It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Erik Verlinde says no need for Dark Matter and Gravity is emergent

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire


Clocks are not a natural phenomenon. What they measure (by our input alone) is duration of an event (motion). Motion is change, and change comes in all sorts of lengths of duration. A duration has a beginning and an end and its length is determined by the beginning and the end, and thus we derive our measure of time by the observance of the length of a duration.


Yes and no. You said it right about 'time' being a 'duration' imo. And your definition in plain words is fine. Although, the clock is absolutely natural as life can be. Life senses a duration. Say, sun radiation begins in the morning and ends in the evening. For any living organism that is a duration. Living organism then adopts that information to benefit it's state of being.
So, the 'clock' is common to all life, not only humans.

that's my 2 cents.




posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Hi board,

I have to comment on this further))))
Gravity question is two part imo. How it emerges and what is the mechanism for gravitational 'attraction'. I disagree to the notion that gravity is a force. I do have some thoughts on how it works, but never thought about how it originates.


Some one has mentioned 'space-time knots'. I think of it as 'it' wraps fabric of space on plank scale such that nothing can destroy it. It becomes a hard ball. Tangible object with 'mass' (degree of resistance (threshold, before destruction, I guess). Space-time gradually unwraps to normal metrics as spatial distance from the 'wrap' increases. Basically it is a gradient value.


Explanation of both should not take pages and pages to explain. Our every day experience with being 'pulled' down to Earth surface ultimately must be simple for a modest physics enthusiast to understand.

At the same time, 'motion' is also a must condition, but may be it is an outcome of more fundamental things at play.




Anyway...

cheers good people)


edit on 29-12-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Hi ATS.

Gravity is definitely a force, just by definition.
Just like electric force that attracts opposite and repeals alike charged particles.
Where this force comes from, is a good question.

But let me start with time.
Kashai said, "Time relates to motion... without time nothing can move"
But what is movement?

Imagine a single hydrogen atom and nothing else.
Does it move ? You can't tell, right?
You need some kind of background to tell.
What about 2 hydrogen atoms, do they move, or better said, do they change they position relative to another ? You can't tell either without any background.
First if you have 3 atoms you can start measuring, you being the 4th in this setup, by comparing the distances between the 1st and 2nd, and the 1st and the 3rd.
But how do tell if they moved or not ? You measure the distances between them not once but you measure again and again and again, right ?
Measure with what ? What is measurement ?
Measurement is a comparison, you use the 3rd one for that, and that's why you need the 3rd in the setup at all.
Now that you have measured and you know the distance from the first measurement and you know the distance from the next measurement, you can say that atom A moved away from atom B the same distance as there is distance between atom A and C for example.
But what if the distance between A and C also changed ? You can not tell if you didn't measured those two too.
Measurement is comparison.

So... what is the speed atom A moves relative to B?
For that you need some kind of cycle, something periodic that comes like numbers on a scale... 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. and so on.
This could be anything so let's change our setup and add another atom that moves relative to the other 3. You can't use the 3rd for that, you need it for the distance measurement/comparison.
Now you can tell that A moves 3 times the distance between B and C and the distance between B and D changed just one distance B-C, you measure again, counting the measurement to be the second measurement and you see that A moved 3 times the distance between B and C and the distance between B and D changed just one B-C again.
You measure again ( measurement 3 ) and you maybe see the same change.
Atom A is moving with a constant speed that is 3 times faster than atom D in the 3 measurements you have taken.
The "time" is not something that is physical,
Time is counting.

Fortunately our universe is made of more than 3 or 4 atoms so it is more easier.
I said, you, the one who measures is the 4th one, well... the universe doesn't need you or me to measure the change in position, there is something else called the electric field.
Any presence of charged particle and the change in position is reflected in the electric field.
There is actually nothing else physical in the universe than electric charges. They make all, and I mean all of that there is.


so again "Time relates to motion... without time nothing can move"

Movement creates the illusion of time, but motion happens because of forces acting on charged particles and not because of time.
Time is a concept made of counting.
Motion is the change in position between charged particles.
What causes the movement of charges is called electric force.

Gravity is an emergent force for sure, but nothing coming out of QM equation, it emerges from electric force interaction.

I think founding out what causes an electric charge is more important than gravity.



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma


Take a look at this..



Differences between gravitational and electromagnetic radiation

So far we have been emphasizing how, at a fundamental level, the generation and propagation of gravitational and electromagnetic radiation are basically quite similar. This is a major point in demystifying gravitational waves. But, on a more practical level, gravitational and electromagnetic waves are quite different: we see and use electromagnetic waves every day, while we have yet to make a confirmed direct detection of gravitational waves (which is why they seemed so mysterious in the first place).

