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.

 

A controversial new gravity hypothesis has passed its first test

page: 6
28
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: spectranometron


With regards to inflation the effect itself to a condition related to space-time.

It is possible that the Big Bang was an event that occurred to space-time. The result would constitute packets of space-time that we today call matter. The relationship between space-time and matter-energy in such a case is suspect.

It would mean that the relationship between these two parameters would be inherent and therefore result in inflation due to the conditions of the early Universe.


creating packets of space time out of matter on earth similar to the size of the super dense matter of the early universe could be an answer to stopping that reaction to first action. The missing component of those packets could be dark matter.




posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick7
I urge posters her to go over to the thread Ask any question about physics.

Also read this:
en.wikipedia.org...

Gravity may exhibit properties of a 'force' but it is an effect. We will probably never be able to find experiment proof, or direct proof of the existence of a gravitational particle (termed 'the graviton'), though the gravity wave detector gives us new information about that.

To the poster on the first page, about his 90 yo genius grandfather. No physicist will merely say something vague like 'we don't really know'. He'd talk about the equations, the derivation of the gravitational constant, the way relativity was proved, the way we discovered that light follows the geodesic near massive bodies.

Go to a nearby university and take some physics classes if you really are interested. You must have a grasp of the math.

What we don't know or understand is why the 'force' that is calculated is so much weaker than the other fundamental forces, but it's not a matter of 'we just don't know'. We know a lot, but there are still some anomalies (see the wiki page) that need to be solved.
if the big bang and relativity are true the universe prior to expansion would have been acted upon by an outside force. That force could only have come from within that golf ball size hyper dense matter. Initial action force removed from space time contains initial reaction and all energy.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 04:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick7What we don't know or understand is why the 'force' that is calculated is so much weaker than the other fundamental forces, but it's not a matter of 'we just don't know'. We know a lot, but there are still some anomalies (see the wiki page) that need to be solved.

If you had built those N-dimensional hypherspherical toy universe models, you had noticed that gravity displays a rather interesting property as a function of N. It creates constant "acceleration" for constant mass, but that "acceleration" has different measurement units in different N-dimensional universes. Specifically, it has the measurement unit of velocity [m/s] in 1-dimensional universe, measurement unit of acceleration (change of velocity in time) [m/s^2] in 2-dimensional universe, and so on.

In general, gravity (exponential spatial expansion in an N-dimensional universe) will create "acceleration" with measurement unit of [m/(s^N)].

What that means is than as N goes up, so does the constant G(N), and consequently, the strength of gravitational "force".

Obviously, this opens up the possibility of calculating the upper bound on spatial dimensionality N of this... let's call it, multiverse. And somewhere in there, in all that math, you may actually find that holographic and string theory start to merge into one unified theory. And, if you've been paying any attention at all, you will also understand at that point that that will be the ultimate limit of mathematical description of a mathematical multiiverse. The math, any math, won't work beyond that point. Because, beyond that point, whatever may be out there is not mathematical in nature at all.

Beware, dragons be there...

On a different subject, and to somebody else, let me give one last reminder that this is a race against time. You've failed to stop it from taking over, and you can't stop this planet from imploding either. But you can still escape both. There should be your hope. Or your determination. I'd prefer the latter if I were you. The former tends to betray one at the worst possible moment.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: heavystuff

originally posted by: Maverick7What we don't know or understand is why the 'force' that is calculated is so much weaker than the other fundamental forces, but it's not a matter of 'we just don't know'. We know a lot, but there are still some anomalies (see the wiki page) that need to be solved.

If you had built those N-dimensional hypherspherical toy universe models, you had noticed that gravity displays a rather interesting property as a function of N. It creates constant "acceleration" for constant mass, but that "acceleration" has different measurement units in different N-dimensional universes. Specifically, it has the measurement unit of velocity [m/s] in 1-dimensional universe, measurement unit of acceleration (change of velocity in time) [m/s^2] in 2-dimensional universe, and so on.

In general, gravity (exponential spatial expansion in an N-dimensional universe) will create "acceleration" with measurement unit of [m/(s^N)].

What that means is than as N goes up, so does the constant G(N), and consequently, the strength of gravitational "force".

