A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby BurtJordaan on December 24th, 2016, 12:54 am 

Andrex » 24 Dec 2016, 00:48 wrote:Sorry; but I can't remember what I don't understand. To me, there's no way you can have space without time. In other word, "space" (distance) is the same thing as "time".

I agree that spacetime is the mathematical unification of space and time, but this does not make space equal to time. Space can be flat and at the same time spacetime is curved - standard physics for the last 50 years. For the universe you are arguing for flat space, but you agree that metric expansion occurs, which cannot happen in flat spacetime.

It sure gets me to ask questions on the "real" effect and source of the redshift.

Since we are in the Private Theory section, you are welcome. I've been there, got the t-shirt, so I would probably never take that many steps backwards. ;)

Like I already mentioned, if "redshift" is the "product" (or consequence) of increased wavelength by the space-time "expansion", how come we can "observe" CMB (for example) by "capturing" in all wavelength?

The CMB is observed as a narrow band of microwave frequencies, perfectly fitting a blackbody spectrum at a temperature of 2.725 K today, with a redshift of z=1089 over the whole band. This is the 'signature' of the CMB.
Image

When we look at stars and galaxies, we see redshift of different elements, each with its unique 'signature' in absorption lines. The cosmological redshift is the most accurate observation in the field of large distance astronomy.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 24th, 2016, 1:44 am 

standard physics for the last 50 years.


Maybe it's time to have a second look.

For the universe you are arguing for flat space, but you agree that metric expansion occurs, which cannot happen in flat spacetime.


I really can't see why not. Expansion can express itself even if space-time is "flat". There's nothing to prevent its metric from expanding if space-time is animated by kenetic energy (unless you don't agree that expansion is a result of "energy"). "Flat" means it's not geometrically "deformed". Which only means that its metric is "stable"; it is equivalent everywhere it is "flat" (remember your lattice). Naturally, where you have a space-time deformation, the metric gradually "collapses" (diminishes) way to the center of gravity.

The cosmological redshift is the most accurate observation in the field of large distance astronomy.


I'm not saying it can't be; I'm asking how come all wavelenghts, at the same time, can be "captured" as we choose? All wavelenghts are always "present" wathever the distance of the object.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby bangstrom on December 24th, 2016, 4:10 am 

BurtJordaan » December 23rd, 2016, 11:54 pm wrote:The CMB is observed as a narrow band of microwave frequencies, perfectly fitting a blackbody spectrum at a temperature of 2.725 K today, with a redshift of z=1089 over the whole band. This is the 'signature' of the CMB.

When we look at stars and galaxies, we see redshift of different elements, each with its unique 'signature' in absorption lines. The cosmological redshift is the most accurate observation in the field of large distance astronomy.

Every atom has a characteristic “signature” even at low temperatures but at extremely low temperatures all spectra weaken and flat-line with a diminishing of their signature characteristics. Has the spectrum of any atomic material ever been observed near 3 K for the sake of comparison with the ideal black body spectrum and is this even possible? How do we know that the CMB spectrum is in any way unique when compared to the spectrum of any element at 2.725 K?
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 221
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby BurtJordaan on December 24th, 2016, 10:25 am 

Andrex » 24 Dec 2016, 07:44 wrote:Expansion can express itself even if space-time is "flat". There's nothing to prevent its metric from expanding if space-time is animated by kenetic energy (unless you don't agree that expansion is a result of "energy"). "Flat" means it's not geometrically "deformed". Which only means that its metric is "stable"; it is equivalent everywhere it is "flat" (remember your lattice).

I think you have the wrong idea of what curved spacetime means - it is spacetime that changes over time. Flat spacetime is minkowskian, not changing over time. My "lattice" represents flat space, but because the 'blue bars' expand, the spacetime is open (negatively curved).

I'm asking how come all wavelenghts, at the same time, can be "captured" as we choose? All wavelenghts are always "present" wathever the distance of the object.

