Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
I only now saw your post River.
My ideas were never presented as a theory nor did I call it such.
You seem to be in a strange mood I hope you are OK.
Alex
Layman's attempt at gravity
- Thread starter Xelasnave.1947
- Start date
My ideas were never presented as a theory nor did I call it such.
You seem to be in a strange mood I hope you are OK.
Alex
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
In my Ether Model, etheric forces are so refined, they are not measurable, using our earthbound quantum/atomic instruments, so mathematics don't yet apply.Although I hate maths have you any calculations this layman could appreciate to explain your model?
I'm the first to admit I do not have any maths to describe my idea of gravity being a repulsion force except to "reverse", if it is feasible perhaps, the maths in attraction model
To gather objectifiable evidence for the existence of a universal ether, my model would require a way to generate a selectively-etheric force-field, and measuring densities inside the system, to see if a measurable decrease in density occurs with exposure to the field. Such an effect on densities does not occur with known forms of energy.
I have a possible method of producing such an etheric field, but the field test would require finances I don't have. So far, I haven't been able to find a financial sponsor to evaluate it or get it done.
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
"Dark matter" as a theory is part of the standard model of quantum physics, and therefore would not correlate with my model of a universal ether. -I would simply equate "dark matter" with the ether. It's called "dark" by physicists because they lack the ability to observe it, using their quantum instrumentations. They only "find" it indirectly as a "missing" quantity in the universe of "something" (which they incorrectly call "matter," but it's actually etheric.)
Frank Moore
Registered Member
I apologize for the intrusion as I am not a student of this subject but rather just curious about gravity. Is there a school of thought that believes gravity is simply the result of motion? Like centrifugal force that holds water in a bucket or the force created by constant acceleration. The expansion of the universe is the motion. In a one planet universe the planet is held in the center by the motion of the expanding sphere. In our universe the mass of one planet creates a “wake” blocking the forces of the expansion, causing orbits. As I sit at my place on this planet its mass is shielding me from the force that would push me off while the force from the clear sky above me is holding me comfortably in place. The model seems simple to me, so I am sure it has been around the block. Can you point me in the right direction or explain why this cannot be?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
There is absolutely no intrusion so you need not apologise but your approach is most acceptable for the manners and politeness you demonstrate.
The predominant model of gravity is General Relativity which I would encourage you to read about all the while remembering it was presented by a man who is considered at the top of the list when rating the geniuses thru history.
Before him Newton provided a model of gravity that is still used in pretty well all calculations relating to space travel.
Another genius.
My point is don't feel bad if you find the going difficult.
I really can't help with any of your questions but would suggest before you come up with how you think it works look into the matters above.
I have, as a layman been reading about it and thinking about it for years and I can say I have little understanding other than there is much I don't know.
Thank you for joining in and hopefully other members may help with further guidance.
Alex
Stop right there. Given it's a 1-planet universe, how can expanding nothing hold anything in place? What could expansion of nothing even mean? That and too many other undefined ideas just leaves more questions begging than any hope of useful answers.
What's more, as mentioned much earlier this thread, gravity is more than just about forces and motions. A theory worth it's salt needs to also explain gravitational time dilation. 'Wakes' and 'expanding spheres' don't look very promising in that regard. Sorry.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
As layman myself, I still favor the idea of a massive object causing a dimple in the fabric of spacetime itself. The dimple of necessity stretches spacetime fabric and would account for both gravitational attraction (falling into the dimple) as well as time dilation caused by the stretching of spacetime.
And going further out on a limb, if spacetime is the Higgs field (which is at least related to acquiring mass), would it be reasonable to say that a massive object affects the Higgs field, i.e. creating a dimple in the Higgs field?
That picturesque description is just about standard pop-sci fare re GR and similar. Except to be consistent there is actually a compression of the spatial component(s) - asymmterically so in standard Schwarzschild coordinates.
No it's a scalar field riding within (or on top of if you prefer) spacetime.
A massive object effects everything within it's effective sphere of influence because spacetime curvature so generated acts on everything as a generic feature of gravitational metric theory principle.
Last edited:
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
Cosmologists will inevitably have to accept ether theory. Concepts such as "dark matter" and "dark energy" are reflective of "dark" theories. Using just quantum theory to explain cosmological physics is doomed, eventually.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
We need three coal miners named Tom, Dick and Harry.
I am not a scientist and trying to understand physics with no education leaves me at a disadvantage.
What I find strange is how science approaches gravity in so far that it appears to me that science seems to offers no " mechanical" explanation of how gravity works.
When some folk talk about GR they will say words like "mass tells space how to bend" but offer no explanation as to what information is exchanged between mass and space... at least that is how I interpret the current situation.
I don't like using analogy but I have no other way to explain myself.
I see GR like recording the performance of a drag car....only one car so we don't confuse my confusion more.