There are two principal differences between gravity and electromagnetism, each with its own set of consequences for the nature and information content of its radiation, as described below.

Gravity is a weak force, but has only one sign of charge.

Electromagnetism is much stronger, but comes in two opposing signs of charge.


This is the most significant difference between gravity and electromagnetism, and is the main reason why we perceive these two phenomena so differently. It has several immediate consequences:

Significant gravitational fields are generated by accumulating bulk concentrations of matter. Electromagnetic fields are generated by slight imbalances caused by small (often microscopic) separations of charge.

Gravitational waves, similarly, are generated by the bulk motion of large masses, and will have wavelengths much longer than the objects themselves. Electromagnetic waves, meanwhile, are typically generated by small movements of charge pairs within objects, and have wavelengths much smaller than the objects themselves.

Gravitational waves are weakly interacting, making them extraordinarily difficult to detect; at the same time, they can travel unhindered through intervening matter of any density or composition. Electromagnetic waves are strongly interacting with normal matter, making them easy to detect; but they are readily absorbed or scattered by intervening matter.

Gravitational waves give holistic, sound-like information about the overall motions and vibrations of objects. Electromagnetic waves give images representing the aggregate properties of microscopic charges at the surfaces of objects.


www.tapir.caltech.edu...



edit on 29-12-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Dec, 29 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai


One way to understand what is explained is that in so far as Gravity having only one charge presents that Anti- Gravity is impossible.

Sure we can find alternative way to leave a planet but that is not anti-gravity which in scope would be like the direct opposite of gravity in translation.

Such a potential in reality does not exist as far as we know.





edit on 29-12-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Hi there,


Gravitational waves, similarly, are generated by the bulk motion of large masses...


I just don't buy it. It is pretty lame as an explanation...Can you please elaborate on this a little more?

...and how Moon orbits Earth. What keeps it in orbit and why things fall down toward mass at the same acceleration rate since motion of gravity generator can be different, but the speed at which smaller objects fall toward source of gravity is the same regardless of the mass or size of smaller object (feather and a hammer)?


cheers)


edit on 30-12-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Kashai


One way to understand what is explained is that in so far as Gravity having only one charge presents that Anti- Gravity is impossible.

Sure we can find alternative way to leave a planet but that is not anti-gravity which in scope would be like the direct opposite of gravity in translation.

Such a potential in reality does not exist as far as we know.






I would agree that anti gravity is impossible but not for a reason of potential. How people come up with this? Not saying it's wrong, just curious of what logical chain was used to arrive to that conclusion.


cheers again))



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections


In an anti-matter universe gravity would still be called gravity and in so far as its potential as it would really be no different.


edit on 30-12-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Energy mass and information. Also Claude shannon equation of H, gravity its just an static electricity arriving from silicates/silicon



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Posting so I can find this again after work...

Awesome thread!



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: Kashai

Hi there,


Gravitational waves, similarly, are generated by the bulk motion of large masses...


I just don't buy it. It is pretty lame as an explanation...Can you please elaborate on this a little more?

...and how Moon orbits Earth. What keeps it in orbit and why things fall down toward mass at the same acceleration rate since motion of gravity generator can be different, but the speed at which smaller objects fall toward source of gravity is the same regardless of the mass or size of smaller object (feather and a hammer)?


cheers)



Hi,


The mass of a larger object like the moon is in the same situation as the feather but because of its mass, that compensates for why the moon is actually moving away from us.

Once an object gains a certain size it expresses gravity waves though technically all things express gravity waves in relation to its mass.

We actually do that you know because of our mass as well.





edit on 30-12-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   
It has become somewhat tiresome having to rebut the incomprehensions others hold on statements of logic I am making. It seems that some of you quite simply are unable to get that 'eureka!' moment of cognizance when the meaning of my statements suddenly become clear. I'll try to clarify the logic of the following two statements: a) space has no interactive properties; and b) time does not exist as an independent reality.

These are two very simple statements with clear premise. Let's take the first statement...space has no interactive properties.

What is space? We can only infer an answer to this question by showing what space is not. Can we agree on the following proposition? The universe has two aspects to it, the first being space itself, and the second aspect is that some or all of space has content in it. Space cannot be contained by itself, space contains content. Content can contain space, and content can and does contain other aspects of content.