All wavelengths are certainly not present in the CMB. You will find no 'white light' at a redshift of 1089, never mind all e.m. wavelengths.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 24th, 2016, 10:27 am 

Very good question bangstrom. I’m anxious to read the answer.

by BurtJordaan on December 23rd, 2016, 11:54 pm
Like I already mentioned, if "redshift" is the "product" (or consequence) of increased wavelength by the space-time "expansion", how come we can "observe" CMB (for example) by "capturing" in all wavelength?

The CMB is observed as a narrow band of microwave frequencies,...


I’m talking to you about “wavelength” and you answer with “frequencies”. So ok, we observe a narrow band of microwave frequencies; but our observation is not limited to “microwave” since we can see CMB in all wavelengths. The question is: How come we have all wavelengths when they were “stretched” by expansion ?
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby BurtJordaan on December 24th, 2016, 10:46 am 

bangstrom » 24 Dec 2016, 10:10 wrote:Has the spectrum of any atomic material ever been observed near 3 K for the sake of comparison with the ideal black body spectrum and is this even possible? How do we know that the CMB spectrum is in any way unique when compared to the spectrum of any element at 2.725 K?


The CMB signature is not one of absorption lines or emission lines. Actually, the CMB radiation comes from the hydrogen plasma that must have existed before recombination at about year 380,000 after the BB. The temperature must then have been some 3000 K, at which temperature protons and electrons combined to form neutral hydrogen atoms.

What we observe is that white-hot glow, frequency shifted down by a factor 1090, which looks like a blackbody at about 2.7 K. This sort of temp is relatively easy to create in the lab, so I suspect it (and lower temps) has been looked at. Again remember, it has nothing to do with emission lines in astronomical spectroscopy.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 24th, 2016, 12:16 pm 

Saying:

never mind all e.m. wavelengths


is throwing the question away without answering it.

Let me be more specific:

Planck satellite studied CMB at 9 different wavelengths. The question is: How can there be 9 different wavelength for CMB when expansion stretches electromagnetic wavelengths?
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby bangstrom on December 24th, 2016, 12:58 pm 

BurtJordaan » December 24th, 2016, 9:46 am wrote:
bangstrom » 24 Dec 2016, 10:10 wrote:Has the spectrum of any atomic material ever been observed near 3 K for the sake of comparison with the ideal black body spectrum and is this even possible? How do we know that the CMB spectrum is in any way unique when compared to the spectrum of any element at 2.725 K?


The CMB signature is not one of absorption lines or emission lines. Actually, the CMB radiation comes from the hydrogen plasma that must have existed before recombination at about year 380,000 after the BB. The temperature must then have been some 3000 K, at which temperature protons and electrons combined to form neutral hydrogen atoms.

What we observe is that white-hot glow, frequency shifted down by a factor 1090, which looks like a blackbody at about 2.7 K. This sort of temp is relatively easy to create in the lab, so I suspect it (and lower temps) has been looked at. Again remember, it has nothing to do with emission lines in astronomical spectroscopy.


How is the CMB not an astronomical emission spectrum of hydrogen plasma shifted down?

I question the possibility that the white-hot glow of any material shifted down by a factor of 1090 would look any different from the ideal blackbody spectrum at 2.7 K. I have seen rubber bands made in the shape of familiar objects and animals but if you stretch them a little they all become the same straight line. The same principle must apply to any high temperature spectrum stretched out to the microwave range.

And, what temperature are you saying is easy to create in the lab with quantities of material sufficient to observe their emission? Nothing is easy when you get below the twenties on the Kalvin scale.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 221
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby BurtJordaan on December 24th, 2016, 3:12 pm 

Andrex » 24 Dec 2016, 18:16 wrote:Planck satellite studied CMB at 9 different wavelengths. The question is: How can there be 9 different wavelength for CMB when expansion stretches electromagnetic wavelengths?

With all 9 sensors falling within the CMB blackbody curve, centered at 160 GHz, ranging form ~30 to ~900 GHz. How else can they measure the curve's shape? The more frequencies the better.

This does not change the fact that all are part of the CMB blackbody curve (microwaves); their redshifts are all 1089, so I fail to see the relevance of your concern.