Obviously, this opens up the possibility of calculating the upper bound on spatial dimensionality N of this... let's call it, multiverse. And somewhere in there, in all that math, you may actually find that holographic and string theory start to merge into one unified theory. And, if you've been paying any attention at all, you will also understand at that point that that will be the ultimate limit of mathematical description of a mathematical multiiverse. The math, any math, won't work beyond that point. Because, beyond that point, whatever may be out there is not mathematical in nature at all.

Beware, dragons be there...

On a different subject, and to somebody else, let me give one last reminder that this is a race against time. You've failed to stop it from taking over, and you can't stop this planet from imploding either. But you can still escape both. There should be your hope. Or your determination. I'd prefer the latter if I were you. The former tends to betray one at the worst possible moment.
you only fight "it" if it's putting you in a position as a condition necessary to put you there. Its disgusting.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: heavystuff
If you had built those N-dimensional hypherspherical toy universe models, you had noticed that gravity displays a rather interesting property as a function of N. It creates constant "acceleration" for constant mass, but that "acceleration" has different measurement units in different N-dimensional universes. Specifically, it has the measurement unit of velocity [m/s] in 1-dimensional universe, measurement unit of acceleration (change of velocity in time) [m/s^2] in 2-dimensional universe, and so on.

In general, gravity (exponential spatial expansion in an N-dimensional universe) will create "acceleration" with measurement unit of [m/(s^N)].

What that means is than as N goes up, so does the constant G(N), and consequently, the strength of gravitational "force".
...


Nonsense.

Acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity and velocity is defined as rate of change of position.

Thus per definition the unit of velocity is m/s and the unit of acceleration m/s^2

The exponent comes from the time derivative. This is pretty basic physics...



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: heavystuff
If you had built those N-dimensional hypherspherical toy universe models, you had noticed that gravity displays a rather interesting property as a function of N. It creates constant "acceleration" for constant mass, but that "acceleration" has different measurement units in different N-dimensional universes. Specifically, it has the measurement unit of velocity [m/s] in 1-dimensional universe, measurement unit of acceleration (change of velocity in time) [m/s^2] in 2-dimensional universe, and so on.

In general, gravity (exponential spatial expansion in an N-dimensional universe) will create "acceleration" with measurement unit of [m/(s^N)].

What that means is than as N goes up, so does the constant G(N), and consequently, the strength of gravitational "force".
...


Nonsense.

Acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity and velocity is defined as rate of change of position.

Thus per definition the unit of velocity is m/s and the unit of acceleration m/s^2

The exponent comes from the time derivative. This is pretty basic physics...


thank you and excuse any ignorance on my part, wisdom excludes accumulated knowledge. The exponent im guessing is the comparison which Allows for the measurement and therefore existence of acceleration when compared top velocity over time/ distance. Gravity and dark matter are immeasurable. Imagination and emotion are immeasurable, progressing the physical not from the physical is probably important . All life as we know is supported by the earth. You never hear about it having a soul if we're going to progress into other universes we'll need physics. Progression is a building process if we didn't need it we wouldn't have it, physics is pretty much just the # that we know for a fact that we have.
edit on 12-24 by spectranometron because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: spectranometron

Never hear about levity. A lot of exponents available for the many ways up but no explanation on what makes us go down.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: spectranometron

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: spectranometron


With regards to inflation the effect itself to a condition related to space-time.

It is possible that the Big Bang was an event that occurred to space-time. The result would constitute packets of space-time that we today call matter. The relationship between space-time and matter-energy in such a case is suspect.

It would mean that the relationship between these two parameters would be inherent and therefore result in inflation due to the conditions of the early Universe.


creating packets of space time out of matter on earth similar to the size of the super dense matter of the early universe could be an answer to stopping that reaction to first action. The missing component of those packets could be dark matter.


While not an analogy that fits but perhaps something akin dark matter could be like the difference between visible light
and infrared or otherwise

In that while we observe this effect with technology today in relation to the spectrum dark matter eludes but for similar reasons.

Alternatively these packets that could ether Is moving faster than the speed of light due to its lack of mass, or having mass but exiting in dimensions beyond to the ones we commonly interact with.

So while there presence is indirectly observed from our perspective it sits outside the range of direct observation.

Perhaps we are not considering that in a matter/antimatter interaction the mass is not annihilated so the information is not lost but rather changes?






edit on 24-12-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
In which case dark matter is created every time matter and anti-matter interacts.

