is space/time warped? or is space time just like a liquid?

i have been thinking hard latley about the gravity probe B findings that space/time is warped by the mass of the earth.

"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University. "GP-B confirmed two of the most profound predictions of Einstein's universe, having far-reaching implications across astrophysics research. Likewise, the decades of technological innovation behind the mission will have a lasting legacy on Earth and in space."

NASA source grav probe B
grav probe B




this experiment has confirmed that mass is warping space time around the earth.

i do not pretend to be able to contradict the findings from gravity probe B
i would like to offer a different interpretation of why the results were found to corrilate with einstiens theory of warped space time while conforming to the "results" of the experiment

here is an explination for einsteins warped space time for comparison
einsteins warped space time explained

first of all i will introduce a theory on warping of space time around a black hole as the effects are heightened because of the great mass involved in two black holes colliding




tendex and vortex helps visualize space time warping

first this is a visualization tool to help understand the forces involved in the warping of space time with two black holes colliding so it is not a direct comparison to the warping of space around earth,
this just provides the basis of the argument that space time acts like a liquid, or super liquid with hydro-dynamic proerties.

“Though we’ve developed these tools for black-hole collisions, they can be applied wherever space-time is warped,” says Dr. Geoffrey Lovelace, a member of the team from Cornell. “For instance, I expect that people will apply vortex and tendex lines to cosmology, to black holes ripping stars apart, and to the singularities that live inside black holes. They’ll become standard tools throughout general relativity.”

The researchers say the tendex and vortex lines provide a powerful new way to understand the nature of the universe. “Using these tools, we can now make much better sense of the tremendous amount of data that’s produced in our computer simulations,” says Dr. Mark Scheel, a senior researcher at Caltech and leader of the team’s simulation work.

source




the heliospherical bubble is a bubble in the density of space,

The Local Bubble is a cavity in the interstellar medium (ISM) of the Orion Arm of the Milky Way. It is at least 300 light years across and has a neutral hydrogen density of about 0.05 atoms per cubic centimetre, or approximately one tenth of the average for the ISM in the Milky Way (0.5 atoms/cc), and half that for the "Local Fluff", or Local Interstellar Cloud (0.1 atoms/cc). The hot diffuse gas in the Local Bubble emits X-rays.

source

so the space inside our solar system is by definition either more or less dense than the sourounding interstella medium (the stuff outside the bubble).

and in this interpretation we are going to asume that the medium inside bubble is less dense than the surounding
interstella medium. the relitive density of our "bubble" from the inside is still to be considered a "liquid" but many times less viscous

Viscosity is a measure of the resistance of a fluid which is being deformed by either shear stress or tensile stress. In everyday terms (and for fluids only), viscosity is "thickness" or "internal friction". Thus, water is "thin", having a lower viscosity, while honey is "thick", having a higher viscosity. Put simply, the less viscous the fluid is, the greater its ease of movement (fluidity).[1]

source



in the "less viscous" bubble our solar system, the effects of rotation of mass in this "density liquid" or space is reduced, as the sheer forces and tensile forces can effect on the "liquidity" of the density we call "empty space" like a less viscous material can be induced to rotate with less energy input into the lower viscosity of the medium.

ie in a less dense or less vicous medium the mass has more ability "stir" the liquidity of the medium density.
stiring water over stirring honey.

so smaller mass has a larger effect on the "liquid density" of a less viscous medium.

what happens when we use the same model out side the "local bubble" or helio bubble we are in?



the "liquid density" or viscosity outside the "local bubble" is greatly increased (think honey).

to stir the more viscous (thicker liquid) a higher "amount" of energy is required to move the same volume of "liquid" space because it is thicker (higher viscosity)

this means if the earth was in the thicker medium outside our bubble, this would "warp or twist the liquid that is more dense (space time) proportionally less.

so using space as a density liquid we would find that the warping of space time would be dependant on the "density" or viscosity of the medium that was being warped.

and the amount of warping of the viscous liquid would be decreased as the viscosity was increased.