Jorrie

PS: it's already Xmas eve here, so Merry Christmas! :-)
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 24th, 2016, 7:27 pm 

This is exactly what I was going to say:

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL OF YOU!!!
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby BurtJordaan on December 25th, 2016, 1:49 am 

First Merry Christmas to all!

bangstrom » 24 Dec 2016, 18:58 wrote:How is the CMB not an astronomical emission spectrum of hydrogen plasma shifted down?

Well, the pre-cmb plasma (free protons, electrons and photons) did not have stable atoms where electrons could jump orbital levels, so no emission lines. But the best answer is that the radiation was there all along, blocked by the 'fog' of the plasma. They were 'released', not emitted, when the temperature dropped to 3000 K and stable atoms hydrogen formed.

bangstrom » 24 Dec 2016, 18:58 wrote:And, what temperature are you saying is easy to create in the lab with quantities of material sufficient to observe their emission? Nothing is easy when you get below the twenties on the Kalvin scale.

I'm no cryogenics man, but here is one that seems to be reasonably easy for a good lab.

http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/low-temperature-physics.html wrote:Various liquefied gases can be used to cool a substance to as low as 4.2°K, the boiling point of liquid helium. If the vapor over the liquid helium is continually pumped away, even lower temperatures, down to less than 1°K, can be achieved because more helium must evaporate to maintain the proper vapor pressure of the liquid helium.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby bangstrom on December 25th, 2016, 6:37 am 

BurtJordaan » December 25th, 2016, 12:49 am wrote:
Well, the pre-cmb plasma (free protons, electrons and photons) did not have stable atoms where electrons could jump orbital levels, so no emission lines. But the best answer is that the radiation was there all along, blocked by the 'fog' of the plasma. They were 'released', not emitted, when the temperature dropped to 3000 K and stable atoms hydrogen formed.


That makes sense if the emission was pre-plasma. I still wonder if an emission from ordinary dark matter
( clouds of hydrogen/ helium, planets, dust, iron whiskers, etc.) at 2.73 K could not also produce a combined spectrum that looks like the ideal black body spectrum at our level of detection.

The universe has two major sources of energy- the CMB and some two trillion galaxies. The equilibrium temperature of a non-luminous material in deep space is 2.73 K. Nothing in nature can be colder since this is the ambient, background temperature of the universe. Expansion should cool the universe considerably over time especially with energy from the CMB since this is the oldest form of energy.

So, if the 2.73 K is the background temperature from the CMB, why do we not observe a background temperature from stellar heating? That is heat from the stars that is absorbed by non-luminous matter and then re-radiated back into space.
BurtJordaan » December 25th, 2016, 12:49 am wrote:

I'm no cryogenics man, but here is one that seems to be reasonably easy for a good lab.


I agree it should be easy to achieve extremely low temperatures with liquid helium. I was in error in thinking the BP of liquid helium was above 20 K.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 221
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 25th, 2016, 11:30 am 

bangstrom » 24 Dec 2016, 18:58 wrote:

the radiation was there all along,


Funny way of thinking; how can "radiation" of whatever, "be", where it doesn't "radiate"? A man that plays hockey every Sunday is a "hockey player" on Sundays; the rest of the week he is an ordinary man.


by bangstrom » December 25th, 2016, 5:37 am
The universe has two major sources of energy- the CMB and some two trillion galaxies.


This is a dangerous phrase; it might lead to misinterpretation. Because there's no addition of energy since the Bb in the universe; so neither CMB or galaxies are "sources" of energy. The energy they "radiate" is pre-existing "same" or "transformed" energy; nothing more.

Nothing in nature can be colder since this is the ambient, background temperature of the universe.


Something is: the "neutrinos background" at 1,9 K.