Let's call the recording team "o one" the team is assembled to observe performance of the car "o one" consists of three guys , ex coal miners, who we call Tom Dick and Harry.
The "o one" team have never been in the garage where another team assemble the car from "the ground up" and have no idea how the car works.
They are specialised observers who only observe the car from the moment it leaves the starting gate until it stops at the end of the track.
They can observe acceleration, the speed at any point, even the deceleration.
A passer by if he asked how does the vehicle work they would answer that they did not need to know and proceed to show data that shows terminal speed etc.
On one run the motor exploded and the car performs slower when it crosses the line.
T D and Harry are disturbed and conclude "dark air" has slowed the car. They don't know what dark air is and respond by recording the data so in future when the car slows they can calculate how much "dark air" had crossed the track.
The teams data gathering is perfect and later when they meet the engineers explain how they have discovered " dark air".
The engineers try to explain that the car slowed because it blew a head gasket but Tom Dick and Harry are not interested in any view outside their data gathering methods.
The owner of the car also is not that interested in why the car slows he in more interested in the terminal speed...that his bottom line...he wants to know if his car has a higher speed than the guy he will race next week.
And of course Tom, Dick and Harry never need to know what the engineers are doing to produce their data but somehow one can feel they have no idea about racing a drag car.
If they did they would not suggest "dark air" because if they understood the mechanics of why the car accelerates and stops at the end of the track "dark air" would vanish.
It seems a similar situation in GR.
If we don't understand how mass bends space could it not be considered critical to figure that out before going further.
Observation of the unexpected rotation curves of galaxies should have had GR folk adjust their sums one could think.
Would that not be the time to wonder a little.
No the sums are right and although we can't see anything its there...our sums tell us its there...could your sums be wrong...no...why not?..in the past they have been right.
Perhaps consider that in this limited case they need adjustment...nope they are right the matter we can't see is there...
And when the prospect is raised that there is something is in empty space the GR folk hold up a cross and murmur " bad seed, bad seed mmm ether ...there is no ether"
I am not trying to be disrespectful but it helps to vent my frustration with the apparent refusal to think for a moment the sums may needs adjustment.
Don't get me wrong I am not your average nut job I do not say GR is wrong.
I dont day throw it out in fact those who approach things that way I regard as foolish and brash.
And I don't think it needs to be thrown out if something else is pit up on utube but I think it GR should consider the "remote" possibility that in certain situations eg galaxy rotation curves it requires adjustment.
And the question needs to be asked, even if scientific philosophy rejects this approach, what is the mechanism of gravity.
What do others think about my demand for a mechanism or at least a theory to explain why mass tells space how to bend.
Alex
I am not a scientist and trying to understand physics with no education leaves me at a disadvantage.
What I find strange is how science approaches gravity in so far that it appears to me that science seems to offers no " mechanical" explanation of how gravity works.
When some folk talk about GR they will say words like "mass tells space how to bend" but offer no explanation as to what information is exchanged between mass and space... at least that is how I interpret the current situation.
I don't like using analogy but I have no other way to explain myself.
I see GR like recording the performance of a drag car....only one car so we don't confuse my confusion more.
Let's call the recording team "o one" the team is assembled to observe performance of the car "o one" consists of three guys , ex coal miners, who we call Tom Dick and Harry.
The "o one" team have never been in the garage where another team assemble the car from "the ground up" and have no idea how the car works.
They are specialised observers who only observe the car from the moment it leaves the starting gate until it stops at the end of the track.
They can observe acceleration, the speed at any point, even the deceleration.
A passer by if he asked how does the vehicle work they would answer that they did not need to know and proceed to show data that shows terminal speed etc.
On one run the motor exploded and the car performs slower when it crosses the line.
T D and Harry are disturbed and conclude "dark air" has slowed the car. They don't know what dark air is and respond by recording the data so in future when the car slows they can calculate how much "dark air" had crossed the track.
The teams data gathering is perfect and later when they meet the engineers explain how they have discovered " dark air".
The engineers try to explain that the car slowed because it blew a head gasket but Tom Dick and Harry are not interested in any view outside their data gathering methods.
The owner of the car also is not that interested in why the car slows he in more interested in the terminal speed...that his bottom line...he wants to know if his car has a higher speed than the guy he will race next week.
And of course Tom, Dick and Harry never need to know what the engineers are doing to produce their data but somehow one can feel they have no idea about racing a drag car.
If they did they would not suggest "dark air" because if they understood the mechanics of why the car accelerates and stops at the end of the track "dark air" would vanish.
It seems a similar situation in GR.
If we don't understand how mass bends space could it not be considered critical to figure that out before going further.
Observation of the unexpected rotation curves of galaxies should have had GR folk adjust their sums one could think.
Would that not be the time to wonder a little.
