Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
trevor borocz johnson

Theory of Space-time,gravity,energy,magnetism

210 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

bmk1245
12 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, I spoke to some protons and neutrons down at my local pub last night, and apparently they don't believe in YOU ! :P

Heh, good one :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
2 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

That's what I'm saying is that space-time has properties like density which is how it has waves, the OP is just an attempt to explain how those properties could co exist in a 3d universe.

 

mmm I don't know what you definition of conductive is but I meant electricity not matter. How would space conduct matter? anyways its proof enough in my mind that  space-time is a substance, that it can conduct electricity by itself. As you know element's and molecules vary on how well they conduct electricity. Has anyone ever answered why elements and molecules conduct electricity?

 

I'm not going to say I think one way or the other on the grid concept because its just a loosely structured idea and I've had those in the past and they were wrong later on. So I'll just throw it out there that you create gravity waves in the grid if you're moving and if you're standing still you don't. I thought of detecting gravity waves by using an elastic microphone or a quartz gyroscope in a vacuum jar and setting off a large explosion far away. Maybe one of the two would pick up gravity waves. I even put a provisional patent on that.

I see what you are saying as a grid. I understand that and it is a way to visualize. Even Einstein called it a fabric, which is made up of grids, a 3d grid no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
17 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

I was wondering what are gravitational waves if space isn't made of something?

Philosophical question, I guess. Is a zero-field "something"?

From an experiential or experimental point of view, we can observe forces: Take a small particle, carefully place it in a region of space and let go... does it begin to move? If it does, there is a force acting on that particle. In modern physics we prefer to say there is a ``field'' in that region of space (an electric field, magnetic field, gravitational field, etc. depending on the nature of the force), and what we really mean is that the magnitude of the field is non-zero in that region of space.

A wave (gravitational, electromagnetic, or even a sound wave in air) is a positive/negative oscillation in a field; this oscillation typically averages to zero.

So we might say that there is a gravitational field (or electric field, or magnetic field, or temperature field, or pressure field, or whatever...) at every point in space, but in ``empty'' space this field takes the value of zero. As the particles of the universe do their thing and exchange energy, this may manifest in the various fields as changes to positive or negative values, etc.

I would say that until someone can figure out how to prevent the various forces from existing in a region of space - which is like removing the field from that region - we can say that space is ``nothing'' or ``empty''. Space, and the fields within it, are the background on which ``things'' (matter and energy) move around. Space, and the fields within it, are not matter and do not possess any accessible energy of their own accord - so they are not ``things''.

But this is a bit of a philosophical issue or even just a choice of definitions.

If you take the view that a zero-field and/or zero-point-energy are ``things'' there are many other scientists who would support you.

7 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

mmm I don't know what you definition of conductive is but I meant electricity not matter. How would space conduct matter? anyways its proof enough in my mind that  space-time is a substance, that it can conduct electricity by itself. As you know element's and molecules vary on how well they conduct electricity. Has anyone ever answered why elements and molecules conduct electricity?

Electricity is the flow of charge; charge is a property of matter; conducting electricity means moving matter. In solids, conducting electricity means moving electrons. In liquids and gases it is also possible for positive ions (or even lone protons) to move.

Yes, the fundamentals of conducting electricity are pretty well known. It is very difficult to predict the conductivity of a material by using pure quantum mechanics, because conductivity can be dominated by small defects, impurities, and surface states. However in many cases we can predict whether a material will be a good or bad conductor by using pure quantum mechanics (i.e. you tell me the atomic arrangement of a material, and I use quantum mechanics to predict whether it will be a good conductor or not).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
51 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

Electricity is the flow of charge; charge is a property of matter; conducting electricity means moving matter. In solids, conducting electricity means moving electrons. In liquids and gases it is also possible for positive ions (or even lone protons) to move.

Doesn't the alternation of magnetic poles in a generator create the push and then pull on electrons in the copper loop so the electrons between atoms jump back and forth? 

 

51 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

A wave (gravitational, electromagnetic, or even a sound wave in air) is a positive/negative oscillation in a field; this oscillation typically averages to zero.

doesn't there have to exist a density for there to be a wave? That's what I mean by a gravitational field is there is a density that occurs around matter extending from a super dense state of space-time inside the particles of matter. Gravitational attraction then occurs as a result of two fields of density squeezing and tugging on each other. The only effect this would have on the energy grid of space would be possibly creating the boundary where electron shells occur.