using the viscous "liquid" space time you would find that the gravity equations for our solar system would be incorrect for mass outside our bubble, as density increases, the effects of space time warping or the sheer forces would "stir" the "liquid density" "less" for the same amount of energy in the new density thickness.

in this way the forces of warping space time would depend on the density of the space time in the form of a viscous liquid to determine acual warpage witnessed.

now lets look at the "supermassive" black hole at the center of the galaxy,
the liquidity or viscosity of the medium in the galaxy is "thicker" (think honey over water)

the effect of space time warping is now going to cost more to achive the same "warping" effects we encounter in our own less dense medium inside our bubble.

this also has the effect of imparting more energy through the denser liquid and the bubbles (helio-bubbles) that contain stars.
as the density is thicker in the galaxy, objects or stars will be "drawn" to move "with" the thicker density medium "galactic liquidity"

proportionally more energy is required to "stir" the thicker "liquid" and more energy is required to "resist" the motion of the stired liquid.

so the star bubbles are now "stationary" in a moving "liquid density" and as F=MA the force is acually the movement of the density "between" the stars.

as the thick density "warps" or is stirred into motion by the huge rotational forces of the super massive black hole, the density liquidity "imparts" rotational force into the star bubbles because the thickness of the medium they are in is rotatating and this is a force outside of gravity.

example
stir a cup of coffie
drop a floating object (small) on the surface of the liquid
notice that gravity is not causing the object to rotate in the liquid
the viscosity of the liquid and its rotational force is causing the floating object
to asume the rotation of the liquid
space is like the surface tension of the liquid it is a viscous liquid that is moving and the "floating" oject is like the lighter density inside the bubble
the bubble cannot resist the moving density (thickness) and because it is less dense the amount of force required to induce movement in it is "less" than the moving medium

so is space just differnt desity "liquids" inside and outside the bubble?
and does this explain why the gravity inside the bubble does not equate to the "gravity" we see in the galaxy?

things to think about
can the warping (ripples on the surface tension of a "liquid") describe how come some stars move toward the galactic center while some stars move away from the galactic center?

imagine that the star bubble is inducing movement from the "galactic liquid" where the warping or twisting of space time (think stirred coffie) creats "creases" in the surface tension of the density,
the bubble "falls into the crease" and is drawn towards the center of the vortex created by the stiring action.
if the bubble is on the backside of the crease it rises away from the crease and is drawn away from the galactic center.

so as the "crease" or spiral arm approches a star bubble (energy is induced from the movement) so the creases move faster than the star can, it is "falling" into the crease and induced into the center.
as the crease moves past the position of the star bubble (center of mass) it then "rises" up and falls over the "hump" that folows the crease (high spot) and "falls" down the other side of the "hump" and is drawn outwards.




so could the differnt medium densities or liquidities explain the differnt effects of gravity we see?

hydrodynamics of fluid dynamics

In physics, fluid dynamics is a sub-discipline of fluid mechanics that deals with fluid flow—the natural science of fluids (liquids and gases) in motion. It has several subdisciplines itself, including aerodynamics (the study of air and other gases in motion) and hydrodynamics (the study of liquids in motion). Fluid dynamics has a wide range of applications, including calculating forces and moments on aircraft, determining the mass flow rate of petroleum through pipelines, predicting weather patterns, understanding nebulae in interstellar space and reportedly modeling fission weapon detonation. Some of its principles are even used in traffic engineering, where traffic is treated as a continuous fluid.

source

then we also have an effect called the venturi effect that as the liquidity moves "faster" than the spherical star bubbles the bubbles are "drawn" togther

The Venturi effect is the reduction in fluid pressure that results when a fluid flows through a constricted section of pipe. The Venturi effect is named after Giovanni Battista Venturi (1746–1822), an Italian physicist.

source


as the surface tesion "liquidity" moves between two star bubbles creates a constriction to flow or restriction in viscous terms and the low pressure area created between the star bubbles "draws them together.
xploder

Read this OP earlier. Brilliant concept, as usual.

But I was kind of confused by the lack of response. There are so many armchair physicists on ATS, i was sure one was going to chime in to inform you how you were wrong.