No the sums are right and although we can't see anything its there...our sums tell us its there...could your sums be wrong...no...why not?..in the past they have been right.
Perhaps consider that in this limited case they need adjustment...nope they are right the matter we can't see is there...
And when the prospect is raised that there is something is in empty space the GR folk hold up a cross and murmur " bad seed, bad seed mmm ether ...there is no ether"
I am not trying to be disrespectful but it helps to vent my frustration with the apparent refusal to think for a moment the sums may needs adjustment.
Don't get me wrong I am not your average nut job I do not say GR is wrong.
I dont day throw it out in fact those who approach things that way I regard as foolish and brash.
And I don't think it needs to be thrown out if something else is pit up on utube but I think it GR should consider the "remote" possibility that in certain situations eg galaxy rotation curves it requires adjustment.
And the question needs to be asked, even if scientific philosophy rejects this approach, what is the mechanism of gravity.
What do others think about my demand for a mechanism or at least a theory to explain why mass tells space how to bend.
Alex
Last edited:
Well guess what Alex. You have just branded yourself 'an average nut job'. That's because GR has exactly zero room for even the slightest 'adjustment'. It has been a closed package from the outset in 1915-16. If galaxy rotation curves etc. really require a 'mod' to GR (unlikely in that respect) - GR is simply WRONG. One would need another theory.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Thank you Q-reeus.
I like to think I am an above average nut job. I don't have to worry about what others think about me so I don't care really.
That seems strange but if you say so I will accept that as being the position.
I thought GR was still being researched.
I was looking at funding last year and there is still heaps going to GR so I thought it was far from settled.
I can't see that being a satisfactory situation really but can see that including dark matter would be necessary, as from what you say without it the theory will be tossed out.
Is it really that way?
If so I can understand why folk are lining up to call it wrong on the one side and the supporters so strongly resisting any hint that there may be a problem.
So no matter what alternative is offered dark matter will have to found I expect.
And I guess if you try to get up with another theory it won't be accepted unless is fits GR.
Well I must say I am disappointed if GR is set in stone as to me that seems to cut off any opportunity to consider an alternative to dark matter, ...
Alex
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Think of a hilly terrain where the car goes faster downhill due to gravity, but slower when it has to go back uphill again due to gravity.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
That is a good way to think about it from the little I know.
And it has just dawned on me why the graviton is not welcomed as being helpful.
So we are relegated to seeing the relationship between space and matter as somewhat magical or is there research taking place to explain how mass influences space.
Alex
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Once I visualized a whirlpool in water, caused by the rotation of an object. You can observe it when stirring a cup of tea.
I visualized that a massive spinning object also created such an effect on the surrounding space, a type of whirlpool creating a spinning hole in space. Since then I dropped that idea because I have never seen gravity as being associated with spin of a massive object .
However now that I rethink it, is it possible that the DeBroglie-Bohm Pilot wave passing a massive object might create a similar effect as a whirlpool? Is it physically necessary that all objects move at the same rate as the Pilot Wave?
Woo?
I visualized that a massive spinning object also created such an effect on the surrounding space, a type of whirlpool creating a spinning hole in space. Since then I dropped that idea because I have never seen gravity as being associated with spin of a massive object .
However now that I rethink it, is it possible that the DeBroglie-Bohm Pilot wave passing a massive object might create a similar effect as a whirlpool? Is it physically necessary that all objects move at the same rate as the Pilot Wave?
Woo?
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Thus the question becomes if this speculation does comply with GR.
But then it is hard to conceive of a 3 D whirlpool, surrounding the entire massive object.
I'll rate this myself as woo.....
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
But this may be of more interest;
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/first-galileo-gravity-experiment-re-created-space-einstein
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/first-galileo-gravity-experiment-re-created-space-einstein
Let's be clear. The predictions of GR are indeed still being intensively researched, but increasingly with the motivation to uncover any minute failings suggesting 'new physics'. Most researchers think that will only manifest at the extremes owing to 'quantum gravity' effects. I beg to differ but that's another story best not to pursue here.
GR is indeed 'set in stone' as expressed by the EFE's. The single 'free parameter' is the 'cosmological constant' appearing as a constant curvature term on the LHS.
It's just there by fiat as 'curvature without cause' i.e. 'intrinsic curvature' of spacetime. The thing is it has to be a constant. Hence if one adopts the popular idea it corresponds to 'dark energy', the value is far too small and of the wrong sign to account for 'dark matter' re galaxy rotation curves etc.
Further, a constant curvature of either sign, or any constant magnitude, is simply is the wrong creature to explain DM type phenomena.
We already covered one alternative to GR that claims to account for both DE and DM - see p4 #80. Note the fundamental criticism in last linked article there.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
That you for taking the time to post the link I enjoyed it and found it interesting.
Alex