Space-time as a force opposing both gravity and energy.

[humility]

If you imagine space-time as almost having two extremes of dimensionality. i.e one extreme being only the dimensions of space, and the other extreme being only the time dimension. I say almost because space-time can't become either of these extremes because then it wouldn't be space-time. So these two almost extremes are the edges of space-time and the universe of studiable phenomena since we are space-time objects.If we consider the existence of a type of force external to space-time acting against one of the extremes and a force of another type at the other end of space-time that was attracted to the first force via non-spacial communication. In other words the two forces want to interact but they can't travel through space-time. They can't interact through space-time because space-time acts like a force that opposes both of the external forces.If the two external forces have different properties to each other and the space-time force is interacting with each differently to oppose them.This could destabilise space-time and cause internal movement. We experience this space-time movement as mass and relative motion. We can't experience the external forces directly but we can see the effect of the way space-time force opposes the two external forces. In other words space-time force has a different appearance to us depending on what external force it is opposing.

So where would the easiest place be to look for the induced characteristics of inbalance in are force from the two external forces?

Close to the extremeties of space-time, seems like a good place to start. Light/energy seems to be very close to one of these extremities so that could be seen as an induced effect in space-time force . And I believe that gravity is the effect induced at the other extremity of space-time. So energy and gravity are effects in space-time induced from non space-time sources.

I believe that energy and gravity interact causing movement in space-time. It is this movement of space-time that creates mass and relative motion in the universe.

This model can also explain a flat universe (not quite infinite ,not quite finite) . Space-time could be finite at rest but due to the movement induced by external forces it can appear infinite.

I believe that this theory does agree with most of relativity and quantum physics.

I hope you will take time to thing about this model carefully because I think it contains some gems if elaborated correctly with your assistance.

 

thanks from humility :)

[alxian]

isn't time a quantifier for that which exists in any given state within a given space?

 

time is irrelevant if there is nothing to measure? and once that thing has come and gone you have your measure of time?

 

space = 3 dimensions. L W D or X Y Z

time = how long ^ these exist

 

thus space-time is the (to modern science) best available definition of a thing.

 

as for the theory of gravity affecting an object in space, there is no answer given science can't give a perfect explanition of what gravity is.. a push a pull another force such as the strong and weak atomic force that exists in a grandeur scale (one we can see and measure easily).

 

the better question is what do you think gravity is? a push, a pull, a static force with a static metric or a dynamic force with an ever varying metric (one that only appears static to us at our familiar scales).

 

i'm sure with a better understanding of the innards of the atom we'll get the answer, such as strings are gyroscopic in nature and they impart local fields on the matter they make up.

 

or you have silly theories like gravity is only a property of certain forms of matter..

 

[OH ^ :) .. by that i meant silly theories in general .. yikes retrospect is like new specs the world is so clear and flawed viewed thru them]

 

or gravity is instead an exotic for of osmotic radiation (larger objects take energy from close by objects).. in the same vain you could say atmospheric pressure is gravity and that the magnetic core theory is hogwash...

[humility]

If time is irrelevant why keep including it in mathematical models of physical phenomena?

You can't just say equations with time in them make sense of the physical world. Then when someone else points out conceptual models of the universe that make sense based on those equations and agree with currently observed data that time is not real and irrelevant. It is hypocritical and unscientific! We must avoid this type of hypocrisy at all costs if we wish science to remain valid and fair. And not a theory popularity contest. I have not miss represented time in this model.

[alxian]

i never meant to implicate you in that post. but i have to say i still believe that the opposite of your example is true, time is specifically relevant to a wide variety of theories but only when you want to be specific is time a necessary metric. time isn't necessary when considering a broad scope look at a general theory.

 

trully time is generally ignored in more equations that would greatly benefit from its addition, but given that most often time in an equation means that that result is only temporary science just makes general use of basic equations to cover all aspects of what is being studied. what does it matter that the equation isn't perfect because it will have to be redone for specific addition of a time variable, the point is that the basic equation and result are generally accurate.

 

and i thought science as a whole held high regard for its hypocritical nature, [arrogant self absorbed etc etc]... generalizations and such allow science to be correct most of the time while its only a matter of very little time to redo the math for specific instances where the general model isn't sufficiently accurate. (?)

[Tormod]

I have read the initial post in this thread but I fail to see that it supports relativity and quantum physics. Quite the opposite - it would render both useless, as far as I see it.

 

You write that the space dimensions should be one extreme and the time dimension another. These are not extremes. That definition implies to me that you assume there is something in between the spatial dimensions and time.

 

I don't think alxian meant to ridicule you. Of course theories are welcome here.

 

However, for anything to be considered a theory they would need to have something in them that can be used to make predictions. It must also explain things better than the old theories. What predictions does your theory make, and how can we test it?

[maddog]

If you imagine space-time as almost having two extremes of dimensionality. i.e one extreme being only the dimensions of space, and the other extreme being only the time dimension. I say almost because space-time can't become either of these extremes because then it wouldn't be space-time. So these two almost extremes are the edges of space-time and the universe of studiable phenomena since we are space-time objects.