 

51 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

I would say that until someone can figure out how to prevent the various forces from existing in a region of space - which is like removing the field from that region - we can say that space is ``nothing'' or ``empty''. Space, and the fields within it, are the background on which ``things'' (matter and energy) move around. Space, and the fields within it, are not matter and do not possess any accessible energy of their own accord - so they are not ``things''.

Whats the difference in saying fields are a background then saying space has density and properties on its own without any other medium occupying it?

Edited by trevorhbj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
20 hours ago, Frank_Hoenedge said:

But such a concept would probably end up in the Dirac sea compared to the EM drive, why run before you can walk right?

Why fly when you can teleport?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
9 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

That's what I'm saying is that space-time has properties like density which is how it has waves, the OP is just an attempt to explain how those properties could co exist in a 3d universe.

 

Is this somewhat like the concept of the aether?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank_Hoenedge
6 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Why fly when you can teleport?

Touche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
8 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Doesn't the alternation of magnetic poles in a generator create the push and then pull on electrons in the copper loop so the electrons between atoms jump back and forth?

That would be alternating current. Direct current is a constant flow. However both require the motion of matter, just in alternating current the electrons keep switching direction.

8 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

doesn't there have to exist a density for there to be a wave? That's what I mean by a gravitational field is there is a density that occurs around matter extending from a super dense state of space-time inside the particles of matter. Gravitational attraction then occurs as a result of two fields of density squeezing and tugging on each other. The only effect this would have on the energy grid of space would be possibly creating the boundary where electron shells occur.

No, unless you are using the word ``density'' to mean the same thing as ``field''.

Density can be a field; we can describe all of the matter in the universe by the value of the mass density at a point in space (i.e. p(x,y,z) = some value at every point (x,y,z) in the Universe) instead of listing all of the particles and their locations (i.e. mass mi at location (xi,yi,zi), mass mi+1 at location (xi+1,yi+1,zi+1), etc.). However the mass density field does not appear to be able to support waves in a vacuum because we cannot have a negative density.

8 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

The only effect this would have on the energy grid of space would be possibly creating the boundary where electron shells occur.

I would like to point out that electron shells do not have a boundary, they extend arbitrarily far from the atom. Furthermore, the electron shells for hydrogen can be calculated, by hand, from the Schrodinger equation. Computer codes can calculate the shells for the other atoms. There isn't really much mystery in the ``how'' or ``why'' of electron shells.
 

8 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Whats the difference in saying fields are a background then saying space has density and properties on its own without any other medium occupying it?

Probably not much, again depends on your philosophy.

The question is: Can the properties of one region of space (in the absence of matter, and all fields are zero) be different than those of another region (again in the absence of matter, and all fields are zero)?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
10 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Philosophical question, I guess. Is a zero-field "something"?

From an experiential or experimental point of view, we can observe forces: Take a small particle, carefully place it in a region of space and let go... does it begin to move? If it does, there is a force acting on that particle. In modern physics we prefer to say there is a ``field'' in that region of space (an electric field, magnetic field, gravitational field, etc. depending on the nature of the force), and what we really mean is that the magnitude of the field is non-zero in that region of space.

Ok. It's just I read some definitions of gravitational waves as ripples on space-time.

But how does regions of space move faster than light when the matter in it cannot?

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson

so i guess instead of inactive ENERGY grid I mean inactive CONDUCTIVE grid. My definition for Energy is a free moving tension, stress, or squeezing on space-time and the inactive conductive grid specifically. Infrared to ultraviolet and including light that illuminates in the visible spectrum is a squeezing of energy on the conductive grid of space alone. It only creates its gravitational effect when it cirlcles in the same region such as an electron. The orbiting electron puts a squeezing on both the conductive grid and the void blocks creating a gravity effect. Its momentum in any direction is converted to weight for the small area it occupies. Holding two north ends of a magnet shows that the conductive field flows and when it does it creates a force in space time.

Edited by trevorhbj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
13 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Ok. It's just I read some definitions of gravitational waves as ripples on space-time.

But how does regions of space move faster than light when the matter in it cannot?

To continue with the overly simplistic and in many aspects misleading analogy....

In a gravitational wave, space-time is not moving with the wave, any more than water is moving with the ripples on a pond. The ripples on a pond are moving across the surface of the water, away from their source; the water itself is moving up and down.

In a gravitational wave, the curvature of space-time is flexing back and forth; concave to convex and so on. (Sort of, anyway... there are different polarizations and lots more stuff that I am glossing over here.)

Gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light. Matter can move through space-time at speeds up to the speed of light. Space-time itself can flex and deform faster than the speed of light in some circumstances.