Expansion should cool the universe considerably over time especially with energy from the CMB since this is the oldest form of energy


Once again, CMB radiates "electromagnetic energy" which cannot be the oldest form of energy since it is a "composed" energy (electric and magnetic).
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby BurtJordaan on December 25th, 2016, 1:30 pm 

Andrex » 25 Dec 2016, 17:30 wrote:Once again, CMB radiates "electromagnetic energy" which cannot be the oldest form of energy since it is a "composed" energy (electric and magnetic).

It was there at least since the end of inflation, when it was the dominant form of energy by far. Before that, we don't know.

My preference for before inflation: vacuum energy. It is also the dominant energy today, and BTW, it is continuously being created as "the vacuum" expands.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Dave_Oblad on December 25th, 2016, 3:39 pm 

Yea, good Xmas gift Jorrie,

Someone finally admitting that New Energy can be CREATED (not just transformed).

Have a good Xmas,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3010
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby BurtJordaan on December 25th, 2016, 5:35 pm 

Hi Dave, as always, it's a pleasure to help! ;)

Jorrie wrote:My preference for before inflation: vacuum energy. It is also the dominant energy today, and BTW, it is continuously being created as "the vacuum" expands.

On places like PhysicsForums one gets 'crucified' for making such loose statements about energy...

Vacuum energy actually has a constant energy density and in that sense, if there is more vacuum, there must be more vacuum energy. Total energy of the universe is not a definable concept, because we do not have a size for the total universe and even the size of the observable portion is a slippery and coordinate dependent concept.

The Hubble radius is a more characteristic size for the observable universe and that is thought to develop towards a constant value. This means that in the end, the energy inside the Hubble sphere will tend towards a constant.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 25th, 2016, 6:56 pm 

On places like PhysicsForums one gets 'crucified' for making such loose statements about energy...

Vacuum energy actually has a constant energy density and in that sense, if there is more vacuum, there must be more vacuum energy.


And when I think of what all is said about my saying that gravity is not universal, under the evidence that the universe is "flat"; it's difficult to understand scientists accept that energy would be "created" constantly.

This way of thinking has the same "scientific value" as "vacuum energy", "Cosmological constant" and Dark energy; three names for something nobody can define exactly and everybody accept never to be observed.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby BurtJordaan on December 26th, 2016, 12:51 am 

Andrex » 26 Dec 2016, 00:56 wrote:And when I think of what all is said about my saying that gravity is not universal, under the evidence that the universe is "flat"; it's difficult to understand scientists accept that energy would be "created" constantly.

There is a better way to think about this (but in the end it boils down to is exactly the same observational set): the primordial vacuum had a constant intrinsic negative spacetime curvature, meaning that it has to expand exponentially (de Sitter spacetime). Add to that the radiation, baryonic and dark matter's positive spacetime curvature that balances out de Sitter's spatial part, and you have a spatially flat, expanding universe. How inflation ensures that balancing act is not perfectly clear and is an area of active research.

Andrex wrote:This way of thinking has the same "scientific value" as "vacuum energy", "Cosmological constant" and Dark energy; three names for something nobody can define exactly and everybody accept never to be observed.

Well, all 3 have decent mathematical definitions, so that's not the worry. Some things can never be observed directly - just their influences are observable and that's what science is really about - hypothesize, theorize, quantify, predict effects and observe to confirm or falsify.

BTW, the three culprits are not all exactly the same, but rather different subsets of (probably) some bigger 'thing'. E.g. vacuum energy and dark energy may end up with different values when the job is finished. The cosmological constant is the simplest and most limited in scope (of the three) and has been pinned down with reasonable accuracy by observation. It is still the best candidate for the accelerating expansion.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 26th, 2016, 12:22 pm 

the primordial vacuum had a constant intrinsic negative spacetime curvature, meaning that it has to expand exponentially (de Sitter spacetime).


How much more lucky can the universe be? " de Sitter was born" to give it "expanding exponentially space-time", which was constant! Can I ask: How does fit the "inflation" in this "constance"?
I don't think that de Sitter had anything to do to influence the universe. :-( The universe is a "fact" that we study; not "influence".