I suspect you have never taken any algebra nor physics classes. Space-Time as defined by Minkowski &

Einstein is of four dimensions (x, y, z, t), where the first three are spatial dimension and time (t) is a

scalar dimension. They are different as evidence by the fact they are of different quantities

(i.e. "Meters" vs "Seconds"), so you convert to like terms by multiplying time by c (speed of light).

 

...

I didn't even bother to really quote the next part. External forces to space-time... ???

... as an induced effect in space-time force . And I believe that gravity is the effect induced at the other extremity of space-time. So energy and gravity are effects in space-time induced from non space-time sources.

Space-Time is not a force induced or otherwise. Spacetime is a coordinate reference system relative

to an observer. You draw your worldlines of causality from your (observer) current locality and move

out.

...

More unintelligable statements.

I believe that this theory does agree with most of relativity and quantum physics.

I am glad you "believe" there is aggreement, though I do not see how your collection of

statements form any kind of theory in any case. :D ;)

 

Maddog

[humility]

I agree with you all my theory was useless after all. By the way alxian I didn't take personal offence at your statement. It's just to often you see people using a fixed concept of what the quantity T means in an equation. And when you use that very same concept to show that you can interpret the equation in a different way they decide T doesn't actually mean anything in the equation.

Just one question I have got . If you believe the special theory of relativity to be correct. If you also believe therefore the concept that the velocity C is the ultimate velocity.

Based on the fact that photons have been shown to go slower than C. I would assume that C is a mathematically derived ultimate velocity and that photons in a vacuum travel incredibly close to this velocity but don't ever actually reach this velocity because it's the speed limit of the universe according to the standard interpretation of relativity.

Well if there is a speed limit to the universe in relativity. Why do we just decide that there can't be a ultimate reference of rest. Standard interpretation of relativity says that there is no ultimate reference of rest and therefore every observer can consider themselves at rest relative to C. If the value C is mathematically derived why can't there be a ultimate frame of rest which is the inverse of what you used to work out ultimate velocity.

[maddog]

Just one question I have got . ...

Well if there is a speed limit to the universe in relativity.

[1]Why do we just decide that there can't be a ultimate reference of rest.

[1a]Standard interpretation of relativity says that there is no ultimate reference of rest and therefore every observer can consider themselves at rest relative to C.

[2]If the value C is mathematically derived why can't there be a ultimate frame of rest which is the inverse of what you used to work out ultimate velocity.

I count two questions and one clarification.

1) I am a bit confused of the phrase "ultimate reference of rest". I think though your

assumption is based on the notion by Newton of Absolute Time for all observers as

constant. Also all observers would have the same measurement stick for along the path

traveled. Call this rods and clock (like Einstein). For Newton all rods and clocks were the

same. Once could derived the Absolute rest coordinate frame once all relative motion

was accounted for. In Relativity this is not so. Each clock and rod is wrt to the observer

and his respective motion to what is observed.

1a) This a different way to look at it. I will have to think about this. My first thought was

to discount it. I still find it "fishy" though, I like the innovation. :o :o

2) Yes, you can mathematically derive C from Mawell's equations to be

==> c = sqrt (1/ mu0 * ep0) where mu0 = magnetic permeability and

ep0 = electric permittivity of the EM field. You reask question [1] => answer 1). :D

 

Maddog

[IDMclean]

I agree with you all my theory was useless after all. By the way alxian I didn't take personal offence at your statement. It's just to often you see people using a fixed concept of what the quantity T means in an equation. And when you use that very same concept to show that you can interpret the equation in a different way they decide T doesn't actually mean anything in the equation.

Just one question I have got . If you believe the special theory of relativity to be correct. If you also believe therefore the concept that the velocity C is the ultimate velocity.

Based on the fact that photons have been shown to go slower than C. I would assume that C is a mathematically derived ultimate velocity and that photons in a vacuum travel incredibly close to this velocity but don't ever actually reach this velocity because it's the speed limit of the universe according to the standard interpretation of relativity.

Well if there is a speed limit to the universe in relativity. Why do we just decide that there can't be a ultimate reference of rest. Standard interpretation of relativity says that there is no ultimate reference of rest and therefore every observer can consider themselves at rest relative to C. If the value C is mathematically derived why can't there be a ultimate frame of rest which is the inverse of what you used to work out ultimate velocity.

ok As I understand it.

Time is irrelevent not because of how it is defined but rather because do to certain observations and types of calculations of great importance you simplely do not need time nor need to define time. The universe it seems is a timeless place. Entirely Spacial... what's the word... nevermind that here read this:

http://ws5.com/spacetime/

It explains a timeless universe better than I can.