Flexing and deforming of space-time is a rather different thing than the propagation of matter through space-time, so it is not so strange that the latter may occur faster than the speed of light. This is not to say it always does; most forms of space-time deformation occur at the speed of light (like gravitational waves) or slower, as these deformations were created by interactions between matter.

 

9 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

so i guess instead of inactive ENERGY grid I mean inactive CONDUCTIVE grid. My definition for Energy is a free moving tension, stress, or squeezing on space-time and the inactive conductive grid specifically. Infrared to ultraviolet and including light that illuminates in the visible spectrum is a squeezing of energy on the conductive grid of space alone. It only creates its gravitational effect when it cirlcles in the same region such as an electron. The orbiting electron puts a squeezing on both the conductive grid and the void blocks creating a gravity effect. Its momentum in any direction is converted to weight for the small area it occupies. Holding two north ends of a magnet shows that the conductive field flows and when it does it creates a force in space time.

Sure, but it is just word-salad unless you can provide a quantitatively predictive model (such as an equation).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
30 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

Sure, but it is just word-salad unless you can provide a quantitatively predictive model (such as an equation).

What kind of an equation? What equals what? I can observe nature=my theory on gravity. 

 

gravity waves probably oscilate with density in space-time is how I would describe there propagation.

37 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

Gravitational waves propagate at the speed of light

Why would gravity waves move at the speed of light? I think they could move much faster. Light is heavy and slow up against the density of space time, but a gravity wave is just a fluctuation in space-time alone so I think it could potentially be even faster maybe many times. Saying that gravity waves are the same thing as the speed of light is like saying the speed of sound is the same as the speed of smell. This goes from beyond the 4th dimension, time, and adds the fifth and sixth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

Check out the inflation theory, one way to explain the rapid growth of the universe in its very early stage. In a very small amount of time the universe expanded from nothing to very large, and space expanded faster than the speed of light for that brief event.   If space expands faster than the speed of light, then there are parts of the universe we will never see no matter how big a telescope we build.  Inflation  is useful to explain what we can observe though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
6 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Flexing and deforming of space-time is a rather different thing than the propagation of matter through space-time, so it is not so strange that the latter may occur faster than the speed of light. This is not to say it always does; most forms of space-time deformation occur at the speed of light (like gravitational waves) or slower, as these deformations were created by interactions between matter.

What I mean is apparently there are galaxies moving away faster than light, the explanation is it's the space between the galaxies expanding faster than light. How does that work if space isn't made up of something?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
simplybill
On 7/28/2017 at 1:15 PM, trevorhbj said:

its proof enough in my mind that  space-time is a substance

Question from a hopelessly non-intellectual non-scientist:

When you say 'substance', do you mean a variant of 'solid, liquid or gas'? 

Edited to add: I think sepulchrave may have answered my question in his post #25:

"The ``thing'' that makes up space-time is not a manifestation of the matter/energy that makes the ``things'' we are used to interacting with (teacups, planets, electromagnetic waves, gravitational waves, etc.)."

-------------------------------------------------------

2nd question:

In physics, do the terms 'matter' and 'substance' have the same meaning?

Thanks for the interesting topic, trevorhbj.

Edited by simplybill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
4 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

What I mean is apparently there are galaxies moving away faster than light, the explanation is it's the space between the galaxies expanding faster than light. How does that work if space isn't made up of something?

Again I think it comes down to your personal philosophy. If you want to say space-time is ``made of something'', you will not be wrong. I think you will find many professional scientists agree with you.

The ``thing'' that makes up space-time is not a manifestation of the matter/energy that makes the ``things'' we are used to interacting with (teacups, planets, electromagnetic waves, gravitational waves, etc.).

From my perspective, I know what it looks like if I have no teacups, not planets, no electromagnetic waves, etc. I don't know what it looks like to have no space-time. If space-time is not a ``thing'', then ``nothing'' is a concept I can wrap my head around. If space-time is a ``thing'', then I am unable to comprehend ``nothing''.

You may choose differently, and there is nothing wrong with that. At our level of technology we cannot add or remove space-time (i.e. proving that space-time is a ``thing''), so adopt whatever viewpoint makes most sense to you.

10 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

What kind of an equation? What equals what? I can observe nature=my theory on gravity.

You, just like everyone else, can only observe the effect of forces on particles and objects. At the very basic level, your theory just states the existence of electric, magnetic, and gravitational forces and that they are caused by matter. Everyone already knew that. If you want your theories to be taken seriously then you need to make quantitative predictions, and for that you need equations.