Some things can never be observed directly - just their influences are observable and that's what science is really about


Which means that, since we observe is influence every Christmas morning, with our kids, Santa Claus as always been "scientifically" accepted and we didn't realize it. I don't like this "what science is really about" argument at all. It applies to anything.

Add to that the radiation, baryonic and dark matter's positive spacetime curvature that balances out de Sitter's spatial part, and you have a spatially flat, expanding universe.


Exactly! Simply because matter " curves" positively space-time, says the interpretation of Einstein/Newton bad mixture. It took a long time before the universe realized that it was Euclidian; way later than the birth of Euclid. In fact, it had to wait for de Sitter and Newton + Einstein, to be born.

I'm almost convince that the observer "creates" the "observation". In reality, we can specify that the "observer" creates is "interpretation" of the observation.

Now, we have a negatively curved space-time "created" by de Sitter, with the added "insertion" of positively curved space-time of "creators" Einstein/Newton, which sums up to Planck satellite observation of a balanced "flat" expanding universe (not space-time, mind you), that we "interpret" as "needed". So, since expansion is accelerating, that balanced "flat" expanding universe as a negatively curved expanding "expansion". Then we accept that space is "flat" but space-time is negatively curved. Which means that when matter/radiation was more important than "vacuum energy", the space was still "flat" but space-time was balanced "positively" curved .

So today we have a "curved" space-time with a "flat" space, because of the negatively curved space-time (de Sitter). Which, consequently, means that space is "flat" but "time" is curved.

Finally we have answered the question: Is the universe a sphere, hyperbolic or flat? The answer is: it's all three depending of the epoch we're talking about. Science cannot be "satisfying for everybody" more than that, can't it? Which explains perfectly the actual "consensus" in the scientific "college". And furthermore, it cannot be more clear and logical than this; thank you.

As a matter of fact, we can even conclude that "critical density" was always = 1 for space; but not = 1 for time. Which, evidently, explain the different epochs. CQFD.

But, again, scientists say: "we haven't found all the answers explaining perfectly all of this; we are still searching" (I'm beginning to think they should ask J. K. Rowling for answers).

The cosmological constant is the simplest and most limited in scope (of the three) and has been pinned down with reasonable accuracy by observation.


You're talking here of the "inobservable" dark energy (cosmological constant); aren't you?

Science is a serious study; someday, scientists will perceive it this way. I hope.

Maybe, then, they will realize that our actual technology is way far ahead of previous ones and they will accept to put aside all previous interpretations and start all over with cleared eyes to "interpret" the lasts observations; instead of trying to fit it to past interpretations given by less precise observations.

By the way, you are right: CMB is observed exclusively in the micro-wave spectrum. This is the exact answer I was arguing for. Thank you.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby BurtJordaan on December 26th, 2016, 1:01 pm 

Andrex » 26 Dec 2016, 18:22 wrote:You're talking here of the "inobservable" dark energy (cosmological constant); aren't you?

Yes, and we have pinned down its present value to reasonable accuracy by observation. Just as we have pinned down the "unobservable" gravitational constant (G) to exquisite accuracy by observation.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 26th, 2016, 1:14 pm 

And since it's not itself "observable", you really mean "indirect" observations.

Something like, gifts at the base of the Christmass tree, based on pre-conception of the "reality"; I understand.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby BurtJordaan on December 26th, 2016, 1:32 pm 

Respectfully Andrex, I don't think you understand. That's unless you are joking...

There are very few scientific observations (if any) that are not indirect to some degree.

Maybe we should get back to your original topic, because the last few exchanges did nothing to enhance your "variable expansion speed theory of gravity".
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2077
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (7)


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 26th, 2016, 3:05 pm 

Respectfully Andrex, I don't think you understand.


I partly agree; something (even the jokes) is not understanded by somebody. That's a "fact". What we have to find is: "who".

because the last few exchanges did nothing to enhance your "variable expansion speed theory of gravity".


I don't quite agree.
In fact the last exchanges are all "indirect" observations that "enhance" very much my ""variable expansion speed theory of gravity".
Since my opinion is exclusevly based on "interpretation" of the lasts observations, starting from "scrach"; instead of "fitting" to past interpretations given by less precise observations, we probably can also find that "who", I'm talking about.