So what is content? Content is all the matter, both with and without mass, throughout the universe. It is content that provides the 3-dimensional reality in which all of existence abides. Now here is why space has no interactive properties...space does not exist. The only reason why you can know space is by the content in space. Without content in space, you would have no vector coordinates by which to appreciate space, and of course, if there is no content, you don't exist, anyway.

Space is not a 'something' of 'nothing', it is the absence of content, and that does not make it a 'something' of no content. Something of nothing is nothing. Space, as we understand it, is only as large and as wide as the spread of the content in it. We see 'space' because we infer it from the emptiness between the vector coordinates of content, and in the last...space absolutely does not interact with content. Only content interacts with content: ergo, space cannot be warped by energy either as matter or as force. Space is not a 'fabric', and if space did interact with content, it would constrain the expansion of the universe, because then you are treating space as a form of matter, and no, space is not dark energy or dark matter. Space really is nothing. It is an immaterial non-existence.

Let's take the second premise statement. Time does not exist as an independent reality.

What is time? Our sense of time is like space, it is something we infer from something other, and that other is the motion of an event. An event is a change occurring to the content in space. Every change has a length of duration, it has a beginning and an end, and the length between the beginning and the end is the duration of the event of a change. Events, do not of course, occur with the same lengths of duration. For instance, here in England it is o6:57 am on the 31st December. Tonight at midnight the New Year is going to be delayed by 1 second. This is due to a slow down in the earth's rotation, and is thus being accounted for. An event, such as 1 full rotation of the earth, has changed by an increase of 1 second longer than what it was the year before. So, are we actually changing 'time' itself, by making a duration audit, or are we simply imposing our own sense of time upon reality?

We derive our duration length of a second by observing the length of a single oscillation of the caesium atom. A second does not actually exist. It is just an imposed unit of measurement. If I were to ask you to define time, you would probably relate it to some occurrence of change, but change is not what time is. In fact, you could not define time alternatively to what I state, without using an imposition, and if you have to use a stance of imposition for time, you are simply demonstrating it to be a man-made abstraction...nothing more.

You infer time by your observance of events around you, and in you (proprioception), and the brain cross-references them into a one stream data flow by synchronising all sense data, and from which our conscious awareness arises. In order to sense time, you need a frame of reference, just as you need a vector coordinate frame of reference to sense space. Your one stream data flow of all sense data is that frame of reference...your 'now' moment that throughout your life remains static in a sea of events of varying lengths of duration. None of this makes time real.

What is real is that events take place, changes constantly occur, and they all have their own lengths of duration.

The concept of spacetime functions as a mathematical expression, but it is not real, and is simply a man-made abstraction to infer an environment in which (not on which) events take place. Both space and time are not realities.
edit on 31/12/16 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire

EXACTLY !!!

Measuring and counting is how science works, or was working...
Measuring and counting of what is already present.
Then they came up with Spacetime, Black Holes, Dark Matter and what not else to fit the failing theories.

Word "gravity" is just a description for what we observe,
same for "time", just a word and not a physical something.
The word "photon" is a name for the electromagnetic wave and nothing existent in itself.






posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
What is space? We can only infer an answer to this question by showing what space is not. Can we agree on the following proposition? The universe has two aspects to it, the first being space itself, and the second aspect is that some or all of space has content in it. Space cannot be contained by itself, space contains content.
You're not making much sense to me talking about space having content.

Take the space power facility for example, the world's largest vacuum chamber 30 meters in diameter and 37 meters high. The space inside contains air before it's evacuated, but after the air is evacuated, what's left? Space. And as the name of the facility implies it tests conditions that a spacecraft will experience in space. That 30 meters diameter between the walls can be measured in a number of ways.


originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: elysiumfire

EXACTLY !!!

Measuring and counting is how science works, or was working...
Measuring and counting of what is already present.
Then they came up with Spacetime, Black Holes, Dark Matter and what not else to fit the failing theories.
You can measure the 30 meters yourself, maybe it's not exactly 30 meters but it's measurable. When the air is still in it I wouldn't call it space but after the air is pumped out I'm OK with calling that 30 meters diameter "space".

Here you can see the facility and how differently feathers versus a bowling ball drop with air in the chamber, and then after the air is removed you can see them drop with just space inside the chamber:

Brian Cox visits the world's biggest vacuum chamber



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


The space inside contains air before it's evacuated, but after the air is evacuated, what's left? Space.


This 30m of created airless space is inside something else, isn't it ??

