Guys i think i understand gravity now

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Ethernos 1997, Oct 18, 2020.

  1. Ethernos 1997 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    I don't know where i can publish my ideas or i am being delusional again. I also think i'm f'ed since i don't know how work out the math.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2020
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. mathman Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,765
    Without indicating what you have in mind, you won't get much help here.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,896
    Does it predict testable observations that could distinguish it from Einsteinian general relativity?
     
    Ethernos 1997 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,453
    It's got his name on the bottom
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,896
    Let my hands be clean of rope burns. I'll give him enough to hang himself.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Ethernos 1997 likes this.
  9. Ethernos 1997 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    Well it does say from maxwell's demon's perspective time is constant just the motion is different
     
  10. Ethernos 1997 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    take a spacetime as a length of x and the time taken to cover it is T. When the mass bends or stretch spacetime the x as x+dx. The time taken is still T. So when x proportional to T. Constant is velocity and when x+dx is proptional to T. The constant is acceleration. So what i am trying to imply which may be wrong is when the spacetime stretch there is generation of acceleration. So taking the spacetime bend around a mass it creates an acceleration field around mass. This also implies that the time flows at a constant rate.
     
    river likes this.
  11. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,809
    Guys i think i understand gravity now

    Great only another 6 billion 999 thousand and 999 to go

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Ethernos 1997 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
  13. HawkI Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    279
    Try Painting it.
     
    Ethernos 1997 and Hipparchia like this.
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,809
    Not sure this will help

    I GET the concept and what he says makes sense

    Understanding is a different animal



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Ethernos 1997 and Seattle like this.
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,468
    You're being delusion again.
     
    Ethernos 1997 likes this.
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,896
    Couple of problems I see:

    If you are starting to "understand gravity" then you shouldn't have anything to publish, since your understanding will be in-line with what is already understood about it.

    It seems what you mean to say is that you have your own unique idea about how gravity works. To-wit:
    Before you go looking for publication, you're going to want to express your idea a little more coherently than this.
     
    Ethernos 1997 and river like this.
  17. trevor borocz johnson Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    251
    it sure as shit doesn't work the way the GR people think it does. Their technical current idea is that gravity is created by a particle that is emitted from a quark based particle. Upsetting how pompous people get because they think they understand something because it was hard or had math to it.
     
    Ethernos 1997 likes this.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,817
    Ummm, yes it does. GR is tested everyday and continues to be validated.
    Nonsense. We do not have any observationally verified QGT, and no evidence yet of any graviton.
    Gravity is simply spacetime geometry, in the presence of mass/energy.
     
    Ethernos 1997 likes this.
  19. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,696
    Ethernos, ignore those who only come here to mock and to scoff. I think you are roughly on the right track, but going backwards.

    Consider acceleration, which you mention in this context. If we assume (as Einstein did) that provided spacetime intervals are taken sufficiently small (and this means SMALL), then in these intervals, acceleration consists of a "series" of spacetime intervals, each with constant i.e. non-accelerated velocity, all different. Then from relativity they are using different coordinate systems

    Now the Special Theory of Relativity states that any two coordinate system that validly "describe" the same system, cannot agree on their metrics.

    Assume, again as Einstein did, that acceleration and gravitation are equivalent, at least on the scales I am using. Then the rest is coasting downhill, as it were. The curvature of a field is defined as the second derivative of the metric field. Then by elementary calculus, the second derivative any constant field is zero (this is called "flat spacetime"), if the metric is not constant the curvature - the second derivative of the metric, recall - is not zero.

    So in the presence of gravitation, spacetime is not flat
     
    Ethernos 1997 likes this.
  20. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,112
    Assuming you mean in all reference frames, this will be quite a problem for your hypothesis, since it is wrong.
     
    Ethernos 1997 likes this.
  21. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,696
    In fact, my friend, it is you that is wrong.
    Every coordinate system -what you call a "reference frame"- has its own unique metric, which in relativity theory is chosen so that time runs at the same rate relative to its own coordinate system.

    Of course these metrics are not interchangeable between coordinate systems.
     
    Ethernos 1997 likes this.
  22. Ethernos 1997 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    if we introduce a mass to a constant constant vector field in 3-D. it gives momentum vector field. so if we imagine the mass density to be greater at centre.then the mass is spherically spread all over. but the momentum field spreads or extends beyond the mass in spacetime or consatant vector field in 3-D. momentum=volume x density x velocity. now we will be taking density as energy density instead of mass.
    R=rho=energy density from X to O or O to X. O being co-ordinate of centre of mass and X being co-ordinate of last or end of momentum field.
    so rho is munimum at X and MAx at O.
    V=velocity from X to O. since if we imagine a single a single line if spacetime or constant vector field passing through has twist n turns. so the velocity vector field is changing direction and not in displacement. so what we have is varying vector field or if we sum it up as a single length it is acceleration. volume is constant or can it be varying too?!for now we will take it constant and give it value of 10^ -105. as quantum loop gravity suggest that last unit of volume is as such.
    derivating w.r.t x.
    d/dx of (R×volume×velocity) limits from X to O.
    =d/dx[(energy/volume)×volume×velocity] from X to O.
    =d/dx[energy×velocity] from X to O.
    maybe i went wrong somewhere on calculus. just kidding maybe everything is wrong.
     
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,112
    No shit.
    No shit.

    You're such a twit, thanks for reminding me I took you off ignore. Adios.
     

Share This Page