Your previous statements described energy as a tension/stress/squeezing on the grid of space-time.

  • A regular grid consists of points at regular intervals. In a deformed grid particular points have been shifted from their original positions.
  • If the regular grid points are identified by the space-time coordinate s, the deformation can be described as D(s) where D is the shift from the original position of the grid point originally at s.
  • An energy density can be written as U(s). Note that all bold letters are n-vectors (4-vectors in regular space time, but you mentioned 5- or 6-dimensions so whatever you need), whereas italic letters are just numbers.

So you need to develop the equation that relates U(s) to D(s). You also need to develop an equation that relates U(s) or D(s) to the force F(s) experienced by a test object.

Electric fields E(s), magnetic fields B(s), and gravitational fields G(s) are all different things, and can all be observed. If you are arguing that they are different manifestations of space-time squeezing, you also need an equation that shows how D(s) equals E(s), B(s), and G(s).

10 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Why would gravity waves move at the speed of light? I think they could move much faster. Light is heavy and slow up against the density of space time, but a gravity wave is just a fluctuation in space-time alone so I think it could potentially be even faster maybe many times. Saying that gravity waves are the same thing as the speed of light is like saying the speed of sound is the same as the speed of smell. This goes from beyond the 4th dimension, time, and adds the fifth and sixth.

Gravity waves are assumed to move at the speed of light because that is the prediction from the equations.

Electricity and magnetism is described by 4 vector equations called "Maxwell's Equations". These equations describe all the properties of electric and magnetic fields. They are compatible with quantum mechanics and general relativity. These 4 equations can be combined with some mathematical manipulations into 2 linked wave equations (one for electric field, one for magnetic field). These equations have the speed of the wave built in; this speed is one over the square-root of the permittivity of free space (the constant for electric fields) and the permeability of free space (the constant for magnetic fields). This tells us the speed of light based on these two constants.

Similarly, gravity is described by 16 equations call the "Einstein Field Equations". These equations describe how matter curves space-time. These equations can be combined with some mathematical manipulations into 4 linked wave equations (one for the various polarizations of the gravitational wave). These equations also have the speed of the wave built in; this speed is the same as the speed of light. (This is a very simplistic explanation of a very complicated phenomenon, read the wiki if you want more details, read a textbook if you want all the details.)

Of course, this does not prove that gravitational waves must travel at the speed of light. But it does show why people expected gravitational waves to exist: The Einstein Field Equations support a wave equation, and from the solution to that wave equation we know how a gravitational wave is predicted to behave. Our observations of gravitational waves are consistent with that prediction.

Not all theories do support a wave equation. For example, thermodynamics has equations describing the flow of heat and temperature. But you cannot manipulate these equations to obtain a general ``temperature wave equation''. We do not expect temperature waves to exist in general conditions (temperature waves can exist at the surface of a substance, but only under very special circumstances).

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
4 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

Again I think it comes down to your personal philosophy. If you want to say space-time is ``made of something'', you will not be wrong. I think you will find many professional scientists agree with you.

I'm not saying it is. I'm just wondering how scientists explain the physical phenomena of space expanding assuming space is just a mathematical concept.
Matter can't travel faster than light but space can, therefore galaxies can appear to move away faster than light because they're not actually moving.

I can't be the only one seeing the contradiction here?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
4 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Gravity waves are assumed to move at the speed of light because that is the prediction from the equations.

Electricity and magnetism is described by 4 vector equations called "Maxwell's Equations". These equations describe all the properties of electric and magnetic fields. They are compatible with quantum mechanics and general relativity. These 4 equations can be combined with some mathematical manipulations into 2 linked wave equations (one for electric field, one for magnetic field). These equations have the speed of the wave built in; this speed is one over the square-root of the permittivity of free space (the constant for electric fields) and the permeability of free space (the constant for magnetic fields). This tells us the speed of light based on these two constants.

Similarly, gravity is described by 16 equations call the "Einstein Field Equations". These equations describe how matter curves space-time. These equations can be combined with some mathematical manipulations into 4 linked wave equations (one for the various polarizations of the gravitational wave). These equations also have the speed of the wave built in; this speed is the same as the speed of light. (This is a very simplistic explanation of a very complicated phenomenon, read the wiki if you want more details, read a textbook if you want all the details.)

Of course, this does not prove that gravitational waves must travel at the speed of light. But it does show why people expected gravitational waves to exist: The Einstein Field Equations support a wave equation, and from the solution to that wave equation we know how a gravitational wave is predicted to behave. Our observations of gravitational waves are consistent with that prediction.