Universe is there because matter exist and even if you create a region without any matter, this region exists "inside" the all other matter in the Universe.
And I don't even start talking about radiation and electric fields that prevent us from creating a perfect vacuum.
Remove all mater from the Universe and you end up with no radiation, no space, no nothing.
Without anything there is no space, space is something between and inside something else BUT not present as itself.
You can have some space in a glass bottle but you can not have space without anything else, therefore you can change the shape this space in contained in, but you can not bend or stretch space... you can stretch the bottle, sure


How many numbers are inside 0 to 1 ?
infinitely big number, right ?
How many numbers are inside 0 ?
1 of course!
If there is no mark for 0 and 1 on the meter stick, there is no number in between.
(Forget the atoms of the stick, I'm talking just about numbers)



edit on 31-12-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
This 30m of created airless space is inside something else, isn't it ??
Sure, but your point was it couldn't be measured. My point is it can be measured, it's 30 meters across in that vacuum chamber, so there's your measurement, 30 meters. You can measure other properties of space like travel time of light, that's how we know the moon is slowly moving away from the Earth, bouncing a laser between them to measure the space in between them, so again, space can be measured.


you can not bend or stretch space
You're using very unsophisticated terminology apparently in a poor attempt to talk about relativity, but at the heart relativity makes mathematical predictions about how mass affects the space around it, and those predictions have been confirmed experimentally. If you don't like calling it bending or stretching call it something else, but the predictions are confirmed so far and there have been many confirmation experiments.

To put it another way, if you try to assume space has uniform properties and is not affected by the mass outside the space, experiments will contradict predictions made with such a model, so we know that model can't be right.

edit on 20161231 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire



The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that, in addition to performing the calculation of position using 3D trilateration, will also compute any additional special relativistic timing calculations required [3].

Relativity is not just some abstract mathematical theory: understanding it is absolutely essential for our global navigation system to work properly!


www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu...

You see fundamentally the issue that time changes based upon the effect of a gravitational field has been identified factually; means that today we can map the differences.

We have done so and so have confirmed Einstein's work on Relativity.



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



Sure, but your point was it couldn't be measured. My point is it can be measured,


NO Arbitrageur, I didn't said it couldn't be measured. I just said what someone need to measure something.

Again, like in any other thread we talk about something, you change what I'm saying into something else...




If you don't like calling it bending or stretching call it something else, but the predictions are confirmed so far and there have been many confirmation experiments.


If you refer to gravitational lensing I told you in another thread what I think about it.
It is not the space that is bend and the light travels straight line in a curved space-time,
the electric field density which is "the medium" for electromagnetic waves has different propagation speed regarding to it's density.

I know you and others think charge +1 and charge -1 results in charge 0 and that's it for you, like the electric field would disappear... NO, it does NOT disappear!!
I told you in another thread already this
+1 charge and -1 charge is 2 charge density with 0 sign.
Denser field makes light travel at slower speed and the gradient of the field "bends the light"
To understand this you need to go away from point like photon construct and see electro-magnetic waves like they are,
they have a real size, they have begin & and, they are 3 dimensional, E and B.

Space can not be bent or stretched and time is not a thing that slows down or stretches.
GPS satellite example, this gravity and velocity differences, all this fits my model at best, also the galactic rotation and "black hole" like phenomena.

Happy New Year !!



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I think this new theory of gravity is fascinating. It shows again the principles of emergence need to be used to explain current physics. Gravity is emergent from some entropic information. Sub-atomic particles are emergent from some underlying structure (aether if you will). It could be that the information in this gravity models is associated with variables to do with the aether, for instance its turbulence, density or stress.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
Again, like in any other thread we talk about something, you change what I'm saying into something else...
It's not my fault you've never posted any model that makes quantitative predictions for others to evaluate. If you have one, then post it and eliminate the confusion, that's on you not on me.


I know you and others think charge +1 and charge -1 results in charge 0 and that's it for you, like the electric field would disappear... NO, it does NOT disappear!!
I told you in another thread already this
+1 charge and -1 charge is 2 charge density with 0 sign.
Denser field makes light travel at slower speed and the gradient of the field "bends the light"
To understand this you need to go away from point like photon construct and see electro-magnetic waves like they are,
they have a real size, they have begin & and, they are 3 dimensional, E and B.
Again you've provided no quantitative model to fully explain what this is supposed to mean, but if I try to interpret it, it suggests to me that you think light slows down in an electric field because + charge and - charge give two electric fields and that's what makes light slow down. Then it sounds like according to this model light should slow down in an electric field and I've never seen any experiments suggesting that it does and we can measure the speed of light quite accurately now. Also without your equations to show precisely how much light is supposed to slow down in what electric field strength I don't even have sufficient parameters to test your idea.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join