So...shameless bump to see if i can pick a fight on your behalf.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


i hoped this thread would "stir" a healthy debate
with even factoring the local effects of gravity and the progresive effects of gravity
the majority of the moment we see could be the "liquid space" between the stars
xp

reply to post by XPLodER


I had thought of the "aether" as being, i guess in retrospect, fluidic. I actually envisioned it as air that was very, very thick and dense. Cloudlike, without the cloud. More like jello (it is three dimensional).

But the way you put it is far further than anything I have considered with my simple musings about "aether".

edit to add: no one wants to chime in about how Tesla did it back in the early 1900's? Nothing? Where's Phage?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


here is something very interesting

Voyager 1 Measures Magnetic Mayhem

When Voyager 1 passed into the heliosheath in 2004, it became the first man-made object to explore the remote edge of the Sun’s magnetic influence. Launched by NASA on September 5, 1977, the probe was designed to study the outer Solar System and eventually interstellar space. One of its missions was to look for the heliopause – the boundary at which the solar wind transitions into the interstellar medium. What it found was mayhem…

source

The structures, appearing as proton boundary layers (PBLs), magnetic holes or humps, or sector boundaries, were identified by characteristic ffluctuations in either magnetic field strength or direction as the spacecraft crossed nearly 500 million km (310 million mi) of heliosheath in 2009. PBLs are defined by a rapid jump in magnetic field strength, with one observed event resulting in a doubling of the field strength in just half an hour.” said the team. “Passing through a sector boundary led to a sudden change in direction of the magnetic field. Magnetic holes saw the field strength drop to near zero before returning to the original background strength. Magnetic humps consisted of a sudden spike in strength and then a return to initial levels.”

this is like a froth of electrical and magnetic energy

and boundrys that turn right angles to source

xploder

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


the either is very close to the concept
just different thicknesses to the either

We identified all of the current sheets for which we have relatively complete and accurate magnetic field (B) data from Voyager 1 (V1) from days of year (DOYs) 1 to 331, 2009, which were obtained deep in the heliosheath between 108.5 and 111.8 AU. Three types of current sheets were found: (1) 15 proton boundary layers (PBLs), (2) 10 and 3 magnetic holes and magnetic humps, respectively, and (3) 3 sector boundaries. The magnetic field strength changes across PBL, and the profile B(t) is linearly related to the hyperbolic tangent function, but the direction of B does not change. For each of the three sector boundaries, B rotated in a plane normal to the minimum variance direction, and the component of B along the minimum variance direction was zero within the uncertainties, indicating that the sector boundaries were tangential discontinuities. The structure of the sector boundaries was not as simple as that for PBLs. The average thickness of magnetic holes and humps (∼30 RL) was twice that of the PBLs (∼15 RL). The average thickness of the current sheets associated with sector boundaries was close to the thickness of the PBLs. Our observations are consistent with the hypothesis that magnetic holes and humps are solitons, which are initiated by the mirror mode instability, and evolve by nonlinear kinetic plasma processes to pressure balanced structures maintained by magnetization currents and proton drift currents in the gradients of B.

source note paid article

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Would the "frothing" proton layer indicate an external source of electrons?

Oh great. NASA, in attempting to make a complex concept "accessible" has invoked the concept of aether.
They really need a new public relations guy.

(Hows' that BFT?)

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Would the "frothing" proton layer indicate an external source of electrons?

The heliosheath is glowing in X-rays due to charge-exchange collisions between solar wind ions and neutrals from the ISM. The overall appearance of the X-ray glow is determined by the interaction of the Solar wind and the local ISM. Spectral information, in turn, delivers valuable information on various parameters of the Solar wind (e.g., temperatures and densities of the minor species -- highly stripped ions) and the details of the Solar wind interaction with neutrals in the heliosheath region. Using numerical models for the heliosphere, we traced the charge-exchange evolution of 45 different solar wind ions along the wind stream-lines. The evolution from high-ionization states to low-ionization states is clearly seen, thus indicating the importance of the collisional thickness effect for the outer heliosphere composition. From charge-exchange transitions, we determine the X- ray emissivity and create surface brightness and spectral maps for any viewing direction (the outside view). The evolution of the wind ion-composition and the accompanying spectral changes across the heliosheath (from nose to tail) are remarkable and can serve as a diagnostic for the wind-ISM interaction. Chandra and XMM-Newton are well suited for this task. Similar models can be made for astrospheres of nearby Sun-like stars.

source

sounds like the solar wind and its interaction with the ISM
is electrically chaotic
with defined boundrys and spikes in magnetic feild strenght


xploder

reply to post by Phage


See, that is what i was wondering...how long before people realized that this discussion revolved around (in essence) aether.

That oft discarded, yet equally oft resurrected concept. Like Rasputin, it is!!!

But it was a fair response.

reply to post by Phage


could hydrodynamic forces "account" for the movement we see in galaxies?
in my opinion the relevent factors are there and motion can be expained using a "liquid" viscous time space of varying densities


xploder

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Phage

 

See, that is what i was wondering...how long before people realized that this discussion revolved around (in essence) aether.

That oft discarded, yet equally oft resurrected concept.

Like Rasputin, it is!!!

But it was a fair response.

am i a heretic?
i never thought of my self this way before
the description of the motion is fluidics

The physical basis of fluidics is pneumatics and hydraulics, based on the theoretical foundation of fluid dynamics. The term Fluidics is normally used when devices have no moving parts, so ordinary hydraulic components such as hydraulic cylinders and spool valves are not considered or referred to as fluidic devices. The 1960s saw the application of

source

the source of force is the twisting of time space around the event horizen of a super massive black hole

xploder

reply to post by Phage


i hope you are not discouting this theory because of its acociation with the "either" theory
and are judging "liquidity density" lol
on its merits or flaws

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

No. I was just stalling for time.

imagine that the star bubble is inducing movement from the "galactic liquid" where the warping or twisting of space time (think stirred coffie) creats "creases" in the surface tension of the density, the bubble "falls into the crease" and is drawn towards the center of the vortex created by the stiring action.

This statement troubles me but I can see how you came up with it based on the classic two dimensional representation of the bending of space time. In a vortex (a whirlpool) the primary force is "centripetal force", away from the center. The fluid being forced away from the center has no where to go. It can't go down, it can only move outward until it reaches the side of the cup or until the centripetal force balances the fluid pressure of the surrounding medium. Because the center of the vortex is lower than the edges, gravity pulls an object dropped into the fluid toward it. The object only moves toward the center until its angular momentum matches that of the region it is in. It is gravity which causes the effect, not a difference in density. There is no force inward, there is only force outward and downward. In a zero G environment the object would not move inward.

I think you may have misinterpreted the results of the Gravity B experiment. It had been proven long before (Eddington, 1919) that mass bends space time. What Gravity B demonstrated was frame dragging (as predicted by general relativity). As a further validation of general relativity the demonstration of frame dragging does not imply the existence of aether. The warping of space time does not depend upon rotation.

reply to post by Phage


in the model of a galaxy the mass travels to the center
so centifugal forces are either being countered by gravity
or there is another force involved
the up and down i was refreing to was to represent the tendex and vortex model
and down can be though of "riding the crest" of the wave and up can be though of as going over the face of the wave.
the tendex and vortex "waves" are moving faster than the stars that are "dragged" around with them
in a hydro dynamic process.
the density of the heliospherical bubble is "less" compaired to the surrounding media
and as the media is induced to rotate (the whole medium) stars are "drawn" with the direction of flow

front of wave = towards galactic ceneter
back of wave = outwards from galactic center

i think that gravity is setting up the medium density rotation, the mass of black hole imparting energy into the system and that angular momentium is imparted f=ma into the helio bubbles and the bubbles move with the mediums motion

xploder

reply to post by Phage

The warping of space time does not depend upon rotation.

could rotation be an "effect" of warping of space time?


xploder

I will bite....

MY hypothesis...

Time and space are not a fabric....=Time is a dimension and a sequence of events and it has sub-dimensions. So yea..if you have technology to traverse those events it is possible to basically go to any point in the sequence.

Space is not a fabric. You can see it without technology. You can observe it..it can be measured and calculated...

And, what exactly do you mean by warp OP?

The most pertinent question is why stars don't fall into space due to mass... or are they falling?

I can't debate the specifics of the OP, here, because the idea of a fluid æther is just too repugnant to my intellect. The æther is an ultra-dense, ultra-stiff, foamy solid.

It is well known that e/m waves are transverse (shear) waves. Acoustic waves in a liquid can only be longitudinal (pressure) waves. I believe e/m waves propagate in the manner of acoustic shear waves in solids according to the formula, c = √(G/ ρ), where G is shear modulus and ρ is inertial density. If we knew either the density or shear modulus of the æther, we could determine the other from the speed of light. I suspect that the inertial density of the æther may be googols of times greater than that of a neutron star, but the æther has no gravitational density, as it is the medium of gravity. (How loud is air? How much current is a wire?) This is explained in detail at my website.

Minkowski space-time is warped because gravity bends light in Euclidean space, and the path of light is Minkowski's definition of a straight line. By redefining "straight line", Minkowski tacitly changed the meanings of all the other familiar parameters, like mass. This is why light has no mass in Minkowski space-time. In Euclidean space, light does have mass; m = E/c² = h/ λc, and gravity bends light because there is a gravitational force of attraction between any two masses, including two photons.

Particles move thru the æther without resistance because they are made of photons. Fundamental particles consist of photons orbiting one another due to the Higgs force, which converts the zero point energy of the photons to the rest mass of the particle. Planets don't drag the æther because waves don't drag their own medium.

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
I can't debate the specifics of the OP, here, because the idea of a fluid æther is just too repugnant to my intellect. The æther is an ultra-dense, ultra-stiff, foamy solid.

It is well known that e/m waves are transverse (shear) waves. Acoustic waves in a liquid can only be longitudinal (pressure) waves. I believe e/m waves propagate in the manner of acoustic shear waves in solids according to the formula, c = √(G/ ρ), where G is shear modulus and ρ is inertial density. If we knew either the density or shear modulus of the æther, we could determine the other from the speed of light. I suspect that the inertial density of the æther may be googols of times greater than that of a neutron star, but the æther has no gravitational density, as it is the medium of gravity. (How loud is air? How much current is a wire?) This is explained in detail at my website.

Minkowski space-time is warped because gravity bends light in Euclidean space, and the path of light is Minkowski's definition of a straight line. By redefining "straight line", Minkowski tacitly changed the meanings of all the other familiar parameters, like mass. This is why light has no mass in Minkowski space-time. In Euclidean space, light does have mass; m = E/c² = h/ λc, and gravity bends light because there is a gravitational force of attraction between any two masses, including two photons.

Particles move thru the æther without resistance because they are made of photons. Fundamental particles consist of photons orbiting one another due to the Higgs force, which converts the zero point energy of the photons to the rest mass of the particle. Planets don't drag the æther because waves don't drag their own medium.

well i do like your link and the information contained within
i would like to point to the "liquidity" as not being "solid" but viscous
the foamy nature as indicated by your link is compatable with
different density mediums inside and out side of our helio bubbles
you are correct in the "acostic" nature of the em wave propagation but only in the "local" galaxy medium
as it is my (unfounded) beleif that outside our galaxy "bubble" the density of viscosity of the medium is different again,
as per wave propagation in different density mediums or (viscosities) light can indeed be used to calculate the speed of propergation in these different mediums

the idea the galactic space is "liquid" and and angular rotational inertial can be "induced" into the medium is the crux of the idea.
it can be show that the density difference inside and outside the helio bubbles would require "different" angular tranference of inertia in the different mediums viscous nature

ps thank you for the consice information
and i hope you take the fact that wave propergation in different visous "liquids" occour at different rates and angular momentium can be "induced" more effeicently in a more viscous or denser medium

xploder

reply to post by Phage


so in essence im getting frame dragging and mass warping space time
confused and the rotational angular momentium has nothing to do with mass warp only frame dragging?

xploder

add i guess it is not liquidy out there after all
lol