PDA

View Full Version : Gravity


mocoman
20th Jan 2009, 02:40
Come on then; how DOES it work.

Is it bounded by common electro-magnetic theorems or is it a force apart.

Does its' effect get transferred at the speed-of-light or is it unbounded.

Is there a particle that transmits 'Gravity'.

Can there be a theory-of-everything without an understanding of gravity.

All rhetorical, but valid, questions; Serious answers only....nah only joking.

Thoughts?

BlueWolf
20th Jan 2009, 02:43
No-one knows, yet.

If we did, we'd have devised something with which to counter it.
:cool:

....but imagine if we did invent anti-gravity, and then the atmosphere and the oceans all fell off...maybe that's what happened to the Martians :uhoh::ooh:

mocoman
20th Jan 2009, 02:47
have devised something with which to counter it

<tinfoilhat>
what makes you think we haven't?
</tinfoilhat>

:E

ehwatezedoing
20th Jan 2009, 03:36
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/funny-pictures-gravity-cat.jpg

con-pilot
20th Jan 2009, 03:40
Wot, you lot not figured out how to get around this gravity thing?

I'll let you know how to do that, for a small fee.



(Course, may not work for everyone. ;))

Loose rivets
20th Jan 2009, 04:36
Oh goodness. He's doing it on purpose isn't he. It's torture not talking about gravity when all about me are.

Forty years ago I wondered why matter might be of a constant size. We couldn't tell if it changed scale. After all, the Earth for just one example, is decelerating in all directions relative to the 'fixed stars'. What relativistic effect would this have on our local matter? see Lorentz.

I wondered if the Earth might be expanding. Not just the space between particles, but the very parts that we perceive as the fabric of matter; the components that go towards making an atom.

Now, since rulers would also be expanding, only God would be able to see such a change of scale. All very well, but the surface of a planet or sun would soon be exceeding the speed of light...or not, more likely, but you know what I mean.

The next bit requires one to believe in an aether that has substance. Perhaps the only substance...let's see what comes out of CERN. Decades have gone by with people teaching us that there is no need for a substance for waves to travel in. James Clarke Maxwell, formulated so well, the concept of EM waves being a perfectly balanced act: electrical and magnetic fields doing their thing without the support of a medium. But now, the concept of spacetime being 'something', is stimulating a steady flow of papers and publications.

What I wondered all those years ago, was whether spacetime flowed into matter to pay for the change of scale. That's it. In a nutshell.

However, I have come to doubt if we will ever detect gravity waves. Whatever we use to measure them with will be modified by the wave. Yes, it is traveling at c.

General Relativity predicted gravity waves. Last I heard, none had been detected.

It seems that my ideas are not too far-fetched. A couple of years ago I was directed -via a physics forum - to an American uni where a professor had published on Gravitational Inflow. We exchange e-mails a couple of times, then I received the most bewildering, outlandish, childish, puerile, series of comments from him that I have ever been on the receiving end of. This from a supposed intellectual. I thought I'd heard everything after a career in aviation, but this took the biscuit and I've kept witnessed records of the 'communication.' because he'd clearly stated in one paper that he didn't know where all this spacetime was going, and I'd suggested an answer. I watch his work like a hawk. Nowt so queer as folk.

merlinxx
20th Jan 2009, 05:32
Why does gravity increase with the increase in intake of alcohol ?:ugh::E

ORAC
20th Jan 2009, 06:36
Is it bounded by common electro-magnetic theorems or is it a force apart. A force apart

Does its' effect get transferred at the speed-of-light or is it unbounded. Speed of light

Is there a particle that transmits 'Gravity'. Yes

Can there be a theory-of-everything without an understanding of gravity. No

BlueWolf
20th Jan 2009, 06:52
Intrigued by your middle two answers, ORAC.

Speed of light I disagree with, and that comes from the wearing of my metaphysicist's hat. I do believe gravity to be a timeless constant, distance relevant, time not so - a bit like permanent magnetic fields. I would be genuinely intrigued to read through your reasoning or references thereto, because I am still looking for answers, all of which I don't pretend to have.

Likewise a gravity transmitting particle; yes, I can understand how such could be so, but it isn't the model I favour, therefore ditto above.

Cheers

RP

Sciolistes
20th Jan 2009, 07:27
Is there a particle that transmits 'Gravity'. Yes
That reads as real physical knowledge. I thought the Graviton was merely a device to keep quantum theory on the right track and that there is no actual knowledge of such a particle in reality.

Does its' effect get transferred at the speed-of-light or is it unbounded. Speed of light
Surely not if they do exist and have mass. What then? Given the apparent ability of some particles, namely polarised photons, to perform transactions in space and not time, then speed maybe a bit of a curve ball (pardon the pun :))

ORAC
20th Jan 2009, 07:57
The speed of gravity as being the speed of light is predicted in the Theory of Relativity (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html).

You don't have to believe it, any more than you have to believe Einstein was correct.

Yes, the graviton is currently a hypothetical particle, but so is the Higgs boson. The design of gravity wave detectors is based on it's existence (http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO_web/about/factsheet.html), so it's on a pretty secure theoretical footing.

Loose rivets
20th Jan 2009, 07:57
First and foremost, despite the term nearly always being used, Gravity is not a force. Gravity is the result of matter distorting the 'Fabric of Space' or a term often used now, Spacetime.

Bertrand Russel likened the description to the 'Sun set' and other natural phenomenon that described the scene, but certainly did not describe the true action of the sun for example. Force was just a handy term.

The Graviton is widely accepted as a carrier of the 'force', and is sitting well with string theory. It does not sit well with me, I feel there is no need for such a 'device.' Something else is happening.

This is also not too far fetched. When Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître tried to convince Einstein that the universe was expanding, poor old Lemaître was sent away with a flea in his ear. Albert's biggest blunder. The point of this being that if such a fabulous mind could make such a mistake...really just miss such a huge point, then missing the fact that matter is altering scale - with the expansion of the universe, is not such a ridiculous hypothesis. The flow of spacetime into this 'growth' is nothing, if not simple in concept.

Think of the problems that it takes away. No need to make up a particle to do the job. No need for an opposite force/particle. Just a steady* flow into matter.




Imagine the sun being snatched away by God. Poof! it's gone as said above.

The distortion of spacetime that is normal round a mass, would...well, un-distort, but the bending back to 'normal' would happen in a wave. That wave would travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.

The thing about modern thinking is that 'Nothing (Space) weighs something.' After all, we have long been able to attribute an equivalent capacity and inductance to the supposed non-existent aether. We talk of mass distorting or curving the aether and now it seems that Dark Energy might just be a kind of unpacking force natural to the fabric of space. This would account perhaps for the increasing rate of expansion. Someone suggested it was a form of Repulsive Gravity, but I think that clouds the issue.

I've also wondered if the 'Missing matter' is not missing at all. Maybe it's composed of 'Space'. Perhaps the energy contained within this fabric, gives it all the characteristics of the missing component.


General Relativity has been tested to unprecedented levels. I mean that, unrepresented levels of testing, which are standing up to the trial of time. All this with better and better kit becoming available. Are not the gyro-spheres destined or now in space, going to be used to test GR yet further? These balls of metal, are accurate spheres...accurate to 4 molecules of their material.

Nobody really expects to break the theory, but seeing deeper into the problem might help to marry GR with Quantum theory. Might, if it's possible to do at all. But just supposing...that feint chance, that they may not be fitting because they're just missing a vital point.

Something is wrong. GR is near to perfect. Quantum theory is an almost perfect predictor in one experiment after another. Why don't they fit? Something huge is wrong.

looking into 11 dimensions in something for mathematicians to do. I've a feeling that the universe will turn out to be rather more mechanical than expected.








*an observation at CERN I think it was, had me very excited. Observing particles while curving in their characteristic spirals, it was noted that at incredible magnification, the curve was stepped. If this could be confirmed, it would possibly be showing the very fabric structure that I'm postulating. It happens that I conceive of a photon traveling across one graticule unit in the same time, even if matter has distorted the graticule size. see gravitational lensing. If this were true, an incredible step could be taken in re-structuring the model.

ORAC
20th Jan 2009, 08:19
Rivet, you want graininess? Read the latest New Scientist. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html)

indiscipline_girl
20th Jan 2009, 08:20
For decades, the attempt to resolve quantum mechanics, the theory of small things, with relativity, have failed.

A key sticking point seems to be the nature of time.

According to general relativity, clocks run faster when the pull of gravity is weaker. But in the quantum world, asking how long a particle is in a certain region of space may have thousands or even an infinite number of different answers.

Perhaps we should think the unthinkable, and abolish the notion of time altogether. This could be the road forward to the 'theory of everything'.

BlueWolf
20th Jan 2009, 08:54
Yes, time, and the measurement of same, are relative. I believe gravity to be likewise relative.

I believe gravity to be a force experienced relative to the attraction between masses, distance relevant, time not so.

The nature and construct of that attraction, I do not pretend to understand. I do believe it to be related to mass in itself.

'Tis a fascinating time in which we live.

BombayDuck
20th Jan 2009, 09:41
GRAVITY IS A LIE! (http://www.gravityisalie.com/index.htm)

ORAC
20th Jan 2009, 09:44
GRAVITY IS A LIE! The Earth sucks!!

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
20th Jan 2009, 09:50
The Graviton is widely accepted as a carrier of the 'force', and is sitting well with string theory. It does not sit well with me, I feel there is no need for such a 'device.' Something else is happening.

Isn’t the Graviton analogous to the old notion of the Photon?

ORAC
20th Jan 2009, 09:54
Isn’t the Graviton analogous to the old notion of the Photon? What's old about the photon? T'is a good old fashioned wavicle is the photon.....

Blacksheep
20th Jan 2009, 10:28
The undetected and fanciful 'graviton' is a prime example of the foolishness of particle physics.

Since these things vanish a few seconds after their appearance, they are demonstrably not able to exist in isolation and therefore cannot be fundamental particles.

airfoilmod
20th Jan 2009, 13:00
Is wholly responsible for the madness. He developed the Quantum Theory
(Which he ended up calling "spooky" magic at a distance). And General and Special Relativity, as I recall.

Gravity and "velocity" are mutually exclusive.
Light is EITHER a particle or a wave.
We will know more about gravity when the lash up at Hadron is complete.
Light is visible (sic) when reflected (particled), not as a wave.
"Prior" to the Big Bang, was an infinite field of gravity, without it, there was nowhere for the "matter" (sic) to fill.

There is a unifying theory. At least for now, and guess what? Brilliant minds disagree.


E8 is its name.

Wader2
20th Jan 2009, 14:43
Having just read up about it on thespacesite.com it is perfectly obvious that we are all standing with our heads hanging out into space and that the earth will fall towards any object, such as an apple, that is no longer held to a fixed structure.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
20th Jan 2009, 15:32
When you next see Lincolnshire Farmers/Market Gardeners throwing nets over apple trees, remember that it’s not to keep the birds off but a tradition for catching the fruit; from the time before Mr Newton invented Gravity! :8

MagnusP
20th Jan 2009, 16:02
merlinxx asked:
Why does gravity increase with the increase in intake of alcohol ?

Odd; I find it has the opposite effect when it comes to the, ah, assets of any woman in the vicinity. :E

Loose rivets
20th Jan 2009, 17:54
Perhaps gravity was invented to keep voluptuousness under control.:E


I think a lot about the holographic universe hypothesis. Sometimes, I even find myself thinking that things would be better explained if I was in a Matrix-type existence. It would explain a lot. Space might be in some stack of memory somewhere, the algorithms so well written that only those particles being observed had to be modeled for those moments. The distant galaxies just data on the retina of a sprite.

Life has altered for me in a way that makes me very suspicious that it's not part of some master-plan. So many things fit, so many lessons so perfectly appropriate. I'm in a software program? Naaah, can't be...can it?

We don't hear a complete orchestra by the eardrum being in one place at one time like a microphone. Somehow, we're interpreting a holographic cloud of sound information.


Photons. Within the last few days I begged a question on another forum about photons. I imagined the discrete package of energy having a quantitative value that was proportional to its energy, but what I could not visualize was the transition to, say, broadcast waves. I said that you never hear a BBC anoucer say, "There will now be a short intermission while we encode the next photon." At what point in the spectrum does the wave become contiguous? Well, that was the question, but I'd got a lot of thinking to do about how a stream of EMF impinges upon the atomic structure of an antenna. Some of the answers have been very thought provoking, and have demonstrated that many in the field had not given in much...erm, thought.

There has been a lot of discussion about a photon losing energy over long distances. This little package of EMF is born at the speed of light, and in a vacuum, remains at that speed until converted...or until it converts the energy level of an electron at some distant point. What sets that speed - and indeed speed limit - in the boiling cauldron of vertical particles in spacetime is not understood. But as mentioned in an earlier post, space becomes modified near a mass, and my musings that it might take the same time to travel different unit distances, would alter everything. Using the speed of light as the absolute datum would have to become qualified. No need now, cos it's not detectable.

Interesting factoid. The human retina can sense 1 photon. About half a dozen will allow the brain to perceive a speck of light. A 100 watt light bulb emits...and I'll split this up...One hundred billion photons in one billionth of a second. To say that the retina has a good dynamic range would be something of an understatement.


