"AH... Acham's Razor... "
"Nope... it was brand new... about 2 months ago... (They stated dates in the episode)"
Wasn't the one I saw then. I'll have to try to catch that one. I just looked up the NOVA PBS site and could not find the special. There is one
that I am dying to see, however:
"Exactly... but (just theorize with me here) presuming the universe has an 'edge' that actually just restarts at the other side (severely bent
spacetime)... and presuming that all the matter in the universe is closer to the edge rather than the center... I think this could happen."
I'm not denying your claims, but I can't say for certain that they are valid. I happen to agree that we are most likely pretty far from the center
of the universe. If you'd take the time to read this article, I'm sure you'll find it very interesting in terms of your conclusion:
"I thought the influence of gravity was infinate... but since it diminishes with distance, at a point it becomes negligable ... but still
Not to sound pompas, but what would cause gravity to diminish? Perhaps the aether? The so called empty vacuum seems to have a friction force. I
continue to stand by the idea of the aether being a much better conclusion of our universe (the so called fluidic space--not the organic kind in Star
"otherwise how would galaxies orbit eachother like they do?"
I think that has to do with superclusters. The total summation of stars in a galaxy produces a very high gravitational field. The supermassive black
holes, however, can only reach about 9/10 of the way to the edge of a galaxy (or somewhere about that). Because of this, there must be an extra
gravitational source pulling galaxies together into superclusters. I would assume that this is either black holes that exist outside of the galaxies
(maybe ones that gobbled up their stars) or that the overwhelming gravitational total of galaxies pull at each other over extremely long distances,
thus forming superclusters.
"Wouldn't the act of pulling the rubber sheet UP be the real-world example of producing the opposite 'gravity wave'"
Remember that a wave goes both up and down (sorry for the elementary directions). If gravity truly is a wave, it already goes up and down (thus
flexing the rubber sheet both ways). Essentially, the propagation wave may be the wave aspect that they are referring to. In other words, once you
place an object on the rubber sheet, the outer edges are not immediately drawn down towards the object. Instead, the propagation wave of force
spreads out in a uniform process, eventually tugging on the edges as well.
Excuse the primative demonstration, but you can see that the strength of the gravity wave is located closest to the object. As you move outward, the
effects take longer and are not as strong (less of a depression).
So, pulling the rubber sheet back up may counter the effects of gravity, but not if gravity actually moves in a wave form, meaning that the
depressions made by gravity are dynamic, not static. Since they are believed to be static, maybe a true antigravity (caused by exotic matter), would
flex upward. The difference is, what's the difference between the effects of a negative gravity as opposed to a positive one? Both would be
gravity. Gravity already tugs at itself. *gets frustrated* What else?.........
I can only assume that one is affecting the vacuum (aether) differently. If the aether is a medium (say for instance "water"), the density of that
medium would effect the objects. If gravity is a negative density effect, then objects would be drawn to it in order to achieve an equilibrium. A
negative gravity (perhaps more like a positive gravity) would therefore be a highly densifying affect, thus filling the density void left by gravity.
The universe would act like a chemical system (which is pretty much does) where it attempts to achieve equilibrium among constantly fluxuating
To put it in layman's terms, a surfer is knocked off his board by a dense (negative gravity) impact from the water wave. When a water wave forms
near a shore, the shoreline receeds to fill the void left by a large quantity of water going up into the wave. Therefore, the shoreline is sucked out
into the ocean, leaving a void on the beach and pulling the people floating near the shore towards the wave. The pulling action would be the standard
gravity attempting to compensate for the void. If the negative gravity is a dense object, such as a planet, then gravity is the attempt of the
universe to fill the void left by a supermassive concentration of density (matter).
Now some problems arise. If matter is negative gravity and matter is what fills the void left, how does one remove the negative gravity effects? The
answer, for a planet, would seem to be a supernova, where the matter is blown outward. The problem is that the center of a supernova only becomes
more dense, causing a greater gravitational potential, sometimes a black hole (with the oddity of the singularity). Going to the idea of the
singularity, it continues to gobble bodies of mass and continually grows. Which means that matter/mass only feeds the standard gravity potential to
make the black hole larger. Since this is fact, then it would seem that matter is not the negative gravity, because it does not reduce the size of a
*light bulb goes on*
I wonder if it is possible for a black hole to invert itself. Think about it. If a wave is sucking in water (mass/matter) and continually growing
larger, it eventually has to hit a shore in order to dissipate itself and relieve the stress on its environment. So where's the shore? I don't
know of any object so big that it is the size of a galaxy or larger. Maybe I should abandon this approach, seeing as a "shore" does not exist.
What do you think? Did you follow the example?
"(I don't know if gravity moves in waves... but I'm talking about how all the points on a sine curve and a curve that is the inverse of the
original, when averaged (the Y point on one averaged with the same on the other that cooresponds to the same X coordinate), become a flat line. They
use this in some office building lobbys with sound, mics pick up the sounds of people talking and produce the opposite sound to cancel it out so it
sounds quieter.) (sorry for using all the ()'s)"
Which means that determining if gravity is a wave is of the utmost importance. I don't know of anything that cancels a gravity wave. If you find
anything on the subject I'd be interested to read it.
A few questions come to mind. Does a black hole become larger both from gobbling other black holes and matter or just one or the other? This would
have a significant difference in science, depending what is true. I believe the idea is that both forms cause black holes to become larger. So
what's the total mass a black hole can hold? It is theorized that singularities eventually erupt in a Big Bang. Perhaps the volcano structure does
"erupt" as do ours on Earth. Also, if the structure is already a volcano, is it erupting into another mathematical dimension? Talk about eerie.
"If you look at a graph of a hyperbola, it is actually two seperate parabolas turned on their sides with their tips to eachother. Wouldn't breaking
into two pieces on the graph represent a rupture in the spacetime the object occupies? (a 'hole' if you will)"
That depends on whether they infinitely converge at the same point. Technically, I don't believe that black holes have no bottom. They just are so
dense that they also trap light. Since light is the "ultimate substance" as a carrier force, "if light can't escape, nothing can," is the idea.
I'll need to read up on theoretical properties of the singularity to know exactly how it plays a roll.
Info on Singularities
Here's a link on Negative Gravity (Einstein's
Negative Gravity) with possible dark energy material
So if negative gravity does exist and it is an extremely large force that exists in the background, perhaps singularities do invert themselves and
reverse the effects of gravity at some point. The possibilities of a singularity erupting are startling at the very least.
Here is another interesting read (a bit confusing)
A nice (short) article on dark energy and negative gravity
You'll notice that quintessence is referred to as the negative gravity force, so here is an article on it:
Quintessence (open up figure #4)
Dam*, I'm good, read this definition and you'll see that quintessence is a different term for the aether:
Well, this is all enough to keep you busy for at least an hour. Have fun and give me some good feedback. Maybe we'll share a Nobel Prize