My interpretation results solely on:
1)Planck satellite factual informations, in regards to
2)Einstein notion of gravity(space-time deformation),
3)Plancks time and lenght constants,
4)the premisse that quantity of energy doesn't decrease or increase,
5)the basic notion of BB, that indicates a "start" to everything, including space and time; which to me is "space-time", and
6)Kinetic energy is responsible of the movement of expansion (based on factual simple logic)

We should re-read the first 5 pages of these posts, just to verify if anything we lately said goes againts my suggestions.
Then we would be able to make an opinion on "who"; I guess.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on December 31st, 2016, 11:39 am 

Happy New Year to everyone and a wonderfull year 2017!!!
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Inchworm on January 4th, 2017, 10:59 am 

Happy 2017 André!

I read your "History of the universe". Your ideas on motion are a bit far from mine, but I'll try to feed you back anyway. Like me, you start with the particles to explain motion, but you take the equivalence principle for granted and I don't.

Andrex » June 25th, 2015, 11:36 pm wrote: For instance: gravity gives a sense of direction toward one precise point. Expansion gives the exact contrary sense of direction: toward "every" points.
The exact contrary to towards every point would have been away from every points, so if it is what you meant, space would be expanding everywhere, even inside galaxies or inside atoms, and mass would be reversing expansion locally, beginning at the particles' level.

But both have one function: to give direction to movement. Both seem to be printed in the fabric of space-time itself.
You want to bring the two different kinds of mass together, the one that produces inertial motion and the one that produces gravitational motion. I agree that they have to share the same fundamental mechanism, but I don't agree with Einstein's space-time concept. To me, allowing properties to an unobservable thing is cheating. It began with curving void and ended up with popping energy from it. It's like allowing properties to god or to dark matter. You say you don't believe in dark matter because it is unobservable, but you use Einstein's concept of curved space as if it was observable.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 483
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 4th, 2017, 1:13 pm 

Like me, you start with the particles to explain motion,


Not really; I explain rotation (as the first motion in a "no-space" state) with kinetic energy. The unidimensional particle I talk about is a "potentiality" (a "nothing" particle) that transform itself into a "probability" particle (probabilistic particles).

The exact contrary to towards every point would have been away from every points,


That is only half of the event and observing the "result" instead of the "cause". The real reason that the movement is away from every points is that the motion is toward one single point which retards it in is expansion and provoke the distancing of the other "expanding" points.

But both have one function: to give direction to movement. Both seem to be printed in the fabric of space-time itself.
You want to bring the two different kinds of mass together,


I'm not talking here about "mass"; I'm talking about "movement" in "space-time geometry". The "mass energy" is a consequence of that "toward one point" movement.

the one that produces inertial motion


That's the one issued of the "toward one point" movement; and it's a "counter expansion" motion.

the one that produces gravitational motion


There's no such thimng as "gravitational" motion. There is only one kind of "motion" which is "straight ahead" folowing the geometry of space-time (which is mostly flat and someplaces curved).

but I don't agree with Einstein's space-time concept. To me, allowing properties to an unobservable thing is cheating.


To me, distance and time is exactly the same thing; so I don't have any problem with the word "space-time". Furthermore when you observe a distance, you have to understand that you're observing "time" as well (whatever the lenght of the distance is). So time is observed just as distance is observed; whether you're looking in a telescope, a microscope or even looking at your hand.

t began with curving void and ended up with popping energy from it.


It didn't begin with a curving void; it began with a unidimensional euclid point in a "no-space" state.

You say you don't believe in dark matter because it is unobservable, but you use Einstein's concept of curved space as if it was observable.