When I hear Richard Feynman talk about gravitons I become uneasy. He was a genius. Perhaps the other supreme genius, overlapping in history with Einstein. When someone like that is happy with this mysterious and undetected particle, then I doubt there's a chance that I could be right. But then, there was Lemaître

MacBoero
20th Jan 2009, 18:11
Come on now, everyone knows that you only need a slice of buttered bread, a cat and some duct tape to defeat gravity! Don't they?!:8

AJMortimer
20th Jan 2009, 20:04
Maybe it's my age - but I can't help thinking that when 'Einstein Jnr' comes along the whole issue will be turned on its head again.

Is what we observe the truth of 'everything', or is it just particular to our environment and intellect?

Can we see that what is to be seen?

I remember reading a book years ago about black holes. The author tried to explain our perception in terms of 'flat-landers'. He imagined a 'two-dimensional being' traversing across a sphere in a straight line. Eventually the being would arrive back at the start point, unable to comprehend how that was possible as the being had no conception of a third dimension. That analogy was used to try and explain our problem with time and space.

Maybe human beings are simply unable to comprehend space and time (if that is what they are?!) simply because our consciousness and science is limited to thinking in 'flat-lander' terms?!

AJ

PS: Another book I read posed the question that the reason we receive no intelligent signals from space on radio-frequencies, is because advanced beings would have developed beyond the 'radio age' and would use far more sophisticated means of communication. Jodrell Bank is, unfortunately, waiting for the sound of distant 'space drums' when if fact the message is encoded in a far more discrete manner.

BlueWolf
20th Jan 2009, 22:05
PS: Another book I read posed the question that the reason we receive no intelligent signals from space on radio-frequencies, is because advanced beings would have developed beyond the 'radio age' and would use far more sophisticated means of communication. Jodrell Bank is, unfortunately, waiting for the sound of distant 'space drums' when if fact the message is encoded in a far more discrete manner.

I believe that they are well aware of us, and have been observing us for long enough to know that contacting us would not be a good idea.

"That bunch of semi-evolved nutters from Earth? You'd be mad to go near them. They'll nuke you, or pollute you, or lock you up, or give you diseases, or try to rape you, or possibly all of the above. Steer clear of that lot, and for God's sake, don't answer their radio calls. We don't want them knowing we're here."

We are marked on their star charts with the Galactic equivalent of "here be Dragons".
:}

Loose rivets
20th Jan 2009, 22:06
I'm not sure if Lewis Carroll coined the term 'Flat-Landers', but even if he didn't, he certainly described well, the problems facing a two-dimensional being in a three-dimensional world.

This had to do with spelling out what it would be like if we could not perceive our y dimension for example. We can see from this, how hard it would be to understand the concepts of multiple dimensions, even while enjoying the freedom of three. You have to put yourself in the mind of the poor old 2D man.

An observer in Flat-Land, might observe a ball passing though his 2D existence. A dot appears, slowly gaining size until it's a large circle, then steadily becoming a dot again. As mentioned above, if One were to transit a sphere, the destination would appear to be the same as the departure point, so the poor Flat-Lander would be lost.

BombayDuck
20th Jan 2009, 22:50
We are marked on their star charts with the Galactic equivalent of "here be Dragons".

Either that, or "Harmless" ;)

the incivil beast
20th Jan 2009, 23:02
"Mostly harmless" in the coming edition

airfoilmod
21st Jan 2009, 02:45
In an animated discussion with my brother the cosmologist, I proposed the following food for thought. Drenched in the dreamy land of quanta is the postulate that particles can (certainly) be in two places at once, or three. The position of an electron, for example, is merely a prediction and the mathematics falls apart quickly. (statistics are useless.) If that is so, consider this, and hesitate before your relativistic left brain engages,it is possible, and therefore likely, that in all of this universe there is only ONE of each particle. It merely (sic) pauses long enough in each atom (sic) to be observed, and then moves along. For those of us who struggle with TIME vis-a-vis space, that ought to engage a new type of wonder. With even a pedestrian conception of the number of atoms in a mole, or gram, or Planet, put that in your pipe. My other brother, the Pharmacist, still struggles with ("There's more than one Universe?") Being a relatively un credentialed sort, I am allowed this projection of innocent thinking.

AF

(Questions are to be valued perhaps more than answers?)

BlueWolf
21st Jan 2009, 04:34
They's gonna be busy ol' particles then, if'n there's only one of each of them.

I accept the possibility of what you suggest, but I don't believe it to be the case.

Loose rivets
21st Jan 2009, 04:39
In one of those late night conversations - the kind of conversations where One has got outside half a bottle of best malt whiskey - my pal stared into the fire and said, "I think light stands still, and everything else moves."

"Mmmm..." Said I, while thinking, "Bollix...time for bed."

The thing is that statements like (Questions are to be valued perhaps more than answers?) have a very distinct validity. This particular premise - that seems to suggest that questions might stimulate new paths of thought, is manifestly true. However, how often I've been disappointed at the response to one of my rather outlandish questions...especially if the eminent person then launches into a tired old description of the accepted doctrine. So little time to think 'Outside the box'.

Being a Maverick can have its advantages: thinking outside the box, pushing the envelope, (groan) the products of an untrained mind. Could there be the kernel of truth in any of the dross? We usually never find out, the average professor hasn't got time to sort out his/her student's papers, let alone sift through the oceans of this dross that spews from enthusiastic amateurs.

After a public symposium here in southern Texas, I talked with a young, soon to be, PhD. She said my questions were challenging, but I knew it would end there...no time to sift the dross. It was odd, the newspaper had said that it was to focus on the 'Fabric of the Universe."(Sic) but they wandered off into the usual Black Holes and Globular Cluster type lecture.

Heaving this floundering post back on course, I would ask if anyone thinks that an untrained person could possibly hit the jackpot, and suggest an hypothesis that would unify...everything? Lemaître was far from untrained...quite the opposite, he was a very highly, and appropriately trained man, and I'm astonished that Einstein didn't give more time to his model. It seems he (Einstein) even suggested his physics were not up to much...yet the poor soul had hit the jackpot. Perhaps it was Lemaître's faith that made him so lacking in intellectual aggression, who knows? but whatever, it seems he didn't push the argument again.


Something is wrong with the model we're being taught. String theory is being foist upon the scientific world...a bit like a religion. It has been said that PhDs applying for new posts, are almost directed (read forced) to study this bizarre facet of science. A mathematician's toy? So many things are fitting, but then, so they do with Quantum theory. A lot of bits that work...perfectly, but they don't fit together.

There simply has to be something wrong with the very foundations of our thinking. I hope that we are not blind to other dimensions and unable - ever - to see the truth in its entirety. The thing about such blindness is that we may never be able to sense the goal, let alone see it.

airfoilmod
21st Jan 2009, 05:07
One Universe's parameters, another Universe's errata? Did you read my post about the surfer's unifying theory? E8 ?

Loose rivets
21st Jan 2009, 05:23
I had started out to imply that the single electron hypothesis and the light stands still...notion, had a certain similarity. I have to confess to being outside a bottle of vino tonight, so the drift was even worse than normal for me:(

I know that a lot of work has been done on Ghostly action at a distance, and other similar work that's at the more esoteric end of the scale, however, I have to confess to not really being able to understand Feynman's Sum over Histories, and other work that seeks to answer the deeper mysteries like the single electron results in the double-slit experiment.

Check yer PMs ;)

airfoilmod
21st Jan 2009, 06:00
Forward, Backward, Sideways, Curved, Dilating (down), Dilating (up),
Trending (collapsing) Trending (Creating). And that's 8. And mass is created (destroyed) when Time alters its state.

Time is to Space as stuff (Quanta) is to Wave.

(This isn't mine, I'm taking dictation.)

AF (Without Time, everything happens at once, and that happened only one time)

airfoilmod
21st Jan 2009, 06:27
As I "understand" this, what "is" requires "observation".

To observe, a "change" is necessary. "A" becomes "B" is a change.

For instance, a hump of light becomes a "photon". The Photon is visible.

"A" cannot "become" "B" without "transition". Transition is impossible

(presently) to observe. Now in the relativistic Universe, there is (can be)

No such thing as a "Point" in Space, it is always a "smudge" because time

does not stop. This also implies that the shortest distance between two

"points" is a curve, because the "universe" is dilating (expanding), actually

"accelerating" in all "directions". It is at the precise moment of transition

that the rules change. I think, for me, that the smallest particle predicted

by E8 is "at" the point of "rule change". Two separate but infinitely

intertwined Universe type thingys. And uhh, why just two? To paraphrase

Quantum theory, "anything that is possible is certain."

AF (apologies for any confusion this causes).

ORAC
21st Jan 2009, 08:10
The idea there is only one of each particle is an old one.

If you plug a negative time value into the equations which define an electron, or any other particle, you get a positron, or equivalent anti-matter particle.

It was suggested (Dirac, Feynmann? I forget who) that all such particles were paired reflections of the one particle whizzing backwards and forwards through time.

tony draper
21st Jan 2009, 10:48
Gravity is just the fluid phase betwixt matter and energy rather like liquid is betwixt solid and gas.
:rolleyes:

ORAC
21st Jan 2009, 10:54
What a sublime comment......

tony draper
21st Jan 2009, 11:07
You will be laughing tother side of your face when one is handed the Nobel Prize,of course it's the cheque one is really interested in.
:)

Flight_Idle
21st Jan 2009, 13:11
I've been puzzled for some time about eloctomagnetic waves, if for example you take a wavelength of one metre, you get the diagram of magnetic & electrical fields at right angles to each other.

Is the wavelength itself 'one packet' photon? or is the wavelength made up of many photons? for example would you get more photons in a long wave than a short wave?

In the diagrams, how 'wide' is the wavelength, or does it pulse in three dimensions, going from magnetic to electric? but how would that equate to being at right angles to each other?

My brain sometimes feels it is starting to comprehend the speed of light thing, then it starts to fade a little.

airfoilmod
21st Jan 2009, 13:34
"Velocity" requires a reference point, hence the variability. "c" is not always, uhm...... constant. It helps to abandon all knowledge at the brink of discovery.

Blacksheep
21st Jan 2009, 13:56
There has been a lot of discussion about a photon losing energy over long distances. This little package of EMF is born at the speed of light, and in a vacuum, remains at that speed until converted...or until it converts the energy level of an electron at some distant point. How come nothing about the sciences of big things (Cosmology) or tiny things (Particle Physics) seems to explore the apparent tautology in the relationships between Velocity, Distance and Time?

Consider: Velocity is a function of distance and time and, conversely, distance is a function of time and velocity. Meanwhile, time, as per Einstein, is velocity dependent. A gigantic game of Ring-a-roses. (Is The Big Bang perhaps, an illusion?)

Further; from the point of view of the photon, having commenced its journey upon being converted (presumably by a quantum increase in energy level) into a wave travelling at light velocity (it has to be a wave in order to achieve this feat) it completes its journey instantaneously. This must be so, because for an entity travelling at the velocity of light, time is stationary relative to the point of origin. (Or Einstein was wrong).

So, the answer to the question seems to be that the photon does not lose any energy until it arrives at the destination, where it loses a minute amount of energy in converting back from a wave into a particle. It must therefore only lose that quantum amount of energy necessary for the transformation - no matter how "far" it has travelled, whether a millimetre or several thousand light years (there we go again - distance = velocity divided by time)

If the energy that gave it the quantum leap is heat, then must not the energy it gives up in transforming from a wave back to a particle also manifest as heat? Is this a possible answer to the Dark Matter question? (the connundrum that there isn't there enough light in the universe) Where has all the light gone? Its all waving about in transit.

Gravity is just the fluid phase betwixt matter and energy rather like liquid is betwixt solid and gas.An eloquent way to describe that which I outlined above. So we both agree that gravity is the result of all the conversions betwixt matter and energy? :hmm:

You'll have to share that Nobel Prize.

Storminnorm
21st Jan 2009, 14:07
Small question ref Heat.
If the sun is so hot, and we can feel it's heat here,
why the hell is space so cold, or is it just the action
of sunlight on our atmosphere that warms us up?
If so the sunlight in space MUST have SOME effect
on space as well? Even if it is minimal, so absolute
zero in space MUST be variable surely?
And would that not have SOME effect on gravity due
to the slight variation in the density of any matter in space?

airfoilmod
21st Jan 2009, 14:07
Consider that vast quantities of mass are accelerating away from us at greater than "c". The light will never reach us, it recedes at greater than its own velocity. Therefore, we cannot associate our reality "observed" with origination of that which we cannot observe. Hence the "separate" reality inferred in Quanta. And, of course, if it isn't observed, it doesn't exist, literally.


I think Space isn't cold, or hot. Similarly Gravity cannot be observed, only its "effects" can be "seen". This will, in my opinion, boil down to "observation". Light can't be "seen" either, because it isn't perceived, only its "effects": the similarity between the two is.... what? Transition.
Action. Movement. Space is not empty, it contains Potential.