A question then being how much matter and antimatter are needed to interact to generate a gravitational felid large enough as a result of the residuals for us to detect a residual gravitation field.

Happy Holidays.

edit on 24-12-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
In which case dark matter is created every time matter and anti-matter interacts.

A question then being how much matter and antimatter are needed to interact to generate a gravitational felid large enough as a result of the residuals for us to detect a residual gravitation field.

Happy Holidays.
I'm the graviton.
edit on 12-25 by spectranometron because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: spectranometron


Given information cannot be destroyed the resultant effect of a matter/anti-matter interaction is another state of matter.

That the mass still exists would then be evident and expressed as a gravitational event to us. Despite, that due to the effect of the event in question. The information "seemingly", in the modern consideration of the results appears annihilated. The information is not destroyed and in my humble opinion the mass that still is relevant, as a result has an observable gravitational effect.


Any thoughts?
edit on 25-12-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I'm not sure, but we seem to have stumbled into the Hogwort's School of Magical Thinking, Physiks Division.

Winguardium Leviosa is the motto and the math is 'Flying Pieces of π'

It's amusing, but also incomprehensible. Again, go over to the Science forum and talk to Arbitraguer and the guys and learn the standard model, learn some of the math, take a course in Astronomy and Modern Physics. Then your incoherent snowflakes will at least achieve some coherency.

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Maverick7


Five Great Problems in Theoretical Physics

physics.about.com...

The difficulty is that when you say adhere to the standard model or be ridiculed or having your commentary compared fiction. The issues in the above thread were not born yesterday and while it may not seem to the purveyors of such responses as being discussed the fallacy of ignorance seem evident in such commentary.

Max Plank presented his quantum hypothesis in 1900...



The history of quantum mechanics is a fundamental part of the history of modern physics. Quantum mechanics' history, as it interlaces with the history of quantum chemistry, began essentially with a number of different scientific discoveries: the 1838 discovery of cathode rays by Michael Faraday; the 1859–60 winter statement of the black-body radiation problem by Gustav Kirchhoff; the 1877 suggestion by Ludwig Boltzmann that the energy states of a physical system could be discrete; the discovery of the photoelectric effect by Heinrich Hertz in 1887; and the 1900 quantum hypothesis by Max Planck that any energy-radiating atomic system can theoretically be divided into a number of discrete "energy elements" ε (epsilon) such that each of these energy elements is proportional to the frequency ν with which each of them individually radiate energy, as defined by the following formula:
ϵ = h ν [displaystyle epsilon =hnu ,]


en.wikipedia.org...

Just as Christians await the second coming. Conservative scientist also seem to be waiting for a Messiah who will part the waters and mysteries of quantum mechanics to deliver a truly standard model frame of referent.

In the meantime these true believers often referred to skeptics remark with disdain and any effort to understand beyond what materialist shun.

Like the extremist of religious belief systems shun other religions and demonize them. Conservative scientist demonize and shun any effort to understand the phenomenon in question unless they are devote adherents to conservative modeling.

Stagnation when it comes to Institutions is the moral equivalent to failure and while some consider discourse that questions the standard model ideology as offered as something that is taken personally by its adherents.

That is historically the beginnings of stagnation.

From my part the Scientific Method one of the greatest interventions to inform but when human prejudice enters the fray (prejudice and human defined in the most general way).

Such responses are not objective.


Peace
edit on 26-12-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Maverick7


Getting back to the topic what specifically is your position on Dark Matter and don't be shy? To be honest the first time I was exposed to physics was not in the 90's.

But I really do not talk about that.

Music break...


edit on 26-12-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


Alarmingly you do not seem to understand the position or issue of Dialectics and perhaps then I should elaborate...