 

As for variance in the Speed of Light? I haven't heard any ground breaking discoveries... not to say that just cause I've never heard about that it doesn't exsit but if you mean the variance as a photon is asorbed or emitted from electrons as it moves through mass? yeah that's cause it take time (not much. Kinda hard to give up the idea of time...) for that photon to escape and resume it's path. The photon still travels at it's absolute speed it just has more distance to travel and so it seems to slow....

 

My understanding of the phenomina. now about gravity. As I am quick to point out regarding Spacetime. Spacetime theory not only accounts for everything Newton's laws of gravity did but more. It doesn't refine but replaces. Spacetime Curviture is the effect know as gravity. Also todate the only thing known to affect Spacetime "fabric", that is to curve it, is Mass-Energy.

 

Like I said the Article which I've posted helps alot with the understanding of Spacetime Theory. Not to say that Spacetime theory isn't flawed in it's own ways.

[Tormod]

Based on the fact that photons have been shown to go slower than C. I would assume that C is a mathematically derived ultimate velocity and that photons in a vacuum travel incredibly close to this velocity but don't ever actually reach this velocity because it's the speed limit of the universe according to the standard interpretation of relativity.

 

No, this is incorrect. The speed of light is an observable limit. Photons travel at the speed of light because the are light ("light" in this sence being of any frequency in the electromasgnetic spectrum). No other particles except the graviton travel at the speed of light.

 

The rest of your question (about ultimate rest) I don't understand. What Einstein did was to show that there cannot be any place within our universe that is at rest except in a local frame (ie, a rock can rest on the ground but it is still travelling through space as a passenger of Earth, whirling around the Sun, orbiting the galaxy, etc).

[alxian]

gravitons are no longer theory?

 

and do you mean to say gravitons are the only particles that travel at c but there are particles that can exceed c such as tachyons?

 

ultimate rest could be possible so long as nothing is moving at all, not even rotating, such an object would absorb photons and have to do something with the incomming energy.

[Tormod]

gravitons are no longer theory?

 

I assume this is directed at me?

 

 

Gravitons are still theory. But if they exist they move at the speed of light. Gravity has been proven to move at the speed of light, and if the graviton is the carrier of gravitational force then it too must move at the speed of light.

 

and do you mean to say gravitons are the only particles that travel at c but there are particles that can exceed c such as tachyons?

 

No, gravitons AND photons move at the speed of light. No other particles can reach the speed of light because they have mass. Tachyons are purely theoretical constructs which, if they exist, can never have moved *slower* than the speed of light. I do not think they exist, and they have yet to be proven.

 

ultimate rest could be possible so long as nothing is moving at all, not even rotating, such an object would absorb photons and have to do something with the incomming energy.

 

This would require the entire universe to come to a halt. In the universe, everything is constantly moving. Nothing is at rest. Things are only at rest relative to each other. There is no "absolute" frame with which things can be at absolute rest.

[bumab]

Gravitons are still theory. But if they exist they move at the speed of light. Gravity has been proven to move at the speed of light, and if the graviton is the carrier of gravitational force then it too must move at the speed of light.

 

What study did they proove this in? I was under the impression that the latest experiment measuring light curvature around Jupiter was somewhat controversial still, as many think the researchers simply measured the speed of light in an indirect manner.

[Tormod]

They have been indirectly observed and were confirmed last year.

 

Here is a source:

http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/background/survey/physics/GravitationalWaves.html

 

The attraction of the neutron star and black hole binaries, besides being as close to barbells and one can get in astronomy, is that the binary pulsars PSR1913+16 and PSR J0737-3039 have orbits that are decaying in the way expected if they were losing energy to gravitational radiation.1,2 As each system loses energy, the semi-major axis of its orbit becomes smaller, and the orbital period becomes shorter. This shortening of the period is seen in the radio pulses emitted by the pulsars in the systems, providing the evidence that gravitational radiation exists. These binary-pulsar, however, is a weak source of gravitational waves. To see a binary neutron star gravitationally, one must wait until the two stars are very close together or are in the process of merging, when they are their brightest as gravitational wave sources. Because these events are rare, the detector must be able to see mergers that are in distant galaxies.

[Tormod]

BTW, the Jupiter experiment was not supposed to prove gravitational waves but that gravity does not act instantly. This indirectly implies waves but that is secondary.

[humility]

I meant why can't we just invert the velocity of light and use that as the frame of rest. the speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second. If we invert this to a velocity of 1 metre per 299,792,458 seconds and say its the slowest you can go and set it as the value of rest. So something travelling at 1 metre every 9.5 years is considered at rest. whereas everything above this would be considered in motion.To find out if this is true we should try to see if it is physically possible to go slower than this.

[Buffy]

If we invert this to a velocity of 1 metre per 299,792,458 seconds and say its the slowest you can go and set it as the value of rest. So something travelling at 1 metre every 9.5 years is considered at rest. whereas everything above this would be considered in motion.To find out if this is true we should try to see if it is physically possible to go slower than this.

My geologist friends will tell you that even the San Andreas fault is moving slower than that, and yet we here in California hardly consider it "at rest!"

 

Cheers,

Buffy