Blacksheep
21st Jan 2009, 14:18
Consider that vast quantities of mass are accelerating away from us at greater than "c". If any mass reaches velocity "c" its mass reaches infinity, thus further acceleration is impossible.
The light will never reach us, it recedes at greater than its own velocity. It would never reach us because it would be stationary relative to ourselves.

I do agree that what we observe is only that which we can observe - but thats because its time domain happens to coincide with our own, where the relative velocities of our infinitely divergent curved vectors is substantially less than c.

For the Big Bang to appear real (as it does, which is why the theory arrived in the first place) it is necessary for all dimensions (and there are probably an infinite number of dimensions) to curve in all directions simultaneously. Damn! There's that bloody "time" business poking its nose in again.... :ugh:

Storminnorm
21st Jan 2009, 14:27
Space is cold, at least that's what I was told years ago.
Supposed to be absolute zero innit?
That's why things get either V hot or V cold, so you have to
shield things against the sunlight.

airfoilmod
21st Jan 2009, 14:29
Is there a constant, call it a distance constant, beyond which there is a discrete separation one universe from another? Similar to the "maximum size" of creatures, given this gravity-1g? Because it irritates me to be told that the "closer" we get to "observing" the "Big Bang", the "stuff" just "disappears"? "theory of everything" (TOE) ? Maybe an illusion.

AF

Blacksheep: However, whether stationary or >c, it is happening, and confounds the Einsteinian view. And could (only?) be explained by a constant as yet unknown, A theory of "you won't believe this, but...."

With respect, I can't take too seriously anything "definitive" relative to Einstein's theories, when the man himself called it.... "Spooky".

Rgds. AF

AJMortimer
21st Jan 2009, 15:08
Airfoilmod

Yes, I think we are closer to no theory at all, than we are to a 'Theory of Everything'.

In spite of the maths and physics (of which I have no comprehension), in a complex Universe the idea of a Big Bang seems childishly simple in the extreme.

I'm in favour of the 'flat-lander' theory, with a twist. The twist is we live in three dimensions and have no conception of the remainder.

Ask a dog the square root of Pi and then ask, in terms of our mental capability for understanding the Universe, how much more advanced are we? Woof, woof!

AJ

ORAC
21st Jan 2009, 15:20
Flight_Idle, Is the wavelength itself 'one packet' photon? or is the wavelength made up of many photons? for example would you get more photons in a long wave than a short wave?

I am sure Blacksheep or some expert will jump on me and tell me I am wrong :{:{ but I understand it as follows.

The idea of how many particles/wavicles there are in a wavelength is a misunderstanding of what a wavelength is, there might be one or a trillion.

A wavicle varies in intensity, e.g. for a light wave this means brilliance. The wavelength is the time, and since they are mving the distance, between the moments when the peaks and troughs of the intensity are the same. Think of a moving strobe on a policee car and the wavelength is the distance between when the strobe is at it's brightest and call that the amplitude.

Now an electromagnetic wave from a radio aerial is generating two forms of waves with an amplitude, a magnetic wave and a electrical wave, at right angles to each other. Depending on whether the aerial is horizontal or vertical determines which of the waves is vertical and which is horizontal, which is called vertical or horizontal polarisation.

There can also be circular ploarisation where the two waves are spinning about the central axis and, if seen from the rear, would be seen as two streams of particles flying spirals away from the aerial as they strobe and spin in synchronisation.

Waits for bricks from fairy engineers.... :ouch::ouch:

ORAC
21st Jan 2009, 15:29
Consider that vast quantities of mass are accelerating away from us at greater than "c". The light will never reach us, it recedes at greater than its own velocity.

Nothing travels faster than light, it is just that the spacetime between is expanding so that the distance between those masses and us is increasing faster than the speed at which they are travelling.

The speed of light is a constant no matter what the speed a object is travelling. if you had a body at rest which was passed by a body retreating from the earth at 0.9999999 times the speed of light then the light from both objects will reach the earth at exactly the same time.

Fitter2
21st Jan 2009, 15:47
An individual photon travels in some direction at speed C. It 'vibrates' with a frequency which represents the photon's energy.

The vibration consists of the travelling electric field creating a magnetic field at right angles to the electric field and the motion vector and vice versa, the energy is exchanged between the fields. When the electric field is maximum, the magnetic field is zero (vice versa again).

The wavelength is C multiplied by the period for one complete cycle (electric field max positive to the next time it is max positive).

This is easier to do with pictures, but physicists just write down the equation, and expect you to understand.

Blacksheep
21st Jan 2009, 15:50
...at exactly the same time.Or 99.99999% of the same time maybe, and only in our time dimension, but not necessarily in all dimensions.

I picture the universe as consisting of an infinity of spiralling spiral dimensions. We only perceive those objects that exist in a spiral dimension, the trajectory of which brings them temporarily into the same spiralling time dimension as our own. The rest remain hidden.

(Temporarily on a cosmic scale that is. A short interval would last several tens of millions of passages of our earth around the sun.)

One came to this conclusion as a young man, after a lengthy study of the implications of the Klein Bottle, assisted by most of a bottle of Glen Grant and several inhalations.

As for particle physics - the study of objects that are too unstable to be considered fundamental - one subscibes to Ooslum's Theorem, which succinctly describes where all the sub-sub atomic particles actually disappear to.

ORAC
21st Jan 2009, 16:01
The discussion does however bring to mind the concept of the Light Cone (http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/). :):)

Blacksheep
21st Jan 2009, 16:04
The Time Cone is a convenient simplification of spirality. On a Universal scale neither straight lines nor planes exist. Not even conical or spherical ones.

merlinxx
21st Jan 2009, 16:40
Magnus dear boy, both me and the Mem's tits always seem to be sucked groundwards after a few sherbets, thus the Earth Sucks:{:ok:

Or I am the only person that can fall off the floor ?:ugh:

Captain Stable
21st Jan 2009, 16:44
You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on.

D SQDRN 97th IOTC
21st Jan 2009, 17:03
not sure about the speed of light being an absolute maximum

Faster Than Light (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/FTL.html)

but once we have progressed past the simple question of explaining gravity, can we pls move onto the question which has vexed many a man over the centuries....will someone pls explain women to us?

airfoilmod
21st Jan 2009, 17:06
Many years ago I drove past the Stanford Linear accelerator daily. Over beers one night, I discussed some of what is here with a tech who worked on site. Of course the SLAC accelerates particles to very nearly the Speed of Light, but for the purpose of my question, anything in excess of 50% did fine. I suggested that to explore the domain at and "beyond the speed of light" a second SLAC be built (not with my money) but aimed back at the first one, so the particles could collide with a closing velocity 2(>.5c). That is what Cern does, I think, and what "will create the Higgs."

That's as far as I can travel in the theoretical. I believe however that there is no particle "at rest" to compare speed with velocity. Re: c.

AF

ORAC
21st Jan 2009, 17:20
I suggested that to explore the domain at and "beyond the speed of light" a second SLAC be built (not with my money) but aimed back at the first one, so the particles could collide with a closing velocity 2(>.5c). That is what Cern does, I think, and what "will create the Higgs."
The reason they do it is to get the combined velocity as close to C as possible, the combined velocity of the two can never exceed C.

Think of the two particles as little spaceships, each going at 99.9999 C. The time dilation effect will have slowed time in each so that, to those on board, the closing velocity of the other is below C no matter what their own speed. And that's not a matter of perception, that's true velocity and hence the total energy that can be liberated during the collision.

It's just a method to get the combined velocity as close to C as possible with the least cost because of the increase in mass of each as they get to a substantial percentage of C.

airfoilmod
21st Jan 2009, 17:58
Yes exactly, velocity is exchanged for Mass, as you say. Now that we're here, can I mention "pairing". What on Earth (sic) would cause the two particles to know when (and how much) the exchange should be? How does an electron's behaviour differ from one moment to the next depending on whether it is "observed"? Are there formulae for proximity? Modesty? Because there is no apparent reason for a particle smokin' along at .99c to know that it is headed for another (discrete) particle at a closure that is "not allowed." There is a cop? Hence my question about distance constant. There seems to be no distance limit either to the "consciousness of a pair", or their relative "local" or "remote" orientation.

I think this condition is where the mac/mic interface will explain the secret of everything, if it "wants to".

AF (Everything, observed, is a "performance").

Loose rivets
21st Jan 2009, 18:38
Flight Idle posted

I've been puzzled for some time about eloctomagnetic waves, if for example you take a wavelength of one metre, you get the diagram of magnetic & electrical fields at right angles to each other.
Is the wavelength itself 'one packet' photon? or is the wavelength made up of many photons? for example would you get more photons in a long wave than a short wave?
In the diagrams, how 'wide' is the wavelength, or does it pulse in three dimensions, going from magnetic to electric? but how would that equate to being at right angles to each other?


As I mentioned, this is exactly the question I posed on a Radio forum. It got a lot more interest than I expected. I'm supposed to be working on the house, but will post some of the logic that came back tonight, if time permits.

I will just mention that I'd posted the same question on a physics forum a couple of years ago and again quite a lot of work was put into the answers. How a long-wave transmission is 'divided up' into photons is still not clear to me, I had always assumed that the energy level of the photon was the frequency of the wave, but I'd not really thought it through.

iws
21st Jan 2009, 18:56
The particle smoking along at .99c does not need to "know" about any other approaching particles, because due to its velocity, space/time distortion (i.e. time dilation) is already affecting it ' cos of its velocity.
So it will automatically see a different velocity for any approaching particle.

Remember all these effects have been measured and have to be taken into account in several practical instances.

For example, the relativistic corrections, both for velocity and gravitational time dilation are very significant for GPS navigation.

Loose rivets
21st Jan 2009, 23:17
An old chestnut:

If an object is going at a given speed, One is obliged to ask, "Relative to what?".

If a photon is traveling at the speed of light, c, just what is that relative to, if it's not both of two frames of reference, or even another photon.?


******************

A man looks at an object. He can model the image in his mind because trillions upon trillions of photons alight upon his retina every second and carry the information to him. His brother, facing 90degrees off our man's line of sight, also looks at something. The light carrying the information crosses the first light's 'beam' yet is totally unaffected by it. Perhaps photons a tiny, and don't bump into each other.:rolleyes: Mmmm...maybe, but how then does the interference pattern build up in the double-slit experiment?

mocoman
21st Jan 2009, 23:36
but how then does the interference pattern build up in the double-slit experiment

we're broaching on particle/wave duality here again. :)

Nice to see an interesting discussion developing with many ideas and comments that are setting the neurons buzzing.

:ok:

Dr Jekyll
22nd Jan 2009, 07:20
The light carrying the information crosses the first light's 'beam' yet is totally unaffected by it. Perhaps photons a tiny, and don't bump into each other. Mmmm...maybe, but how then does the interference pattern build up in the double-slit experiment?

The same thing happens with sound. You can demonstrate interference easily enough, but it doesn't seem to happen unless you create it artificially. Perhaps the waves have to be coming from very nearly the same direction in order to cancel out.

Mind you, I was at an airshow a few years back when 2 Starfighters (OK, many years back) were approaching at low level in formation. The sound was naturally extremely loud, but then seemed to fade out for about 1/4 second before returning. I wondered at the time why both pilots would cut power so much in that situation, but since I've wondered if it could have been interference.

chksix
22nd Jan 2009, 07:48
What if gravity is the effect of us being locked in the 3rd dimension?
The hypotetical ant in 2D space is wondering why he can't get off his surface and the 1D ant tries to get off his string. The 3D ant wants to jump to another planet but gets pulled back down.
What would a 4D ant worry about? :8

Blacksheep
22nd Jan 2009, 09:27
...so the particles could collide with a closing velocity 2(>.5c)The relative velocity of particle pairs (or waves) can never exceed c. Not in this universe, anyway.

Consider a candle burning on a table in the centre of a room. Light is emitted simultaneously at velocity c in all directions. Those photons (or light waves) moving towards the door at velocity c are also moving at velocity c relative to those moving towards the window. How can this be possible? There are no straight lines in this universe. All the photons are moving on paths, which if examined in a single plane would describe a vector of velocities that is an equilateral triangle with equal sides of value c. This will be true in all planes contained within the spherical domain surrounding the candle. Thus describing the basis for an infinitely spiralling form for our universe - Space curves in all directions in all dimensions.

There are no straight lines in this universe, even though it may seem so on a human scale.

If a photon is traveling at the speed of light, c, just what is that relative to, if it's not both of two frames of reference, or even another photon.?In the simplest answer, relative to its point of origin. The place where it was provided with the energy to perfom its quantum leap.

In a more general sense, if you follow my train of thought above, it is travelling at velocity c relative to everything!

D SQDRN 97th IOTC
22nd Jan 2009, 09:29
the 4D ant would worry about why he can't travel backwards in time.....

ORAC
22nd Jan 2009, 10:42
Time is an illusion. Overtime doubly so........

chksix
22nd Jan 2009, 12:22
the 4D ant would worry about why he can't travel backwards in time.....

