles, wherein gravity embraces each geodesically and attracts the two towards each other. Can we see how the two particles are used as fulcrum leverage point to and have a resulatant mass-attraction IN. A(o>IN<o )B In this scenario, my intention is to envision gravity A using partilce B as its fulcrum leverage point to pull itself( A ) ergo the particle that A embraces, toward particle that is embraced by gravity B and vice versa. If we can find any validity to that scenario, then it is possible to transpose it to our finite Universe on whole. I believe gravity is a force phenomena ergo the potential for gravitons to exist within the proper set of circumstances. If we think of great circle geodesic, as the central axis trajectory for great torus, then we may begin to understand how gravitons can exist yet still be contigous constant. Ex take a bicycle inner tube, put some air into it. Now we can place a clamp every so few inches to pinch it off. Now we have undulation-like pattern of expanded few inches then with a graduated contraction as we approach clamp at each end of the expanded part. This would be graviton. If were to do this with the mininal geometric topology that encloses space we could say, that, we have a subdivided 2D triangle, that has the central nodal vertexial event. If we move the central nodal vertex even forward on geodesic great circle pathway/trajectory, and along with the three perimeter nodal vertexes, we define an Euclidean triangle great tube. If we have the outer three vertexes as the outer triangle spin as it moves forward defining this geodesic trajectory, then we define a spiral tube with a central axis trajectory--- I like to think of as a spinal chord ----. So now, if the outer three nodal vertexial events were to attract inward towards the central axis and then repel backoutward and then attract back inware etc... We define my above given bicycle tube undulation pattern, wherein we have contigous gravitons that are seperate from each other, only by the pinching off at each end of the graviton section. Actually, there is way to envision this above scenario so that one end of the graviton is beginning to expand from its pinched-OFF/closed-OFF phase while the other end is just approaching its closed-OFF/piched-OFF phase/condition. This is just a simple approach to understanding gravities mechanism and the above can be envisoned with some alterations to make it more complicated, but it is a relatively simple scenario for beginners. imho r6
As I said in post [2] although we can describe gravity quite adequately, we really do not as yet know the exact mechanism....Although space/time curvature in the presence of mass/energy gives the most realistic picture. The results of GP-B have fully supported GR and that same scenario.
You have been confused by the flawed ball-on-rubber-sheet analogy. A surface formed like this rubber-sheet doesn't represent curved space-time, just curved space (the time dimension is not shown). And you are absolutely right, that the spatial curvature shown in this analogy, doesn't affect objects which are initially at rest in space. So it cannot make them start moving. To understand how initially resting objects start moving in GR, you have to include the time dimension: [video=youtube;DdC0QN6f3G4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdC0QN6f3G4[/video]
Four ABCD Points of Consideration--16 > 8 > 4 > 2 Obivously, when we push on A from B an vice versa our pulling-IN is countered by our feet pushing-OUT, so, where does that leave us for understanding the mechanism for gravity's mass-attractive/contractive force/phenomena. One thought that comes to mind, is that if we have four points of consideration. A, B, C and D then if A and B are the points of fulcrum/leverage, that are moved outward, then the the C and D are pulled-IN-ward. This above got me to thinking about the cosmic entropic heat death of our finite occupied space Universe. O|O Left-A and rigt-B geodesics pull-IN-ward on each other and the flat photon-C and D is expanded-OUT as low frequency thin plane. Somehow, the left-A and right-B geodesics are using the photon( mass of Universe --- as their fulcrum point(s) to pull themselves toward each other ergo the photon-C and D is pushed-OUT ward in two directions( C adn D ) and A and B come together. h,mmm. r6
Actually, it's more a case of the angle of the dangle, equaling the heat of the meat, and the rise and the fall, of the left hand ball.
Another Viewpoint >V< arrow-of-time ->->->-Past >< Future >->-> arrow-of-time If we live in a finite 3D volumetric Universe, then we can imagine a finite 2D planar polygonal or circle cross section of the volumetric, finite Universe-- ex | ----of NOW that exists between Past >|< Future This 2D has only X and Y or Y and Z or Z and Z dimensions i.e. 2D has no volumetric area only 2D area. How is this possible? We say that is not possible, so we say that, time does not exist, or that time is an illusion of our physical/energy Universe of occupied space is an illusion. However, it is a dammed good illusion! Ha ha We have the remmenents of past in the now, and the now exists over time eternally. Our finite 2D illusion appears to be moving and changing location of its many parts( frequency/vibration/oscillations ) over time, eternally. Fuller states it as lag rates of cognition in that we our brains cannot match the speed-of-radiations 700,000,000 miles per hour ergo we have to deal with afterimages of what happen previously in other locations in past times. So what if could bend spacetime, then perhaps we could have the following texticonic representation of time; ->->-> Past > (O)< Future ->->-> Now we still have a 2D surface, but it is warped surface. If a spherical surface then it has positive curvature. If saddle-shaped--- ex torus/toroidal ---then negative curvature. I see a possibility of negative shaped outer torus surface, that defines within, a positive shaped 2D surface-- ex circle or high frequency set of polygonal cross sections. However, we have ultra-high number of these cross-sectioned circle-like planes that define a 3D volumetric if not spherical, Universe that we live in. There is only the one-> arrow-of-time -> but a ultra-high set of 2D cross sections that integrate as one wholistic 3D volume, surrounded by the negative curvature, that I refer to as gravity. r6
Whoever believes such a thing is doing so incorrectly since that is a very old, but very common, misconception of general relativity. Sir Arthur Eddington pointed this out at least as far back as 1918 in Gravitation and The Principle of Relativity by. A.S. Eddington, Nature, March 14, 1918, page 36 as follows
While realising we do not know the exact mechanism of gravity, we do know that matter/energy tend to warp/curve/twist space/time. When this happens, we feel gravity. Gravity, is a means by which all mass/energy tend to attract each other. GR provides a description of gravity as a geometric property of space/time. In other words, when it is curved by mass/energy. Didn't GP-B validate this description of gravity and the Lense-Thirring effect [twisting of space/time by Earth's spinning mass] Maybe not an exact mechanism, but certainly a hint and good description and means of gravity.......
When that happens we feel tidal gradients, not gravity. Our experience of gravity is when things which have no other force acting on it accelerates in our frame of reference and the force causing that acceleration is then called an inertial force. Einstein realized that inertial forces and gravitational forces have the same nature of accelerating al bodies independent of their construction. So what we used to refer to as a pseudo-force, Einstein came along and reinterpreted them as gravitational forces. That’s how the equivalence principle was born, i.e. When the spacetime is flat then such a field can be completely transformed away. When tidal forces are present such fields cannot be completely transformed away and for that reason are referred to as permanent gravitational fields. Not necessarily. In the absence of matter in large reasons of spacetime one can “produce” a gravitational field merely by changing your frame of reference. That’s not the way Einstein viewed it. In a letter to Lincoln Barnett dated June 19, 1948 Einstein wrote All the proof of what I just said above including references can be found in the article I wrote on the subject called Einstein's gravitational field and can be found at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0204044. The abstract reads
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!....Thanks for that. My mind is still boggling!.... But let me digest and if I have any questions, I'll be back. ps: What part do you see the property of non-linearity playing with our notion of gravity/space/time?
Question number [2] From what I have read and heard, the GP-B results [of which I have mentioned a lot] confirmed the GR model to a high degree of tolerence....Am I reading too much into it?