In fact, it is observable; throw a baseball at 30 feet from you; you'll see the curved space-time ithe ball is going to follow; unless you think that the mass of the Earth is pulling your ball without a "rope". That would be "Godlike".
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Inchworm on January 4th, 2017, 2:28 pm 

Andrex wrote:In fact, it is observable; throw a baseball at 30 feet from you; you'll see the curved space-time the ball is going to follow; unless you think that the mass of the Earth is pulling your ball without a "rope". That would be "Godlike".
Both are godlike because both are unobservable, but to me, allowing properties to space is a cheat, it's like allowing properties to heaven. I bet this concept would never have survived without Eddington's observations. What an observer would see in an inertialy accelerated elevator is a ray of light suffering aberration at detection after having gone straight line through the elevator, not after having followed a curved path. With an elevator on inertial motion, the same ray of light would appear to come directly from the hole in the ship after having suffered abarration. If it was sent towards the future position of the detector instead of being sent horizontally, it would appear to have traveled horizontally. I bet aberration produced by acceleration would also point towards the actual position of the hole. Why is aberration never accounted for in this mind experiment? Why is it never accounted for in the light clock mind experiment?
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 483
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 4th, 2017, 3:51 pm 

allowing properties to space is a cheat, it's like allowing properties to heaven.


I can observe space; I cannot observe "heaven".

I bet this concept would never have survived without Eddington's observations


Which concept? Space? Space has been "observed" since the appearance of the first "eyeball"; and it needed "space" to place that eyeball". The universe is composed of 95% of "space" and 5% of "matter" that occupy" space". The total of "space" is 100%. And this is exactly what we all observe. Some of us don't "see" it; I can't figure why.

in an inertialy accelerated elevator


An "inert" elevator accelerating??? Do you mean like an "inert" dead man body running down a slope? THAT, my friend, is a tough scientific mind experiment!

Why is aberration never accounted for in this mind experiment?


My mind is really trying to account for it right now. :-)
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Inchworm on January 4th, 2017, 5:29 pm 

Andrex » January 4th, 2017, 3:51 pm wrote:
allowing properties to space is a cheat, it's like allowing properties to heaven.
I can observe space; I cannot observe "heaven".
We can observe objects, but not the space between objects if it is empty.

Andrex wrote:
I bet this concept would never have survived without Eddington's observations
Which concept? Space? Space has been "observed" since the appearance of the first "eyeball"; and it needed "space" to place that eyeball". The universe is composed of 95% of "space" and 5% of "matter" that occupy" space". The total of "space" is 100%. And this is exactly what we all observe. Some of us don't "see" it; I can't figure why.
If the space you are talking about is empty, how can you observe it?

Andrex wrote:
in an inertialy accelerated elevator
An "inert" elevator accelerating??? Do you mean like an "inert" dead man body running down a slope? THAT, my friend, is a tough scientific mind experiment!
I said inertially to distinguish that type of acceleration from the gravitational one.

Andrex wrote:
Why is aberration never accounted for in this mind experiment?
My mind is really trying to account for it right now. :-)
I knew I went too fast. :0)

I wanted to describe the elevator mind experiment from the point of view of the observer. He wouldn't see a curved ray, he would only see the hole in the wall where the light comes in, and this image would suffer aberration the same way the image of a star suffers aberration when it is observed at the moment the earth is traveling sideways to it. The curved path that is shown on all the drawings does not exist, what exists is the elevator moving upwards, and the light ray moving horizontally after having gone through the hole. Since the elevator is moving sideways to the motion of the ray, this ray will suffer aberration at the detector, and its direction will appear to be the actual direction of the hole. If that light ray doesn't appear to be bent from that observer's viewpoint, then to me, the equivalence principle loses its pertinence, and we have to find another way to explain the observations.
User avatar
Inchworm
Member
 
Posts: 483
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Location: Val-David, Quebec, Canada


Re: A variable expansion speed theory of gravity

Postby Andrex on January 5th, 2017, 12:57 am 

We can observe objects, but not the space between objects if it is empty.


How can you say it's "empty" if you can't observe it?

If the space you are talking about is empty, how can you observe it?


I can observe its "emptyness" just as much as I could observe its "fulness" if it was full.
Andrex
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 25 Jun 2015


PreviousNext

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests