https://theoristexpl...eorem-of-space/

# Rubber Ball Theorem

### #1

Posted 21 October 2015 - 05:15 PM

### #2

Posted 21 October 2015 - 07:48 PM

### #3

Posted 22 October 2015 - 05:37 AM

Moderatorly admonition: don't just post a link, xyz, include some comments on it!

The ”virtual rubber ball” theorem of space.

What goes up , must come down, each action has an equal and opposite reaction, like the stretching of an elastic band will have imposed by its own mechanism an equal and opposing force to the force of the expansion, until the elastic band eventually breaks by an inequality of greater stretching force. To break free from the earth’s gravity there has to be an inequality of force, an escape velocity has to be reached, an opposing force to gravity, a greater magnitude of a stretching force, compared to the lesser magnitude of the contracting force of gravity.

Travelling at a velocity away from a light source at the near speed of light, the light that is following you becomes stretched. Travelling at a relative velocity to a gravitational influence even your time becomes stretched. Travelling away from an inertial reference frame even the distance between you and the starting point is stretched, the space between you and the starting point expands .

Observe any object that can be moved, move the object, observe how light and space fills where there was no space and no light.

Imagine a concrete existence inside of a virtual rubber ball…………once something concrete is displaced, the virtual rubber ball is displaced.

**Edited by xyz, 22 October 2015 - 05:38 AM.**

### #4

Posted 22 October 2015 - 07:32 AM

Moderatorly admonition#2: CraigD did not mean copy-paste from the link ;-) with no comment of your own...

### #5

Posted 22 October 2015 - 08:29 AM

Moderatorly admonition#2: CraigD did not mean copy-paste from the link ;-) with no comment of your own...

My apologies for my misunderstanding.

In my learning of science, I consider that science and forums have described the Universe and the space within it that we can observe to be a comparison to having a concrete existence inside of a virtual rubber ball. A virtual rubber ball that can stretch and bend with the movement of mass within it. The Einstein rubber sheet analogy being extended to be all of like space.

### #6

Posted 24 October 2015 - 05:58 AM

I have a way, the experiment will produce P=1 of a conclusion, I am not openly talking the experiment through, I want some credit for the experiment, I need a co-writer who is a scientist, who will credit me with the idea and have claim for the co-write.

Sorry mods for the unusual post, but you understand plagiarism.

### #7

Posted 24 October 2015 - 06:23 AM

I have an experiment to accompany my theorem.

### #8

Posted 24 October 2015 - 06:01 PM

I have an experiment to accompany my theorem.

You’re using the word theorem incorrectly. A theorem is “a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements.” “Statement” in this context are usually well-defined mathematical propositions.

I believe you mean you have a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can makes predictions that can, in principle if not in practice, be tested with experiments – that is, that can be show to be true of false using the scientific method. More strict definitions than this are common – the one at Wikipedia and in many dictionaries requires that a theory not only can be tested with experiments, but that it has been, repeatedly and successfully. Other definitions require that a theory describe a wide enough range of phenomena that it is especially useful.

The wordpress page “The ”virtual rubber ball” theorem of space” contains neither the statement and proof of a theorem, nor a scientific theory.

It appears to me to be vaguely an

*interpretation*of classical physics and Special Relativity. By “ interpretation” of a scientific theory, I mean an attempts to present analogies and implications of the theory that make it more intuitively understandable and guide theorists to expand the theory. Because classical physics and Special Relativity agree well with intuition, interpretations of them are unusual – interpretations of theories are more common for less intuitive theories. The most well-knows interpretations of theories are interpretations of quantum mechanics.

I don’t think “the rubber ball” interpretation is a very good one, because the analogies it uses to explain these scientific theories aren’t very accurate.

For example, the forces exerted by elastic bands aren’t like those exerted by classical gravity

The force exerted by an elastic band increases as the distance between bodies connected by it increases. The force of gravity decreases as the distance between bodies connected by it.

Another example, its statement “Travelling away from an inertial reference frame even the distance between you and the starting point is stretched, the space between you and the starting point expands” suggests that the distance between two points moving away from one another always increases. According to Special Relativity, however, this is not always true. For example, as observed from an object that increases its speed away from a point to a nearly the speed of light, the distance decreases.

### #9

Posted 25 October 2015 - 05:20 AM

Zyz, are you the same person posting as “theoristexplains” at wordpress.com

You’re using the word theorem incorrectly. A theorem is “a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements.” “Statement” in this context are usually well-defined mathematical propositions.

I believe you mean you have a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can makes predictions that can, in principle if not in practice, be tested with experiments – that is, that can be show to be true of false using the scientific method. More strict definitions than this are common – the one at Wikipedia and in many dictionaries requires that a theory not only can be tested with experiments, but that it has been, repeatedly and successfully. Other definitions require that a theory describe a wide enough range of phenomena that it is especially useful.

The wordpress page “The ”virtual rubber ball” theorem of space” contains neither the statement and proof of a theorem, nor a scientific theory.

It appears to me to be vaguely aninterpretationof classical physics and Special Relativity. By “ interpretation” of a scientific theory, I mean an attempts to present analogies and implications of the theory that make it more intuitively understandable and guide theorists to expand the theory. Because classical physics and Special Relativity agree well with intuition, interpretations of them are unusual – interpretations of theories are more common for less intuitive theories. The most well-knows interpretations of theories are interpretations of quantum mechanics.

I don’t think “the rubber ball” interpretation is a very good one, because the analogies it uses to explain these scientific theories aren’t very accurate.

For example, the forces exerted by elastic bands aren’t like those exerted by classical gravity

The force exerted by an elastic band increases as the distance between bodies connected by it increases. The force of gravity decreases as the distance between bodies connected by it.

Another example, its statement “Travelling away from an inertial reference frame even the distance between you and the starting point is stretched, the space between you and the starting point expands” suggests that the distance between two points moving away from one another always increases. According to Special Relativity, however, this is not always true. For example, as observed from an object that increases its speed away from a point to a nearly the speed of light, the distance decreases.

I am well aware of the definition of theorem, light is stretched, time is stretched, the force between two objects is stretched , a rising object gains Ke for the return journey of falling like the release of a stretched elastic band.

It is all present information, I have not written it in the form of a paper because it is for discussion.

My experiment will show if I am correct.

On earth if we take a cylinder type container with no lid/top on it, and push in a tight fit plunger, the air in the container will produce an active opposing force to the plunger creating a pressure inside of the cylinder. Now if we were to repeat this in space, using a bicycle pump if you like, the plunger should push into the container all the way to the bottom of the container with no opposing force, if there is a force, then space has physical body like a ''virtual rubber ball''.

A 50/50 test with a P=1 of a conclusive result.

**Edited by xyz, 25 October 2015 - 05:22 AM.**

### #10

Posted 25 October 2015 - 02:07 PM

If you understand the meaning of the word “theorem”, then you should change the title of your wordpress page “The ‘virtual rubber ball’I am well aware of the definition of theorem...

*theorem*of space” to “The ‘virtual rubber ball’

*theory*of space”.

Those are a lot of ideas to string comma splice to your original sentence! Bad grammar aside, they are good and interesting ideas, so let’s look at each one.... light is stretched, time is stretched, the force between two objects is stretched

*Light is stretched*– the wavelength of light, as measured by spectometer becomes shorter (is blueshifted) when the spectrometer is moving (that is, has velocity) toward the source of the light, longer (redshifted) when it’s moving away. This is known as the Doppler effect, and is a well-verified prediction of theories of light that include its wave-like behavior. It’s reasonable and commonplace to say that redshift is the “stretching” of light.

Doppler shift depends on velocity, not distance, so I don’t think your elastic band/rubber ball analogy for it is accurate or a very helpful aid in visualizing it, because the stretching of an elastic band depends on the distance between its ends, not their velocity.

Let’s compare the force [math]F[/math] of an elastic band stretched between two bodies to the Doppler shift [math]Z[/math] of the light from one body measured on the other:

For most of their stretchable distance, rubber bands follow Hooke's law,

[math]F=k X[/math]

, where [math]X[/math] is the distance between them and [math]k[/math] is a constant.

For small velocities directly away from one another, redshift

[math]Z \dot= \frac{v}{c}[/math]

, where [math]v[/math] is speed, [math]c[/math] the speed of light.

Let’s look at an example where bodies starting [math]X[/math]=1000 m apart, connected by a rubber band exerting [math]F[/math]=1 N and moving at [math]v[/math]=30 m/s at various times [math]t[/math]:

[math]t[/math]=0 s, [math]F[/math]= 1 N, [math]Z \dot=[/math] 0.0000001

[math]t[/math]=10 s, [math]F[/math]= 1.3 N, [math]Z \dot=[/math] 0.0000001

[math]t[/math]=20 s, [math]F[/math]= 1.6 N, [math]Z \dot=[/math] 0.0000001

Notice that the force on the rubber band changes, but the “stretching” of light is constant.

*Time is stretched*- less time is measured by a clocks on a bodies at motion relative to another than on a clocks at rest. This is known as time dilation, and is a well-verified prediction of Special Relativity. You could reasonably call time dilation “time stretching”.

Similar to Doppler shift, time dilation depends on velocity (its formula is: [math]\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta t'} = \sqrt{1-\left( \frac{v}{c} \right)^2}[/math]), not distance, so I think the rubber band analogy is a bad one for it.

*The force between two objects is stretched*– the force attracting two bodies decreases as the distance between the bodies increase. This is known as gravity, and is a well-verified prediction of both classical physics and General Relativity.

In this case, the rubber band analogy fares a little better, because the force of gravity [math]F_g[/math], depends on distance, as does the force of a rubber band [math]F[/math].

But [math]F=k X[/math]

while [math]F_g= \frac{G m_1 m_2}{X^2}[/math]

, so the rubber band analogy is still not very good.

Let’s look at our previous example of [math]X[/math]= 1000 m, [math]F[/math]=1 N, [math]v[/math]=30 m/s, adding [math]F_g[/math]=1 N:

[math]t[/math]=0 s, [math]F[/math]= 1 N, [math]F_g \dot=[/math] 1 N

[math]t[/math]=10 s, [math]F[/math]= 1.3 N, [math]F_g \dot=[/math] 0.5917 N

[math]t[/math]=20 s, [math]F[/math]= 1.6 N, [math]F_g \dot=[/math] 0.3906 N

Notice that the force of the rubber band increases, but the force of gravity deceases.

We could re-interpret the rubber band analogy to be less literal and fit reality a better, but every way I’ve imagined to do that leaves more problems, while being more complicated than much simple analogies, such as noting that the intensity of light and the force of gravity follow the same X

^{2}distance law.

I think it would be good for you, xyz, to practice the simple physics I’ve used in this post, by calculating [math]m_1 m_2[/math] for this example. Then, assume [math]m_1 = m_2[/math], calculate [math]m_1[/math], and find a real-world object with a similar mass.

If by “Ke” you mean kinetic energy, you’re using the wrong term. When a body is raised, it gains potential, not kinetic, energy...., a rising object gains Ke for the return journey of falling like the release of a stretched elastic band.

Potential energy due to gravity is known as gravitational potential energy. In classical physics, its formula is

[math]GPE = G m_1 m_2 \left( \frac{1}{r_0} - \frac{1}{X} \right)[/math]

while the formula for the potential energy of a rubber band is

[math]E = \int_{r_0}^{X} k X = \frac{k}{2} \left( (X)^2 –r_0^2 \right)[/math]

looking at our previous example of [math]X[/math]= 1000 m, [math]F[/math]=1 N, [math]F_g[/math]=1 N [math]v[/math]=30 m/s:

[math]t[/math]=0 s, [math]E[/math]= 0 J, [math]GPE \dot=[/math] 230.8 J

[math]t[/math]=10 s, [math]E[/math]= 345 J, [math]GPE \dot=[/math] 230.8 J

[math]t[/math]=20 s, [math]E[/math]= 780 J, [math]GPE[/math]= 375 J

Notice that while the energy from the rubber band [math]E[/math] and from gravity [math]GPE[/math] both increase, the force of the rubber band increases more than that from gravity.

You don’t need to fly in outer space to do this experiment, just perform the 2nd part of it in a vacuum chamber.On earth if we take a cylinder type container with no lid/top on it, and push in a tight fit plunger, the air in the container will produce an active opposing force to the plunger creating a pressure inside of the cylinder. Now if we were to repeat this in space, using a bicycle pump if you like, the plunger should push into the container all the way to the bottom of the container with no opposing force, if there is a force, then space has physical body like a ''virtual rubber ball''.

Like most even simple experiments, this would take some ingenuity to perform, but the equipment needed should be available in a decent US or UK secondary school or college physics lab. If you are in school, I encourage you to approach an instructor for access and assistance in doing the experiment. If you’re not in school, I encourage you to get in. If this isn’t possible, I think you could buy the equipment needed for such an experiment for a few US$100.

I’m certain you’ll discover that the force needed to compress a bicycle pump-like cylinder and piston is 0 in a vacuum, because it is caused by the presence of air, not space being like a rubber ball. The physics of compressing gas in cylinders with pistons has been well-understood and experimentally supported for hundreds of years.

- xyz likes this

### #11

Posted 25 October 2015 - 02:52 PM

I’m certain you’ll discover that the force needed to compress a bicycle pump-like cylinder and piston is 0 in a vacuum, because it is caused by the presence of air, not space being like a rubber ball. The physics of compressing gas in cylinders with pistons has been well-understood and experimentally supported for hundreds of years.

Thank you for the very impressive post, most of what you said such as the doppler shift is what I am referring to. However I think you have gone onto the elastic band rather than considering the whole of space as a ''virtual rubber ball'' with no movement except when things move stretching the various fabrics that make up the ''virtual rubber ball''.

So you are saying that If I took a standard bicycle pump in a vacuum, that was already pushed down so that there was no air in it, if I then drew back the cylinder in effect sucking in some space of the vacuum, then covered the hole of the pump, then pushed the pump back down, there will be no compression in the vacuum within the vacuum?

I understand air pressure and gases and gas expansion, I am clued up to science generalisation but I am not at school, I left along time ago.

Would you have a link to provide to show my experiment has already been done?

### #12

Posted 27 October 2015 - 02:00 AM

Well, what about you writing it as an article and then submit it to arXiv? It might then give you some ownership rights, not sure how reliably but worth checking it out...

### #13

Posted 27 October 2015 - 03:29 AM

Well, what about you writing it as an article and then submit it to arXiv? It might then give you some ownership rights, not sure how reliably but worth checking it out...

Thank you, to be honest I am not too bothered about any rights to anything or owning something, it hardly matters who mentions it now as long as science knows in general the idea. I think I know my place compared to a scientist, science has well told me that they think I am stupid and suffering from delusions of grandeur. All I ever wanted was some good science conversation and to share a few of my own ideas.

I am considering giving up, I am lucky if I get one reply a day now to any of my ideas. pfffff, science is a bit stubborn in its ways.

### #14

Posted 27 October 2015 - 09:52 AM

science is a bit stubborn in its ways.

Science is pretty unstubborn - if you can make more accurate predictions than we currently can, or you can make equally accurate predictions in a simpler way, then scientists will listen. If you have a theory about Truth but it doesn't actually produce a model that can be used to make accurate and consistent predictions then it's not particularly interesting. What falsifiable predictions does your theory make that are different than current models make?

- sanctus likes this

### #15

Posted 12 November 2015 - 07:32 AM

Science is pretty unstubborn - if you can make more accurate predictions than we currently can, or you can make equally accurate predictions in a simpler way, then scientists will listen. If you have a theory about Truth but it doesn't actually produce a model that can be used to make accurate and consistent predictions then it's not particularly interesting. What falsifiable predictions does your theory make that are different than current models make?

Well I am unsure I am not a scientist, so I am unsure of the value or merit of my idea I can only explain it and see what people think.

My logic tells me it is an accurate to discover if something is there or not with a 50/50 result either way. If we were take a bicycle pump into space that was already ''empty'' of air in the cylinder, and an astronaut was to ''suck'' in some space into the cylinder, then cover the hole with his/her glove, then the plunger should push back down with no resistance force, if there is any sort of pressure in the cylinder, then space has substance,

### #16

Posted 12 November 2015 - 10:49 AM

1. If the cylinder has no air in it to start with all it has is space.

2. That's simply a test for pressure so that's all it could tell you about the nature of space.

3. It's not even a good one, there could easily be some but not enough to measure.

4. Nothing in standard science predicts that there will be pressure.

That's it, I'm out!