Isn't the 4D ant already moving freely in the space/time continuum? That would mean that he's also trapped in a gravity environment...
Perhaps the 5D ant is free floating?

airfoilmod
22nd Jan 2009, 14:53
Noted, agree. It is "origination" that is baffling. It suggests a difference between "local" and "remote" (start, beginning). How can you have a discrete description of distance, and "relativity" at the same time? You need "distance" to make your "knowledge" work. I ask you to let go of your "templates" for a bit, and consider that, apparently, when a frame of reference that is more attached to even a rudimentary understanding of Quanta is "used" (honored), distance isn't needed.

At a very basic level, one "shared" trait of GR and QT is the breakdown of time. We think of the "big bang" as a "past" "event"; a "moment" when "everything" was in one place, and "commenced" to grow. Suppose that your contention that "origination" is valid, the only "time" that would work is at the "big bang" (if you think in Q). Emanating from a basis in Q would come the postulate that to this "day" everything continues to emanate from the "same" "point" in "space".

My "position", such as it is, has more to do with philosophy than with language (mathematics). The written word plays a very important part in a discussion of Q and R.

Patience is essential. It is tempting for many to be dismissive of rhetoric that challenges the "grail".

Bottom Line? Einstein himself was driven nearly to insanity by the inferences he saw plainly in his own work. So it is with some frustration when I perceive folks of demonstrably less ken than the man himself sniff and dismiss, overlooking the grand possibility that they could be wrong.

After all, it wasn't the fear of error that disturbed Einstein, on the contrary, it was his inability to grasp a "fundamental". (Or even identify it).

Inherent in your candle example is a gross contradiction. You claim there is no straight line in this universe, (absolutely), and then you claim the "velocity" of light emanating from the flame is "the same" (in all directions). I tell you, both statements cannot be correct (Q). But both are (R).

Flight_Idle
22nd Jan 2009, 16:45
I suppose that two parallel light beams traveling from one point to another in space would not have any relative velocity to each other, because clocks on the light beams would not record any passage of time, no matter how great the distance.
The clocks would both agree that no time had elapsed over say 20,000 light years, no time would have elapsed, hence no relative velocity.

What though, is an electric or magnetic field made of? when one wiggles, the other wobbles, but what exactly is it? just a force that can only be described mathematically? is a particle just a force wrapped up in a tiny space?

It's all rather weird for a big hammer & spanner person.

airfoilmod
22nd Jan 2009, 17:05
With great respect, there is no "parallel". See above, "no straight line...etc." Also, there is no "point". Points and straights are the blackmail we pay to the spirit of Relativity.

AF

And, without a point, we are helpless to describe "velocity".

Loose rivets
22nd Jan 2009, 19:34
Photons, because they are going at the speed of light, have no notion of time themselves in their frame of reference. They exist at all points along their path at the same time. A friend here, used an aid when teaching Special Relativity that showed a sphere with the light source pulsing away in the middle. He then showed the source being accelerated, and asked his students to describe the effect on the shape of the sphere.

What think you?




Until the late 20s, it was thought that a wave was continuous. But now, we know that there can be no truly continuous EM wave because it's made up of photons.

The energy of each quantum is proportional to the frequency. This would mean that for low frequencies there would have to be a vast ‘quantity of quanta' ;) to effect a reasonable power on the receiving antenna. I've suggested in the past that there is a summing of quanta, to make up the macroscopic EM wave, but I'm really not sure how this finally settles into an ordered wave. However, since photons are Bosons, they tend to be in the same energy state (frequency) where there is no other influence.


By the way, fascinatingly, when we consider a static EM field, we find that it consists of virtual photons. Plenty on that in Wiki. You'll need a thinking cap.

Funny expression that...'Must put my thinking cap on.'

ORAC
22nd Jan 2009, 21:48
Unless you're Einstein, Dirac, Feynman et al.... :(:(

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20090122/lnq090122.gif

Flight_Idle
22nd Jan 2009, 22:22
Ok, I'll get my thinking cap on, but I'm, reminded of my first technical course at RAF St Athen in 1970, when I entered into my blue excercise book this statement 'Electricity, a force, the ultimate origen of which is unknown'.

It seems that all these years later, the ultimate origen is still unknown.

Flight_Idle
22nd Jan 2009, 22:32
Ref post 77 (my quote doesn't seem to be working)

Planet to planet in different Galaxies ect must be point to point surely?

Photons in a parallel beam must be equal to photons in the same beam of light? they see each other in the same way?

airfoilmod
23rd Jan 2009, 02:09
Doesn't help, it's encouragement is deceptive? Try smaller? Find a 90 degree angle on a sphere? Good Luck. No matter the size of the sphere.
Origin? If one "alienates" a source, it still is not refined enough to allow the existence of a point. A String? Ah-hah. A "Smudge?" even better. But strings can't survive the environment where they need to be in more than one location at once.

Back to the real. When cooling atoms to absolute zero, (with Lasers actually). Differentiation disappears and the "clump" behaves as a discrete particle.

Light years? The faster I go, the more Time I have to get there.

Velocity vis-a-vis particles, isn't about particles I'm told, but about changing their venue. Why go faster when it's easier (sic) to slow Time down and attract one's destination to one's self? Hubble and Hadron hold the key to two different locks.

(Don't assume I understand this, I'm satisfied to be able to remember and repeat it)

AF

ORAC
23rd Jan 2009, 07:37
Back to the real. When cooling atoms to absolute zero, (with Lasers actually). Differentiation disappears and the "clump" behaves as a discrete particle.

A Bose–Einstein condensate to be precise. Though where the speakers come into it I don't know. :8

Light years? The faster I go, the more Time I have to get there. The faster I go the journey seems to take almost no time at all. Though observers might not agree.

Blacksheep
23rd Jan 2009, 08:46
...and then you claim the "velocity" of light emanating from the flame is "the same" (in all directions). Your points are persuasive and I have at one time or another visited them on my journey. As you say, Einstein himself wasn't able to grapple with some of the consequences of his theories, which indicates there is something missing. Gravity for a start. So what chance have we mere mortals? I find it both interesting and fun to try and understand even a tiny portion of the mystery.

In mental meanderings on the subject, one must consider velocity but, as light is more likely to be travelling as a wave rather than a particle, it is the velocity of transmission of the wave along its path that is considered. A path which as per GT, must necessarily curve in all planes. If it didn't, then light travelling in apparently opposite directions (e.g. simultaneously towards the door and towards the window, from the same point of origin) would necessarily exceed velocity c. Which as we have convinced ourselves by GT, simply isn't possible.

Incidentally, for those unfamiliar with travelling waves, a study of the operation of radar frequency transmitters is most illuminating. I'm still not convinced that particle accelerators in operation have actual particles whizzing along the tube. I'm sure the particles must be transformed into travelling waves, with the magnetic guides serving as the waveguide. Unfortunately, particle accelerator people are notoriously shy about explaining exactly what they are doing with all that gubbins. Nevertheless, a particle accelerator looks suspiciously like a very large Radar Set to me. (Never mind the magnetron, I'm even old enough to have experienced valve electronics, though I never encountered the legendary cloud of excited electrons that allegedly surrounded a heated cathode - then came the transistor and the theory of "holes" :rolleyes:)

I suppose I'm trying to say that theories are merely a way to describe things that we cannot see, feel or touch. It is holding down the philosophical truth which underlies them that confounds us.

Blacksheep
23rd Jan 2009, 08:51
Thinks....

Does a wave have mass? If it doesn't, then could it possibly travel at greater than velocity c? If not, why not. :confused:

Answers on a postcard please.

ORAC
23rd Jan 2009, 09:06
I always get confused by the fact that, theoretically, things can travel faster than light, it is just information that cannot be transferred faster than light.

Which brings us back to the information/holographic universe theories again. It also raises one of the part of quantum physics Einstein didn't believe in but which has been shown to work - quantum entanglement.

Blacksheep
23rd Jan 2009, 13:42
...things can travel faster than lightVelocity is a function of distance and time, but never forget that time is a route dependent variable; which makes assessment of relative velocity a tricky business. Remember: for GT to work, things moving at the velocity of light must simultaneously be moving at that velocity relative to everything else that is not on the same trajectory.

Your time and my time are, to such a small difference as makes no matter, the same because we are mostly going about our business in close proximity, give or take a few thousand kilometers (which is no distance at all), and on the same trajectory. In short. We only share the same time because we share the same trajectory.


"for GT to work"?
What exasperated Einstein in his later years was the knowledge that something is missing from his theory. Something more than gravity.

quantum entanglementI like quantum entanglement. It satisfies my instinct that space is an illusion. Bell is nearly there.


..or over here.


at the same time. :)

airfoilmod
23rd Jan 2009, 14:49
Grateful to you for such writing. Science is a joy, discovery a great reward (Even though it be finding prior art). Einstein loved children, it may have been their inquisitiveness and lack of guile.

I am pondering my most recent conversation with my brother, an astronomy professor. Come to find out the Universe is expanding (accelerating) faster and faster, and has been since gravity finished trying to collapse it. (approx. 7 billion LY "ago")

Evidently "anti gravity" has taken over from its foil, and the further apart we get, the stronger the force and eventually we will see nothing in the sky but our own galaxy. All will be dark then.

Though the weakest force is gravity (of the four), it seems that there is a weaker one, though it strengthens as the Universe "grows".

The "wildness" of it all, the magnitude of the remaining unknown is exquisite.

Jack tells me that thus far, each "large" discovery has brought with it more questions than answers

Flight_Idle
23rd Jan 2009, 17:41
Quantum, I think that some popular science programs on TV try to bemuse rather than inform, for example it is often said than the state of a particle can be changed just by 'looking at it'.

It would be more accurate to say that 'the state of a particle can be changed by bouncing a photon off it' & makes much more sense, in other words, by looking at a particle, you are interfering with it in some way.

airfoilmod
23rd Jan 2009, 22:14
And yet, when a single photon is presented with two options to transit a barrier by slit, it will "choose", without fail, one or the other, dependent entirely on whether it is (OR POSSIBLY MIGHT BE) observed. This is a fact, and cannot be explained away.

GRAVITY and my personal view? I was taught always to consider differential pressure in a gaseous envitonment to be a case where gas from a higher pressure locale pushes into that if a lesser Pressure.

Similarly, I do not consider "gravity" to be "pulling" me onto the surface of my planet at 1G. What is the mechanism?

Gravity is the result of mass transiting the Space Time continuum. Consider a Submarine pushing its bulk through the Ocean. The "Bow Wave" is the medium flowing "away" from the Steel insult.

The force I feel is not a pull from below, but a "pushback" from "without"

What is the source of this Pushback? It is to me, what used to be mistakenly called the Ether. Just as gravity seems to be separate from "anti-gravity" so then does light wave seem "different" than photon.

Both are differently observed characteristics of ONE phenomenon.

NEXT? Light is everywhere in the Universe, mostly as wave. What you see as a photon, is a "characteristic" of the same light that lies ahead of the observable particle. What distinguishes them? One carries, "bears" an additional packet of energy, that is locally causing an observable event. Light (as "medium") is already on site; Light is making it's path ahead of it's "direction" in ITSELF.

Gravity is no different. What is demonstrable is a local observable event, the medium for gravity is gravity. This is how I explain my conviction that gravity is "instantaneous", has infinite "velocity" and can be observed only as a "seeable" event through the "courtesy" of a "humility" similar to the "modesty" of a photon. We cannot observe that which we cannot see, we draw conclusions based on perturbations that are (courteously) framed in phenomena within our capabilities.

Loose rivets
23rd Jan 2009, 22:55
I would guess that even if I was right, and gravity is in part, a flow of the 'fabric of space' into matter, then the same elasticity that allows spacetime to curve because of mass, would allow it to carry its reaction in a form of wave. This wave would be bound by the ultimate speed limit.


Several references to things traveling faster than light. Just what? When and how?

The effects of gravity at the event horizon it seems can cause the parting of matter and anti-matter. I think another natural paired structure as well. It's thought that the lucky escaping part momentarily exceeds c.

I recall Sir Bernard Lovell saying that a Pi meson traveled faster than light. Mmmm:rolleyes:

airfoilmod
23rd Jan 2009, 23:15
Velocity is an observable event, though is problematic when entertaining other concepts. Einstein was very upset with Black Holes; messiness he did not abide. "God does not play dice with the Universe."

How fast is a swell in the Ocean travelling? Or, how fast is the Ocean travelling? Wave is a characteristic of Ocean, not the reverse.

"All Cognac is Brandy, but not all Brandy is Cognac." If I consider local perceivable events, (velocities), as "discrepancies" in the larger format, i.e. "fabric of Space Time", distance isn't relevant.

Without a trusty belief in how large the Universe is, I'm tempted to see things too "locally". All Politics is local; as is quanta, by definition. A proper waiving of the rules is important to understand the two separate backgrounds, but when to invoke it?

Gargleblaster
23rd Jan 2009, 23:37
This is all way too complicated. Have you considered a suitable religion instead ? You'll find all the answers in your QRH of choice. Scientology, I'm told, has some good answers.

BarbiesBoyfriend
23rd Jan 2009, 23:43
I've read that if you rotate a disc of superconducting material at 15-20,000 rpm, the force of gravity above the disc is slightly reduced.

Further that the area of reduced 'G' extends some way above the disc, and finally that increasing the rpm much higher would lower gravity considerably.

Work done by Schauberger.

Not quite sure what to make of it myself?:confused:

Anyone else heard of this alleged effect?

airfoilmod
24th Jan 2009, 00:02
rotation of a conductor in a magnetic field produces energy. Why shouldn't rotation of a mass in a field effect the Field? Mass and Gravity are directly related to each other, no? The important part? How much?

Velocity of mass "creates" gravity, though, why should rotation reduce it?

?? Mightn't it have somwat to do with "angular momentum"??

Blacksheep
24th Jan 2009, 00:11
We cannot observe that which we cannot see, we draw conclusions based on perturbations that are (courteously) framed in phenomena within our capabilities.A complex way of saying that only that which is observable may be observed.

Yet our mind permits the use of Philosophy to make inferences regarding that which cannot be observed. Logical conclusions can be drawn from the known to probe the unknown and develop an argument that leads to a testable hypothesis. Thus has Philosophy and Science, driven by Curiosity, propelled us out of our caves.

When we lose our curiosity about the unknown and unseen, we might as well be dead. It is the purpose of our existence.

Probably. :)

Loose rivets
24th Jan 2009, 04:12
Huge amount published on the difference between Rotating and Non-Rotating Black Holes.

The beauty of a non-rotating black hole is its ability to form a perfect sphere as it collapses.

A rotating black hole can be deemed to drag space round with it. Needless to say, this is of particular interest to me.


EDIT Quote from wiki:

Within the ergosphere spacetime is dragged along in the direction of the rotation of the black hole at a speed greater than the speed of light in relation to the rest of the universe. This process is known as the Lense-Thirring effect or frame-dragging. Because of this dragging effect objects within the ergosphere are not stationary with respect to the rest of the universe, unless they travel faster than the speed of light, which is impossible based on the laws of physics. But in truth particles not moving with that speed. It is spacetime of the ergosphere moves relative to as with the speed higher than speed of light. Another result of this dragging of space is the existence of negative energies within the ergosphere.

Flight_Idle
24th Jan 2009, 13:15
I suppose that when a massive star collapses to form a black hole, it will rotate ever faster as it gets smaller, but how can a singularity rotate? when it has no volume at all?

Dr Jekyll
24th Jan 2009, 17:00
Yet our mind permits the use of Philosophy to make inferences regarding that which cannot be observed. Logical conclusions can be drawn from the known to probe the unknown and develop an argument that leads to a testable hypothesis. Thus has Philosophy and Science, driven by Curiosity, propelled us out of our caves.

Science and reason makes inferences and gets us out of caves, not philosophy.

As someone once said.
"Philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex."

airfoilmod
24th Jan 2009, 17:08
Science brings Humility, Philosophy.....Religion.

AF

Synthetic
24th Jan 2009, 23:40
Come on then; how DOES it work.

Rather well. It holds most of my kitchen* together.:ok:


*Scratch built while I was writing large lumps of software, and needed something "real" to do.

vikingwill
25th Jan 2009, 17:55
My humble POV is that seemingly disparate articles that manifest 'effects' that can be described by the same mathematical functions are probably related. For example, gravity, electrostatic charges, magnetism are all described in the Newtonian world by inverse square relationships. I rather suspect that they are therefore similarly related in the non-Newtonian relativistic world too. Gravity and magnetism are particularly interesting. The former being vanishingly weak compared to the latter, but magnetism appears only to exert it's effect on certain atoms or molecular structures. I suspect that gravity and magnetism are simply harmonic effects of the same 'force' acting within space time, with the material that each act on being a property of the harmonic. Our inability to see the bigger picture so to speak results from our being creatures who dwell in only 3 dimensions with the fundamental 'force' originating from a higher dimension(s). Likewise, I rather suspect that time does not exist at all but instead is a probability function of a particle's co-ordinates in space time. Thus, an object moving in space time is a manifestation of a probability wave. The motion from point p1 to p2 in 'time' t1 to t2 being our perception from a 3rd dimension of the destructive / constructive interference of the particle's existance. Thus it's probabilistic appearance at p2 is accomplished by it's disappearance from p1.

airfoilmod
25th Jan 2009, 18:55
I like that. The "unity" that the force inhabits is beyond our powers to observe. What we "see", the effect, a resonance? To be "small" enough to quantify characteristics is to be ill-equipped to embrace the whole.

Gravity, a "weak" force, is ubiquitous; it's scope with its foil, Anti-G, is the most prevalent and powerful of all.

It's insignificance is overpowered by its quantity?

Loose rivets
25th Jan 2009, 23:04
My humble POV is that seemingly disparate articles that manifest 'effects' that can be described by the same mathematical functions are probably related. For example, gravity, electrostatic charges, magnetism are all described in the Newtonian world by inverse square relationships.


I think that this is perhaps the main thing that led people to assume that gravity must be a force. Remember my point about Bertrand Russell. Saying the force of gravity, is like saying sun-set. We know that the sun doesn't really set, and it was difficult to prove before we knew the world was a sphere(oid).

Just because it follows the inverse square law, it doesn't mean that it works the same way. No anti-gravity yet (yes, I will look at that supercooled experiment when I've got time.) But for now, it's a one way...erm, force-like thing. Yes it is weak, but there's a lot of it and it goes on forever.

Nothing but nothing is like gravity. g-force being equivalent? Yes, okay, hard to tell the difference until you look at gravitational sheer in the legendary lift(elevator). There is the rub, and we get back to there is nothing like gravity.

It's probably true that Einstein based a lot of his thinking on JC-M's work, but then Einstein got his Nobel prize for the photo-electric effect, not relativity, so it was more just a progression of thought that took him to GR via SR IMHO. Concepts building on concepts.


The thing is, that Einstein was adamant that things should be explainable in ordinary language. I can't remember his exact / translated quote, but pretty well saying just that.

A universe that is springing apart by some natural - if rather mechanical means, would explain so much. But it needs an aether, and it needs a prime power driving that spring.

Blacksheep
26th Jan 2009, 00:35
The thing is, that Einstein was adamant that things should be explainable in ordinary language. His book explaining Relativity is more understandable than anything written on the subject since.

I rather suspect that time does not exist at all but instead is a probability function of a particle's co-ordinates in space time. I like that. An elegant way of suggesting that time is an illusion based upon a manifestation that is part of a whole that cannot be fully observed in only three dimensions.

Velocity cannot be properly explained until we have a proper understanding of the true nature of time. And until velocity is explained, we cannot untangle the nature of distance or the behaviour of particles.

As someone once said.
"Philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex.""someone" wasn't very smart. Now, old Pythagorus was a philosopher and he was one smart cookie. Old Archimedes, he was a philosopher too. Need I say more?

airfoilmod
26th Jan 2009, 01:34
"d", (mass/volume=universe,) gravity began to act "differently" relative to the universe. Rather than act to slow the expansion of "U", the force started to act in an opposite "vector"; bear with me. Mass became sufficiently scarce to allow gravity to bend back (on "itself") and begin to push all matter apart at 1G. This "flip" requires a concept that allows Gravity to equate with anti-gravity, and exist simultaneously in all parts of the Universe. It should be expressed as a "constant", even though the time it took to revert was 0 seconds, and describes the instant when the Universe ceased retreating (relatively) and started accelerating.

This suggests that one force can act in at least two different ways, given that at seven billion years of age it acted in one way, and since that time it does its opposite (by observation).

There need be no Anti-Gravity, but it seems simpler to entertain it that way.

The above is grandly easier to envision if one considers that Gravity does not PULL, it PUSHES.

Can we call this: "Reversal" ?

At 7b years, was there a loss of "containment", did the Universe pass a sublime limitation, Did the bag rupture to allow for the "new" expansion.?

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
26th Jan 2009, 10:30
I can’t get my mind away from Einstein’s idea that Space is circular: if you travel in a straight line for long enough you will arrive at your departure point. That gives me a mental picture of gravitational fields around every particle with Mass emitting “force” (as a magnet appears to) from an infinite number of points (or, “Poles”, to continue the analogue). The magnet analogy isn’t helpful, though, as Gravity doesn’t appear to be a “circuit” with a fixed direction of “flow”. Accordingly, Gravity would appear to be zero where it acts at right angles to the perpendicular of its origin. Using a mechanical analogy, every particle and, therefore the Universe (being the sum of the particles), would have a gravitational “top dead centre”.


A univeral top dead centre would allow a airfoilmod's "reversal" that followes the inverse square Law but without changing direction. Just a thought, for what its worth.

airfoilmod
26th Jan 2009, 14:43
I envision more of a "polarity" flip. If as is intuitive, mass and energy are interchangeable but "mirrored", it is possible to consider a point in time when the concentration of matter reduced below a value that to that point had limited the predominantly "energetic" characteristic of the "whole" to take over. In a matrix of "mostly matter", gravity behaves a specific way. When the "constant" has been passed, gravity acts to "charge" each "small" region with repulsive, rather than attractive energy.

This concept does not require a TDC, in the expected manner. the TDC isn't an area, most definitely not a point, but a balance of the "whole" having transited the m/e tipping "time" ("density, or distribution")?

Loose rivets
26th Jan 2009, 21:10
When a non-mathematician sets out to reinvent an extremely complex theory, is there the slightest chance that he or she might just happen to think of something that everyone, including Einstein, had missed. Hundreds of fine brains, all searching for the holy grail of unification; hundreds of fine brains slithering down into a logic-abyss called string theory. I suppose it's possible, I had hoped so, but it would take luck like Baldric accidentally inventing a time machine.


I had a mentor, who also acted as a foil. He was studying for a maths degree, while I was doing my 'writtens', and had given me my introduction to Relativity. Late one night I suggested to him that there might be some kind of Reverse Lorentz contraction...an expansion of matter as a result of mass, the Earth in this case, decelerating in all directions compared to the fixed stars in the expanding universe. I suggested that this would cause the Planet to expand.

I had no idea where the matter to do this would come from at that stage, and furthermore, I hadn't considered how quickly the surface - and we mortals - would find ourselves exceeding the speed of light. My pal was intrigued, and we sought advise from a physics graduate student, but our musing were soon lost in the workload of the day.

I often thought about the problem and this fascinating issue. After all, if this was happening, the collapse of the universe would mean that everything flew apart. Gravity was reliant on the expansion of the Universe.
The notion just came to me that spacetime, the fabric of space, could be flowing into matter to pay for the increase in size. Now that it was more readily accepted that the the vacuum of space was made of something; had real substance with specific characteristics, it didn't seem too far-fetched.

Such a model would get rid of two major problems in one go. The surface speed would always be constant in a gravitational inflow, and where the matter was coming from to cause the expansion was now explained - if the substance of spacetime is accepted.

It seemed too good to be true. I wrote to just about everyone that might be interested, not realizing that I would be filed away with mountainous piles of letters, containing endless ideas from bright sparks all over the world. The filing cabinet probably had a foot operated lid. However, New Scientist did reply, and John Gribben was kind enough to write and indeed talk to me on the phone for a while. But, at the end of the day, an unqualified person was not going to get published in any respected journal. What this did do however, was to fix the letters in time, way before the American professor published on Gravitational Inflow. As I mentioned, he'd stated that he didn't know where all this spacetime was going, but the inflow concept was getting interest. In fact, it was a link from a physics forum that put me in touch.

Why he was so rude, I have no idea. Just perhaps, he realized I'd spotted exactly what he'd missed, I don't know, but there was no need for a hissy fit.

It's funny, because a generation before, I hadn't known where the fuel was coming from to pay for the expansion of matter, and now, he didn't know where all the fuel was going.

If you imagine a photon trying to swim against the inflow inside the event horizon for example, you will see how it would be a losing battle.


I simply don't know if this is a workable hypothesis. It's certainly more complicated than a tide of spacetime flowing into matter. Gravity would need time to cause a newly introduced mass to accelerate up to the speed of another falling item. There would still need to be an answer for inertia. The flow applying a force perhaps. Hah! then I'd have to eat my words...or my thinking cap.

Blacksheep
27th Jan 2009, 13:56
...can’t get my mind away from Einstein’s idea that Space is circular: if you travel in a straight line for long enough you will arrive at your departure point. Space isn't circular, nor is it spherical. It curves in ALL dimensions, thus, to set off in one direction, you would move in a continuous spiral that never meets its origin.

Make yourself a mobius strip. Now imagine it as a section of a klein bottle. Hold that image in your mind and visualise the paths that an ant crawling upon the single surface of the bottle might take. The ant could by accident, eventually arrive at its point of origin, but only because the klein bottle is a two dimensional object that exists in three dimensions. In the case of a three dimensional object that existed in four (or more) dimensions, that would not be the case.

BlooMoo
28th Jan 2009, 00:42
I simply don't know if this is a workable hypothesis. It's certainly more complicated than a tide of spacetime flowing into matter. Gravity would need time to cause a newly introduced mass to accelerate up to

... etc, etc.

Have an ARB (absinthe/redbull) - works wonders in the 'workable hypothesis' dept. ;)

mocoman
28th Jan 2009, 01:33
Hundreds of fine brains, all searching for the holy grail of unification; hundreds of fine brains slithering down into a logic-abyss called string theory

You make a good point there.