The term dialectic is not synonymous with the term debate. While in theory debaters are not necessarily emotionally invested in their point of view, in practice debaters frequently display an emotional commitment that may cloud rational judgment. Debates are won through a combination of persuading the opponent, proving one's argument correct, or proving the opponent's argument incorrect. Debates do not necessarily require promptly identifying a clear winner or loser; however clear winners are frequently determined by either a judge, jury, or by group consensus. The term dialectics is also not synonymous with the term rhetoric, a method or art of discourse that seeks to persuade, inform, or motivate an audience.[1] Concepts, like "logos" or rational appeal, "pathos" or emotional appeal, and "ethos" or ethical appeal, are intentionally used by rhetoricians to persuade an audience.[2]

Socrates favored truth as the highest value, proposing that it could be discovered through reason and logic in discussion: ergo, dialectic. Socrates valued rationality (appealing to logic, not emotion) as the proper means for persuasion, the discovery of truth, and the determinant for one's actions. To Socrates, truth, not aretē, was the greater good, and each person should, above all else, seek truth to guide one's life. Therefore, Socrates opposed the Sophists and their teaching of rhetoric as art and as emotional oratory requiring neither logic nor proof.[3] Different forms of dialectical reasoning have emerged throughout history from the Indosphere (Greater India) and the West (Europe). These forms include the Socratic method, Hindu, Buddhist, Medieval, Hegelian dialectics, Marxist, Talmudic, and Neo-orthodoxy.


en.wikipedia.org...


When it comes to any real issue related to the Standard model there is of course the Measurement Problem.....



The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the problem of how (or whether) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the system that is not obviously a consequence of Schrödinger evolution.

To express matters differently (to paraphrase Steven Weinberg[1][2]), the Schrödinger wave equation determines the wave function at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum and classical reality?[3]


en.wikipedia.org...

So what is your position upon Dark Matter

edit on 26-12-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
In argument if all we cannot determine are proximities how is that in fact deterministic....


de·ter·min·is·tic
[dəˌtərməˈnistik]

ADJECTIVE
relating to the philosophical doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.


A deterministic theory????

If you do not understand the difference between Dialectics and Debate????


See its a difference one learns in school.

Just a thought,
edit on 26-12-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick7

I'm not sure, but we seem to have stumbled into the Hogwort's School of Magical Thinking, Physiks Division.

Winguardium Leviosa is the motto and the math is 'Flying Pieces of π'

It's amusing, but also incomprehensible. Again, go over to the Science forum and talk to Arbitraguer and the guys and learn the standard model, learn some of the math, take a course in Astronomy and Modern Physics. Then your incoherent snowflakes will at least achieve some coherency.

Thanks.


Uhh..

How about you take some philosphy classes to help you realize how to form a debate argument without fallacy.

Then perhaps look into the subject of cosmology and ontology and see how many different diciplines work in the field.

Thank god for Karl Popper.

Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

"Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths."

Exactly.


I really enjoyed the conversation so feel free to contact me by PM I use my E-mail server for other things it wll just be easer that way.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I've got a screwy idea that gravity is a resultant effect of electromagnetic fields. Basically you treat mass as its energy equivalent, then you tally up the total electric charge and magnetic fields needed to keep that energy together. Then you compare the resistivity and impedence of a vacuum acting on those fields. (A vacuum actually has a very tiny amount of resistance to changes in a field passing through it.)

Most things work out as neutrally charged, so in those cases your standard gravitational models would come pretty close and should be ok as a shortcut way of performing calculations. (Things cancel out, so it's convenient.) In other cases, you'll have positive or negatively charged objects or strong overlap with electromagnetic fields. In those cases, another electro or magneto-gravitic model should be used for calculations as the typical behavior may not apply. Basically some fringe phenomena, that breaks things. (And may provide some interesting loopholes, if we can exploit them. Keep in mind the scale of energy expenditure isn't exactly resource cheap - but knowing what is needed may result in a more efficient approach.)

So gravity is just a result of a vacuum resisting energy moving through it. The energy behaves in a particular way in some cases, so we treat it differently. (Matter or mass.) The problem is doing so tends to miss why the emergent behavior occurs. Also keep in mind that the vacuum resistance is a really really minuscule force acting upon a moving field, so very small particles will have a field that is so small that there is no way to measure it. Basically the phenomena is only seen in large things, as things like photons or charged particles would register zero resistance given the measurement limit of things on the Planck scale.

An entropic model probably describes the same kind of things (energy losses, etc), but it'd still miss some other factors that may be missed if you express the phenomena using other calculations.

I'm still too much a layperson from how I look at it, but it'd be cool if a physicist takes a crack at it using this idea being left out on the table. I don't think it'd be that terrible.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
End of the day through without an understanding of what dark matter/energy actually comprises, 95% of the universe will remain unknown to us.

True. We're absolutely terrible at measuring anything with a more "transdimensional" aspect.




top topics



 
28
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join