We are currently in a time that is reminiscient of the period prior to acceptance of the heliocentric nature of the Solar System. It seems that now, as then, 'fiddle-factors' need to be introduced to cancel out all the infinities that arise from the various mathematical gymnastics that are required to make it all fit together.

Theories have been produced, and as far as possible tested, and yet we can still not produce a fully working model that can hold when applied from micro to macro scales; including of course all points in-between.

Hopefully, sooner rather than later, someone will appear on the scene with an idea and paradigm, easily explained, that may make us all go....'Of course, it's obvious....Why didn't I think of that'

:)

airfoilmod
28th Jan 2009, 01:43
I think you are right. When I can grasp why photons exhibit different behaviour, experimentally, dependent on whether they are being watched, the math is irrelevant to me.

Beyond that, the device to determine the behaviour, needn't be active.

That's more conscious than I after two beers. The smallest Brain?

Boy Howdy, AF

Blacksheep
28th Jan 2009, 08:50
...why photons exhibit different behaviour, experimentally, dependent on whether they are being watchedPerhaps it isn't so much the behaviour changing if they're being watched, as the watcher being influenced by what he's observing.

airfoilmod
28th Jan 2009, 14:06
"Observation" in this case meaning mechanically producing light images on media that "track" distribution. I apologize, I may be expressing myself with an understanding of familiarity with the experiment. The "result" of the experiment is reproducible (It is being done to this day... time after time) and involves light signatures that differ, the only variable being the presence of recording equipment. No "opinion" or "impairment" relative to human presence is considered.

AF

(On second thought, you may be on to something re: the ultimate understanding, relatively speaking)

Choxolate
28th Jan 2009, 15:09
My understanding of this wave/particle duality is not that the observer actually affects the "thing" being observed but that the observer (in this case experimenter) will "see" a photon as a particle if the observer is trying to measure particle like properties (such as momentum) but will see photons as waves if they are trying to measure wave like properties (such as wavelength, interference). You cannot measure both aspects simultaneously

If you are looking for waves you'll find waves, if you are looking for particles you'll find particles. You are not changing the nature of the photon by "observing it" you are just observing different aspects of the same thing which is dependent on the type of observation you are making.

Or not - maybe I've got it all wrong, which is more than possible.

Fitter2
28th Jan 2009, 17:16
But it is more complicated than that. If you allow a photon to go from A to B, and 'look' everywhere it might pass through on the way, it transits only one place (not necessarliy the point in a straight line, because the detection process necessarily causes diffraction). Therefore light is composed of particles.

But if you take a diffraction grating, and blank off the middle. the photons still arrive at the detector placed where multi-path probability predicts. Therefore light is a probability wave.

Quantum photon behaviour cannot be described in any physical, meaningful way, although Quantum Electrodynamics allows very accurate predictions of the outcome of any experiment.

But that has nothing to do with Gravity, where the thread started. It appears to be a property of space-time and mass, and we don't even know what mass is (although standing in the way of a mass with a significant vector will allow one to experience its effect).

Loose rivets
28th Jan 2009, 19:06
But that has nothing to do with Gravity,


Well, it does really. Although this is an aside, remember the rush to test for gravitational lensing - a powerful indicator that GR was correct. More than that. Testing GR was a step forward in our ability to grasp the nature of spacetime and indeed our understanding of a photon's true nature in what had hitherto been deemed an empty void.

The problem is, that we have become all too used to the story of mass curving 'spacetime'. Some just accept this without realizing the full significance of this amazing prediction. While the curvature of geodesics can be calculated accurately, just what is really going on is far more difficult to understand.

When Eddington and others made their observations, the position of the stars behind the sun were known to good accuracy. When the lensing took place, the images were exactly where they should have been. But remember, the effect of mass on a photon was an indicator, not of the way gravity pulls a wave/particle, but of how space is curved in a way that makes the photon think that it is following a straight line.

The following is not based on any real science - but then, nor is string theory.

Now I know that in 'my' model - in its raw form - a photon would be devoured by any significant mass as space flowed into such a body. There's a reason that EM radiation is only curved and not swallowed wholesale. This is where it gets complicated, but is all to do with the fact that a photon, by definition, is traveling at the speed of light. As it passes each 'unit of space' (see below) it takes a specific time. In my model, it doesn't matter how that unit is distorted by gravitational effects, the photon still takes the same time to traverse it.

If the brief observation at CERN was true, space has a very specific 'size' to its microscopic structure. Perhaps, though it would be akin to a miracle of prediction, the size is one Plank length graticule units.

Imagine this structure as a three dimensional framework of spring steel. Just accept for the moment that it's unpacking because it's erm, springy. But, the energy in it is causing all manner of turbulence within the framework. We find ourselves in an era of this turbulence being just below an observable point...the energy boiling out into virtual particles and collapsing back in on a minute timescale. Sometimes, the energy causes the graticule to form a 3D deformation, and for some reason, this remains locked into a form that we perceive as particles. Gargantuan amounts of energy is stored in these distortions, and when they're unlocked, violent oscillations run out from the unfolding 'steel graticule', manifesting themselves in a verity of different forms - and again, we perceive all these in the form of particles or radiation. We give them names, and they are consistent enough to be thought of as the building blocks of our original particle.

Okay, this wouldn't work as it is. But, now comes the really hard part. Because space is expanding, any distortion has to be deemed to be a traveling wave on this accelerating framework. Yes, it's being carried like all things to a new point in the expanding universe, but that's not the point...it's the way in which the distortion or point of matter is traveling on the framework to remain in the same form. Everything is working because of the fluidity of the rather mechanical matrix. I've mentioned before about the distortion curvature and likened it to an electrical wave. The rise-time having an equivalent frequency. In this universe, the rise-time would be a deciding factor in how the particle is perceived by us.

As this distortion sits there, the graticule is flowing into that point and altering its absolute size. A scale alteration that could only be seen from an Olympian viewpoint. That flow is gravity.

Blacksheep
29th Jan 2009, 08:41
...the only variable being the presence of recording equipment. No "opinion" or "impairment" relative to human presence is considered.
My apologies for reifying the matter. What I refer to is that the presence of a means of observation constitutes an alteration of the natural circumstances.

BTW. We navigation specialists are familiar with using the interactions of photons in a controlled environment to measure departures from a steady state. We call it inertial navigation.

airfoilmod
29th Jan 2009, 09:06
INS I suppose would be an application of Light's predictability. However, the experiment I describe invests the action in one single photon. As a group, no "spookiness" can be ascertained. The experiment is resolved in the projection of one photon at two slits, the results of which (two bars, multiple bars) is dependent and (predictable) on the way the equipment is formatted, ie with a "counter" or without.

This is from memory, and an old conversation with Jack; I haven't seen the experiment, nor do I remember who it was who performed it "first"

rgds.

AF

Loose rivets
29th Jan 2009, 20:47
I'm sort of sorry I wrote the above thread. The notes for the university ran into some 29 pages, and I quickly became aware that I couldn't even give an overview in a Pprune forum. Sounds such a muddle, but the full description has intrigued a couple of qualified people. Not enough to work though it for me however. :(

Flight_Idle
29th Jan 2009, 21:24
I am no expert on science, but I have heard from scientificaly qualified people that when you observe a particle, you interfere with it in some way.

It makes sense too.

AJMortimer
3rd Feb 2009, 21:10
Is science, in this regard, more philosophy than 'science'?

Rather like the existence of God is more philosophy than science? Well more religion than philosophy and a little (maybe no) science?

If it has been 'proved' that there are (possibly) a number of dimensions in addition to the ones with which we are familiar how do we know that our three are the 'first' three? (plus 'time').

Rather like visible light is between infrared and ultraviolet, maybe length. width and depth are in the middle of other dimensions of which we have no knowledge. If this is not true how do we know? How can we 'prove' it?

Back to the 'flat landers' - until our minds exist outside the 'three plus one' and we move away from the concept of the beginning-middle-and end concept of time, there can be no more hope of understanding 'everything', than the flat lander has of understanding the globe.

AJ
(no qualifications in science - and if I had would they be of any real benefit?)

airfoilmod
3rd Feb 2009, 21:30
I consider a lack of certificate to be a plus, given the potential for vast chasms of misunderstanding by all humans. Our fundamental knowledge is constantly challenged by observation. The lack of a conclusion given the best efforts of "professionals" is somehow encouraging to many. Delving into the vast beyond is humbling, or should be; humility is an admirable trait for any one. Maybe our universe "punched through the limiting wall" seven billion years ago, maybe gravity gets everywhere before everything else, even light. Maybe Gravity and Light are their own matrix, on loan from a dimension as yet unseen. Maybe Inertia is frozen Time coated in syrupy G waves. I love the quest.

AF

RJM
3rd Feb 2009, 21:56
It may not be possible to fully understand gravity, but we know one thing:

In the words of the great cartoon character, the 'nigh-invulnerable' superhero The Tick,

'Gravity is a harsh mistress'

BlooMoo
3rd Feb 2009, 22:18
Loose Rivets,

Why not just publish a paper and get some real feedback?

This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Garrett_Lisi) did. He got it too.

Blacksheep
3rd Feb 2009, 23:56
I admire his philosophy of life. Very late sixties/early seventies.

The simplicity of his solution suggests it is a more likely explanation than the untidy and inelegant string theory.

It also accomodates the purely instinctive idea of a multi-dimensional universe that curves in all dimensions simultaneously.

airfoilmod
4th Feb 2009, 00:09
Simple? Google Theory E8 . Lie Algebra? I've been at it for two weeks and find it very challenging. (with a tutor). Well it's a challenge here, anyway.

Rgds. AF

west lakes
10th Feb 2009, 10:03
Gravity switched off due to 'essential maintenance "
The CEO of ****************** has apologized to customers in the West Midlands area for the inconvenience caused during the two hour period last night when gravity had to be switched of due to essential maintenance work.
‘Rates of obesity in Britain are putting increased demands on gravity, which in some areas is struggling to cope with current demands’ said Benjamin Small. Much of the country’s outdated Victorian gravitational infrastructure was originally intended for fewer and lighter people and is only now being upgraded to meet 21st Century requirements. ‘But this may result in some minor disruption to the service during this time’ conceded Mr Small.
A number of complaints were received in Wolverhampton and West Bromich area where pensioners woke up to find themselves floating up by the ceiling. ‘My father was convinced he had finally died and was going up to heaven’ said one distressed Birmingham woman. ‘He couldn’t work out what I was doing there too.’ A Warwickshire farmer lost a herd of dairy cattle after they drifted up towards the clouds until a gentle breeze finally deposited them on the roof of a Coventry office block. A number of husbands blamed the interuption to gravity for the fact that the toilet seat was in the upright position the following morning.
The new ‘Digital Gravity Plus’ is supposed to be cleaner and sharper than the old analogue service that will finally be switched off in 2012. Households that have not subscribed to the digital gravity by then are being warned that they will have to manage without the Earth’s pull. In the meantime United Utilities have refused to rule out further interuptions in the Gravity service. ‘Unfortunately our next scheduled close down is at the end of the month, a few hours after the New Year’s Eve festivities. However we anticipate that the few clubbers who are still out at that time will be sky high anyway, and won’t notice anything unusual.’

BarbiesBoyfriend
14th Dec 2009, 01:51
I think Einstein got it all wrong.

That stuff about curved space and time is deranged.

Methinks that all the ickle particles attract each other only in proportion to their mass.

Thus, gravity.

Time? Constant where you are.

Blacksheep
14th Dec 2009, 13:16
Time? Constant where you are.But where is that? and in relation to what, where and particularly, when? ;)

Captain Stable
14th Dec 2009, 13:56
Quite! Where am I? When am I? What's for lunch? :cool:

tony draper
14th Dec 2009, 13:59
yer but the puzzle being, how does one ickle particle know that another bigger particle is near it??
:)

Ancient Observer
14th Dec 2009, 14:51
Prof Drapes - I have a vision of the said ickle particle tapping its nose in response to your question.

Storminnorm
14th Dec 2009, 15:10
The small particle might be invisible to the large one?
On the scale of several thousands to one. Perhaps?
But the large particle probably scares the Sh*t outta
the little one. So it just lies doggo. And feels the gravity
of the situation.

Captain Stable
14th Dec 2009, 15:41
6.673×10−11 N m2 kg−2 :8

tony draper
14th Dec 2009, 15:55
How fast does gravity travel then?:)

Captain Stable
14th Dec 2009, 16:02
Well, basically, it's gotta be pretty darned fast, hasn't it?

Like shit off a shovel, in fact, 'cos it's gravity that gets the shit off the shovel in the first place...

Storminnorm
14th Dec 2009, 16:04
It doesn't travel at all does it? It just acts, surely?

Tricky Woo
14th Dec 2009, 16:07
Interesting thread.

Methinks arguments pertaining to a theoretical "flatlander" are highly misleading.

An ecology subject to the rules of two-dimensions would always be prey to some creature learning to operate in 3dimensions... basically, yer 2d antelopes would quickly get scoffed by the 3d lions, if yer catch me drift. Hence I'm very dubious about the "invisible" existence of more dimensions, cos last time I looked I didn't get pounced on by some hyena operating in 4d.

Next point: Wittgenstein once pointed out that if there's enough tautology built into yer argument, then yer can use that argument to prove *anything* from a logical point of view. Consider the proposition "the sky is either blue or it's not blue"... and then compare it with what you see out of the window. Aha! Yer cry, the sky is grey today, therefore the proposition is correct! However, the statement is also not in any way profound.

When one hears that string theory postulates 11 dimensions (plus or minus lord know how many more) yer get the feeling that the equations have enough tautology built into them to describe pretty much anything. With eleven dimension string theory can state "the sky is blue, or white, or grey, or black or pink, or a mixture of them all, ooh or red or orange... ad nauseum". Then someone looks out of the window (metaphorically) and says "The sky is indeed a colour! Therefore string theory is onto something!"

To which I'd reply that "yes, tautology says a hell of a lot about nothing..."

Last point on strings: a key feature of a tautology is that they're impossible to test, specifically. And the key objection to string theory is...? Answers on a postcard please...

TW

Captain Stable
14th Dec 2009, 16:07
So not like Gordon Brown at all, who does a load of travelling and never acts at all...

tony draper
14th Dec 2009, 16:08
Well there appears to be a upper limit to possible velocity of wave or particle in this universe we inhabit,so, if the Sun just suddenly up and disappeared would the Earth and all who dwell therin just keep tootling about its orbit and we all just go about our business for about nine minutes unaware of the event? before zipping orf into the outer darkness, at a tangent of course.
:confused:

Tricky Woo
14th Dec 2009, 16:12
That's the question, Herr D. And many a fine mind's giving up on supplying the answer...

My money's on instantaneous... but then I don't believe in gravitons.

TW

tony draper
14th Dec 2009, 16:15
Oh dear Mr Woo,physics don't like instantaneous,makes the sums come out funny.
:)

Captain Stable
14th Dec 2009, 16:20
Yer, but when yer quarks are labelled up, down, strange, charm,, top and bottom, and these are all called flavours, sums are bound to come out funny.

After all, when a down quark changes flavour into an up quark after being acted on by the weak force, and lets out beta radiation and yer proton then turns into a neutron, who knows where it will lead, I ask yer?

Tricky Woo
14th Dec 2009, 16:43
Exactly, Herr D... when physics doesn't match the sums, then less embarrassing for all if we change the physics and leave the sums as they are.

Epicycles
Philostogen
Dark matter
Dark energy

All human constructs conveniently invented when physics refuses to conform to the orthodox sums of the day.

TW

tony draper
14th Dec 2009, 16:54
Never mind,they Mr Higgs Bosians will make every thing right.:)

Loose rivets
14th Dec 2009, 17:08
Well there appears to be a upper limit to possible velocity of wave or particle in this universe we inhabit,so, if the Sun just suddenly up and disappeared would the Earth and all who dwell therin just keep tootling about its orbit and we all just go about our business for about nine minutes unaware of the event? before zipping orf into the outer darkness, at a tangent of course.


Tony. Yep, the curvature caused by the sun would take time to flatten. (in 3D) A wave of straightness takes the same time to travel as a wave of bendyness.

We would feel the Earth move and our porridge would slide off the table at about the same time that the light went out .

Tricky Woo
15th Dec 2009, 13:18
Dunno if I agree with that. Feels a bit like Wiley Coyote chasing after Roadrunner, and running right over a cliff... and continuing to run for a few moments in thin air before he realises... and then he looks down.

Wheeeeeeeee.

Splat.

Here's a fact: yer LIGO gravity detector ain't detected squat. It took 'em years to "filter out" all the false signals. And it detected everything from a passing field mouse carrying a nut in its gob, to a herd of african bull elephants stood quietly smoking cigarettes. In Africa. Anything set the buggah off. But now all sparrows have been banned from farting, penguins have been told to stand still, and still they can't detect no gravity waves with the billion dollar thing.

Now yer Einstein would have scratched his head and said "my second biggest ever blunder" and got back to work. But oh no, them modern physicists says "the sums are right" therefore we must have two dozen "dark" field mice scurrying across the land and therefore masking them there gravity waves. Which will be very exciting when we find 'em because... because... because we just spent a bloody fortune on 'em, that what. And our sums says they're there. So there.

Ergo: yer Woo reckons there's no such thing as gravity waves. If the sun was to disappear then yer porridge'd slide off yer tables well before the lights go out. Methinks that gravity is "different", i.e. weak, universal and long reaching because it's *different* from t'other forces. It's not quantized because it's not electromagnetic. Einstein was right in finking gravity is a symptom of a more profound underlying reality: the curvature of space-time. It's just that people keep applying his light speed limit to stuff what it don't apply to... and gravity is an example.

TW

bearfoil
15th Dec 2009, 15:38
Lets' begin by releasing the concept of Gravity 'pulling'. It does not. As matter transits the 'fabric' of Space time, it is displacing the 'medium'. As the medium reacts and gives way, it resists. It is weak, due to extreme 'size', so takes a large movement to create such reaction. As a diving Bell descends, it experiences an increase in 'pressure'. It would not be 'wrong' to visualize that way. Or shooting a bullet through an aspic, a wave is created. Thus is "Pressure" ('gravity') created. Its force is from without, not from some interior 'center' of a mass. The size of the mass determines g, along with its 'velocity'. This 'difference' conforms to Thermodynamics. Each action of gravity diminishes the total available in the 'universe', as would be expected.

The "Medium"? Still working on that.

Loose rivets
15th Dec 2009, 16:07
It's just that people keep applying his light speed limit to stuff what it don't apply to... and gravity is an example.


Nope . . . you can go to the bank with the c-limitation of gravity waves. If they were instantaneous, the LIGO type experiments would be rather useless.
.
.
.
.


bear, everything that you said is based on:

As matter transits the 'fabric' of Space time, it is displacing the 'medium'.


It's probable, (I hope) that matter consists of this medium. What we detect as particles would be distortions of this stuff. The concentrated points of spacetime would be traveling along in the stuff, needing that moving part to distort spacetime and represent matter just at that point.

So, the wave in a straight rope means that the wave (or particle) consists of that rope. It isn't something that is riding on the rope.

Tricky Woo
15th Dec 2009, 16:39
Mr Rivets,

The LIGO-type experiments *are* rather useless... that's my point.

TW

bearfoil
15th Dec 2009, 16:51
Loose Rivets

Indeed. The 'Medium', as component (of transiting mass), would necessarily be unavailable to interact. The Mass would have had to have been created (before, or after) the Fabric, and never accelerated enough to 'catch' the mesh. As a Black Hole ejects one particle as it sucks in another and thereby prevents the two from bonding, consider Mass as departing an original event, (as yet not described) and your 'Space' instantaneously flowing into the 'region' of infinite expansion. No one can say if Space Time has a 'direction'; if it is ubiquitous, and therefore far in excess the speed of light, any matter it contains will not have 'time' to react and disintegrate. Since Time is composed of packets, as are all things, 'Planck Units', it becomes at least possible to entertain a 'co-existing' (brane) that interracts with another only in unobservable ways. In very crude terms, Gravity becomes evidence of a coexistence of phenomena that should be explainable, but only to an infinite and non distinguishable 'domain'. 'Infinite' in this sense becomes a boundary (limit) but only as a barrier to 'increasing' interraction. In a way, if Space is 'moving', it's 'relative' velocity to mass need only be >c. It becomes interesting to embrace both Quanta and relativity in such a proposal, where only at the 'transition' does Quanta obtain, and in 'stasis' relativity. It isn't necessary to take sides.

It becomes obvious then that life is not about getting old, it is about getting large.

bear

Tricky Woo
16th Dec 2009, 11:50
Tis inertia that keep physicists up at night. Gravity is worrying enough, but it's the resistence to change of velocity (inertia) that's an even bigger mystery.

Old Einstein had the flash of insight that gravity and inertia are indistinguishable on a dark night (Equivalence Principle)... well, actually he didn't have that as an insight, as it was pretty much a generally held assumption. He just wrote it up as a *formal* assumption in his relativity papers. And being the first to put the assumption down on paper made it *his* great insight, so there. Nah ni nah ni nah nah.

The buggah is that equivalence doesn't resolve the mystery, or add any further light... it just makes the mystery even more, erm, mysterious.

Ernst Mach had a more profound insight donkey's before Einstein (and it might just be the most profound insight, so far) and as far as I'm aware Mach's Principle is still the only theory on the table: objects have inertia 'cos the combined gravitational pulls of every other object in the universe are somehow locking it into place. Statistically, one supposes, gravitational tugs from every object in every direction in the universe evens out, and hence yer *equally* pulled from every direction... and so if yer think "hello, I wanna buck the trend and go off in this direction", then yer have to overcome the combined pull of universal gravity in t'other direction.

Not bad, eh? And that really is the only progress humankind has come with respect to linking inertia with gravity.

So here's the rub... isn't it an amazing coincidence that the combined gravitational tug of the entire universe in any direction is "equivalent" to the gravitational tug of some nearby object such as a planet or sun or whatever? And as general relativity rests on the foundation stones of equivalence (oh ok, and other stuff too) then that equivalence has been tested to loads of decimals places... inertia and gravity really *is* equivalent, or at least equivalent enough for government work.

Most fishy, innit?

One finds this sort of stuff fascinating. Let the herd scamper about looking at potential unified theories, cosmology, evolution. and quantum whatnot. Yer Woo prefers to ponder only the biggest questions...

TW

Storminnorm
16th Dec 2009, 12:00
Interesting stuff Tricky. The only thing that worries me
is the idea of an expanding universe carrying on expanding.
Because, eventually, it's going to expand beyond the point where
it's still being held together by gravity,(Or bits of string), and
it all DOES lose it grip and flies apart.
I wonder how far down the road of Time we are regarding this
possibility?
Now THAT is a big issue.

Tricky Woo
16th Dec 2009, 12:55
Ahh, hence the rather scary term in the press that accompanied the "discovery" that the expansion of the universe is "accelerating":

THE BIG RIP!!!

Eek!!!

Yes, that's a bit worrying. At least on the surface. Hence my previous reference to phlostigen - the only solution anyone can come up with fits in nicely with Big Bang and an accelerating expansion is known as Dark Energy. Which joins Dark Matter (and Inflation, while I'm poo-pooing) as yet another vast *unknown* that "simply *must* be there 'cos our sums says so". Now one considers anything that simply "must be there" as being akin to phlostigen, Canals on Mars, Atlantis, El Dorado and the Second Shooter on the Grassy Knoll. It most likely *not* to be there at all. Occams Razor, innit.

It's simply that our sums that are wrong, that's what.

Ergo, the Big Rip don't keep me awake at nights 'cos it's an artifact of our wrong sums. Ditto Dark Matter. Ditto Inflation. El Dorado *is* real, but I've promised Elvis Presley that I'll keep it all for ourselves. Greed is good.

TW

Blacksheep
16th Dec 2009, 14:34
...the idea of an expanding universe carrying on expanding.If time were not a constant (which we know it isn't) then there's no need to look at space as expanding. Its not a balloon and there's no outside for it to expand relative to. The dimensions of space are merely an effect of time. We may look at the size of a room as being so many multiples of the 'length' of the solid ruler sitting on our desk, but in reality its size is a matter of how long it seems to take us to walk across to the window. 'Over here' and 'over there' are separated by a time. Time only appears to us to flow at a constant rate, because we only encounter a very small amount of it. If time were to cease to exist, we would have eternity and if time were decelerating towards eternity, then the dimensions of space would appear to be expanding. That may then be a possible reason for what we observe as an expanding universe.

Could gravity be either a cause or an effect of the deceleration of time?


(Remember too, that all the scriptures promise us Eternity. :uhoh: )

Tricky Woo
16th Dec 2009, 15:51
Hmm, food for thought that is, Mr Blackie.

Time is rather like gravity and inertia: one of the few subjects worthy enough to consume the weighty thoughts of yer Woo.

Can't help thinking that putting time centrally on the table, as it were, might indeed be a new way of looking at distance.

Agree that time isn't a constant in the truest sense... however, time *is* proportional to relative velocity (or whatever politically correct physical term applies) and hence anything going at the same rate of clappers experiences the same time-dilation, and therefore time "passes" the same. So there's a stream of "time constants", one for every speed point, if yer see wot I means.

I *do* like the idea of a deceleration in time showing up as an apparant acceleration in expansion. And there's a sort of conservation element to it, innit. Nice...

With regards to gravity... well, I suppose yer could say that near a massive body such as a star you'd need less time to splat against it as opposed to get away from it. So what's yer theory? That "time potential" is experienced as an acceleration?

TW

Captain Stable
16th Dec 2009, 15:57
I think it's about time all PPRuNers became honorary FRS...:ok::ok:

Tricky Woo
16th Dec 2009, 16:03
Would never join such a tacky organisation.

TW

bearfoil
16th Dec 2009, 16:18
Gravity is an effect of Time, certainly. They are not equivalent, in my view, something is lost in the maths, as is in Thermo. Not entirely conserved.

As heat is not conserved in an effort of work, the bit that is lost is the key. Where'd that rascal go?

Carry it into Inertia, then. How is Inertia not Time itself? Velocity may be the key, since it is an expression of transition.

"Equilateral Gravity" is troublesome. Requiring an enormous suspension of scepticism, how better would it be if Gravity was simply a "Pressure", acting on an object in the Medium. Makes more sense if one is thinking locally, rather than spatially. Less energetic, more entropic, then. Something is winding down. The 'system' is losing phlogiston perhaps?

As large as one can think and stay within this universe, a balance is the key to the solution, whether it exists or (hopefully) does not. Gravity is 'local', Time is universal. The transition (?) twixt the two is the constant creation (destruction) of physical 'reality'. The seeds of creation needn't be large, but they must be resilient. A thickening of the SpaceTime potentiates a conglomeration of mass, or.........is it the creation of Mass itself? What thickens (slows) this infinitely rapid 'stuff'.

As small as a thought?..................

Storminnorm
16th Dec 2009, 16:24
Wouldn't join the FRS.
One of the chaps there, who's apparently a leading light
in the organization, went to my old School.
Mind you, he did a bit better than I did.
As did most others as well.
I just wandered off to play with aircraft.

bearfoil
16th Dec 2009, 16:36
Big Bang. The Bang part certainly infers expansion. Unless........

Having reached a threshold of 'dimension', all that was everything overcame a constant (balance), and collapsed in upon itself.

With Infinitely small size? Infinitely dense? Collapse? Impossible.

Really? What is observable would confirm either postulate. It is especially handy in pondering the "Old" part Hubbel thrust into our view. The "Oldest part" is the "Rim" of the beginning, accelerating beyond the speed of light "Away" from 'us'. Or are we speeding away in a unidirectional path from it? Both, certainly, it is the 'direction' part that flummoxes.

As Andromeda closes in for the kill, a vector pointing at the region of "beginning" would be as informative as a "look" backward. No?

bearcryptic.

Blacksheep
17th Dec 2009, 08:22
As large as one can think and stay within this universeWe have to stay within this one, it is the only one we have and it has no outside.

The Bang part certainly infers expansion. Unless........

Having reached a threshold of 'dimension', all that was everything overcame a constant (balance), and collapsed in upon itself.
I'm always suspicious of this Space-Time Continuum business. I don't hold with the idea that time is a fourth dimension, I think of the space dimensions as a consequence of time. If the Big Bang initiated or expanded time out of an eternity (and in doing so, thereby created space and the matter contained within it) and time has subsequently been decelerating back to eternity (to re-establish the steady state) then "collapsing" would be exactly what is happening, along with the illusion to any sentient entities contained within it, of an expanding universe.

(To introduce a little superstition or religion to the philosophical process, one widely revered Holy Book contains words that may be rendered in English as "Were not earth and heaven one until I separated them?" so the idea is not exactly new to philosophers.)

bearfoil
17th Dec 2009, 17:36
Humans need to frame concepts, it is uncomfortable to 'not know'. Any scale, any direction, by its very existence not only defines infinity, but it defines more than one. Light is rapid, and by calculation most rapid.

Can something, anything, be 'faster'? To understand the question one needs to embrace the 'unknown'. This is not only a challenge, it is rare.

Time, obviously, has characteristics of velocity, as does Gravity. One can say Time, since it is assumed to exist everywhere, is ubiquitous, and if it is homogeneous, has infinite velocity, by definition and demonstration.

A Black hole releases non mass part for part as ejecta. Why is it always ejected in a 'direction' we cannot observe? Modesty?

The personification of all we see is important to entertain new ideas.

Cardinal Puff
17th Dec 2009, 18:32
Dang! This is like Mornington Crescent with pocket protectors and Coke bottle spectacles.:}

Blacksheep
18th Dec 2009, 10:15
Time, obviously, has characteristics of velocity,Don't be silly, velocity is so many units of dimension per unit of time. Time is what defines velocity.But what is a unit of time?

Time may be a universal quality but it is not everywhere of the same quality. Indeed, if it is time that defines space, where is 'everywhere'? I suspect that 'everywhere' is actually a singularity and space is an illusion created by the existence of time.

Tricky Woo
18th Dec 2009, 10:27
Time may be a universal quality but it is not everywhere of the same quality.

Yeah, time ain't a patch on what it used to be back in the good old days.

Bloody disgrace, innit.

v = d/t

t = d/v

t = d/d/t

Therefore,

t = t

Oh buggah.

TW

Keef
18th Dec 2009, 10:44
I think they got it all wrong.

Last time the bits coalesced into one particle of infinite mass and zero dimension, it didn't explode at all. The bits just kept going in the same direction they were going before, and came out the other side.

Rather like when you drop a CRT and it goes BANG! The glass 'n stuff all dashes towards the middle where the vacuum was, but it doesn't stop there. It goes all over the workshop.

Tricky Woo
18th Dec 2009, 10:51
One thing that gets on me t1ts is when cosmologist types sneer at the "common misconception" that there's an edge to the universe. "Oh no", sneer them, "the universe is a bit like an Asteroids game. When yer wander off the side of the screen then you'll appear again at the other side."

Bolloxs, says I. You been there? How yer know the edge of the universe isn't *exactly* like the inner edge of a sphere? One that yer can push yer hand against, and feels elastic if yer give it a push. And coloured black.

TW

Storminnorm
18th Dec 2009, 11:41
I did read one particular disertation that the Universe
is NOT expanding any more.
The writer maintained that it was actually in the process
of contracting!!!
This would be consistent with Trickey's theory that the
edge would be rather "Flexible"

ORAC
18th Dec 2009, 11:55
Has dark matter finally been detected? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/ryanair-scraps-talks-on-mutlibillion-aircraft-order-1844488.html)

Hunt may well be over for a mysterious and invisible substance that accounts for three-quarters of the matter in the universe

For 80 years, it has eluded the finest minds in science. But tonight it appeared that the hunt may be over for dark matter, the mysterious and invisible substance that accounts for three-quarters of the matter in the universe.

In a series of coordinated announcements at several US laboratories, researchers said they believed they had captured dark matter in a defunct iron ore mine half a mile underground. The claim, if confirmed next year, will rank as one the most spectacular discoveries in physics in the past century.

Tantalising glimpses of dark matter particles were picked up by highly sensitive detectors at the bottom of the Soudan mine in Minnesota, the scientists said.

Dan Bauer, head of the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS), said the group had spotted two particles with all the expected characteristics of dark matter. There is a one in four chance that the result is due to some other effect in the underground detectors, Bauer told a seminar at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, near Chicago.

Rumours that Bauer's group was on the verge of making an announcement surfaced on physicists' blogs a few weeks ago. Though tentative, tonight's results triggered an immediate wave of excitement in the science community..........

Storminnorm
18th Dec 2009, 12:02
Dark Matter is just rubber bands dropped by the
Intergallactic Postmen.

Loose rivets
18th Dec 2009, 17:56
A good while ago I posted this. It may seem frivolous, but it was intended to be a statement, that however distorted spacetime becomes, whatever is in that location will not know.

This also infers that an unfortunate being falling into a black hole will not be killed just because they have taken on the shape of a strand of spaghetti. They don't know they're that shape.

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/236400-space-post2784748.html?highlight=umbrella#post2784748

bearfoil
18th Dec 2009, 18:17
Professor rivets: Without trying to sound cryptic, spaghetti man knows exactly where he is, but what he knows is not current? I won't launch on yesterday's weather, yet we 'see' the 'beginning' and actually act on what we observe. The part we are unable to see has happened and is perhaps 15 Billion "years" out of date. Our "reality" is nothing of the sort.

With a working knowledge of concepts that are unproven, we can state that something that is where we observe it, is not actually 'there'. If we can accept that, we have asked for trouble.

Consider. "We" have a working knowledge of our present. By observation we claim "Presentness".

Sorry. We are spaghetti people also. What's with the "I am here, everything else is pants."

Where we "Are" is not where we exist. We are living in a portion of our history, an existence that is as fluid as all else we observe.

In this, We are Not "Special". You pose an excellent question.

Also, #120 "Space" thread.........delightful. :ok:

bear

tony draper
19th Dec 2009, 23:12
here is summat to look at, watch it in HD if your puterizing engine is up to it.:)
The Known Universe (http://kottke.org/09/12/the-known-universe)

BarbiesBoyfriend
20th Dec 2009, 00:25
'Big Bang?' Bollocks/ Guesswork.

We know so little. Why not admit it?

Gravity/ Einstein? He made a good guess but not quite right.

That, Amigos............is that.


Unless you know better:}

Blacksheep
20th Dec 2009, 00:31
How yer know the edge of the universe isn't *exactly* like the inner edge of a sphere? One that yer can push yer hand against, and feels elastic if yer give it a push. And coloured black.Asssuming that there was a Big Bang (and one tends to agree that the evidence points in this direction) then, at the moment the universe emerged from the singularity there was nothing before it. So, the universe didn't explode into empty space - because there was no empty space for it to explode into. Ergo, there is no outside, nor therefore can there be an inner edge to push your hand against. If my instinct regarding the beginning of time is correct, there isn't really any inside either. Space and matter are an effect of chaotic or fractured time and all locations are actually the same location at a different time.

Keef, you surprise me. I'd have thought that a religious man would prefer a created universe to one that is constantly creating and recreating itself. My own religious instincts are fascinated by the statement "Were not heaven and earth one until we split them asunder?" From one and a half millenia ago, that is either a remarkable insight or a revelation. (and you may note, my own instinctive view of the universe includes both eternity and chaos in the equation.)

Loose rivets
20th Dec 2009, 02:30
Gravity/ Einstein? He made a good guess but not quite right.

It's not that he wasn't right, it's just that it he didn't marry his work with quantum physics. He seemingly didn't want to.

The thing is that most people simply can not understand relativity. Those that can work the numbers often still can not see the big picture, but there it is, the most tested theory in physics.

The gyroscopic spheres made to make yet another test of relativity, are accurate to 4 molecules! I have trouble understanding how people years ago made ball bearings, I have no idea how one makes a sphere accurate when you can't even touch it without altering it.

Oh, the other thing is, quantum theory is also beating all records for the results confirming early theory. Two wonderful pieces of science, and they don't fit together.

Try having everything changing scale as the universe expands, and all these problems might go away.

I have to go . . . two men in white coats have just come to take me away. "We told you never to mention changing scale again." They're saying, as they pull me to the padded van. "Strings . . . you'll find all the answers in strings."

They tried to convince me of that before I escaped. :uhoh:

bearfoil
20th Dec 2009, 16:24
Again I will bring up 'transition'. Leaving Time aside for now, imagine the conversion of a packet of Light into a wave, or back, which is all important. There is a smallest packet, a Planck, or photon, which of necessity has some explaining to do. What's it like? It occurs to me that the secret of the ages exists in a moment that is unobservable, if not unthinkable. The disconnect twixt Q and R cannot be. Mathematics is merely a language, vocabulary is driven by what is observable, or thinkable (charmed, up, etc.).

Time dilates, Einstein, and disappears, Quanta. There is continuity, or there is not. No one gets to see the magic who cannot humbly and patiently entertain the impossible.

It's a belief thing, whether you like it or not.

bear

Blacksheep
20th Dec 2009, 18:34
Chaos. Non-chaotic mathematics only works in small regions of space while Chaos rules the universe. Understand Chaos and all else will fall neatly into place. But we don't understand chaos, we can't even understand our own planet's climate for goodness sake!.

bearfoil
20th Dec 2009, 19:25
Limits. Chaos is a very subjective term, and subjective is the only basis for our current picture of the Physics. When on the 'rational' train, there is a limit to how much information can be made to behave relative to a rather restrictive set of constructs. I once experienced a very pleasant existence. In and of the World, I was also beyond it, sensually. There were feelings of unending Space, unity in all things, and a most pleasant feeling of belonging, of being a part of, but also being everything as well.

To describe it is rather easy; explaining, or certifying it has always been difficult, no, impossible.

Inherent in this moment of time was the belief that all the knowledge that existed, belonged to me, and others. I have met others, who describe similar experiences. I cannot compare it with anything in my experience, it was solitary, though it has returned at times, alone.

Blacksheep
20th Dec 2009, 23:21
Chaos is a very subjective term, chaos may be subjective but Chaos is a mathematical discipline.

tony draper
21st Dec 2009, 00:02
Entropy rules Mr B,:rolleyes:

Blacksheep
21st Dec 2009, 09:17
Exactly. The fifth horseman of the Apocalypse :suspect:

Combine Chaos with Entropy and, as time runs out, all will return to the initial condition.

But if it is actually time itself that is chaotic, what then?

bearfoil
21st Dec 2009, 23:13
The bit that is not accounted for, there is chaos. No? For any system to grow that large, requires the absence of Time. It is chaos itself that needs the matrix of Time, decreasing entropy potentiates chaos, and fills Time. Inertia is the seed of increasing entropy in such a system; and a decrease in Time available, find the rate, the scale, and there we go.

bear