Not all theories do support a wave equation. For example, thermodynamics has equations describing the flow of heat and temperature. But you cannot manipulate these equations to obtain a general ``temperature wave equation''. We do not expect temperature waves to exist in general conditions (temperature waves can exist at the surface of a substance, but only under very special circumstances).

You're throwing all your equations at me that you said were lies. Saying a gravity would move as fast as a light wave is like saying a sound wave moves as fast as a light wave just because they're both waves. There's absolutely no reason to think that a gravity wave should move at or even close to the speed of light and if you can't see that from basic logic I don't know if I can help you.

 

4 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

You, just like everyone else, can only observe the effect of forces on particles and objects. At the very basic level, your theory just states the existence of electric, magnetic, and gravitational forces and that they are caused by matter. Everyone already knew that. If you want your theories to be taken seriously then you need to make quantitative predictions, and for that you need equations.

Your previous statements described energy as a tension/stress/squeezing on the grid of space-time.

  • A regular grid consists of points at regular intervals. In a deformed grid particular points have been shifted from their original positions.
  • If the regular grid points are identified by the space-time coordinate s, the deformation can be described as D(s) where D is the shift from the original position of the grid point originally at s.
  • An energy density can be written as U(s). Note that all bold letters are n-vectors (4-vectors in regular space time, but you mentioned 5- or 6-dimensions so whatever you need), whereas italic letters are just numbers.

So you need to develop the equation that relates U(s) to D(s). You also need to develop an equation that relates U(s) or D(s) to the force F(s) experienced by a test object.

Electric fields E(s), magnetic fields B(s), and gravitational fields G(s) are all different things, and can all be observed. If you are arguing that they are different manifestations of space-time squeezing, you also need an equation that shows how D(s) equals E(s), B(s), and G(s).

Why do I need math equations when I have observations. I ve witnessed on video two dice floating next to each other in open space, and after a minute with no other force acting on them they floated into each other. This has to be a result of there gravity fields . My 3d drawing of a gravity field and Einstein's 2d fabric experiment are the same thing on paper. I just took the commonly accepted representation of gravity which is a 2d picture of a whirlpool looking shape and applied it into 3d, which is where I get the drawing of density in space time representing gravity. If two fields of density's can attract one another then it makes sense that the particles that are making those fields are also made of that substance, space-time, at a very dense level. Does that make sense? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank_Hoenedge

I'm gonna be devils advocate here; you need the maths equations to bring people from their safety zone to the same conclusion.

There is an example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_87#Jet

In pictures taken by the Hubble Space Telescope in 1999, the motion of M87's jet was measured at four to six times the speed of light. This motion is presumably an optical illusion caused by the relativistic velocity of the jet, and not true superluminal motion. However, detection of such motion supports the theory that quasars, BL Lacertae objects and radio galaxies may all be the same phenomenon, known as active galaxies, viewed from different perspectives.

The example illustrates why equations would be required to convince all other theory proponents.

There are plenty of contradictions in Science

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/101-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/general-questions/579-what-is-the-mass-of-the-universe-intermediate

"As nobody knows the size of the universe, one cannot really talk about the mass of the universe, though one can talk about the mass of the observable universe. What is normally sought after is the density of matter in the universe (which is the mass per unit volume). This is what is important in determining the fate of the universe: whether it will collapse one day or whether it will continue expanding forever."

 

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html

By making accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background fluctuations, WMAP is able to measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang model including the density and composition of the universe. WMAP measures the relative density of baryonic and non-baryonic matter to an accuracy of better than a few percent of the overall density. It is also able to determine some of the properties of the non-baryonic matter: the interactions of the non-baryonic matter with itself, its mass and its interactions with ordinary matter all affect the details of the cosmic microwave background fluctuation spectrum.

----

This leads some students to question the validity of the chronology of the universe, specifically when it comes to energy housed in matter and post-fusion substrates, subject to diminishing returns during the fusion processes. It is exemplified as a contradiction when the phrase 'all matter in the universe originated from a single epoch', with the resulting distribution of matter being the '52 cards in mid-air' mathematicians and scientists have to collapse back into a deck.

No person is a walking doctorate paper and not all doctorate papers tie up with a narrative.

If you had read a paper stating that the Universe was 13.8bil units of Earth orbit around Sol as the time-elapsed, and the claim was that all matter observed has reacted into place in that time, along it's development chain of fusion events, including anomalies such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Przybylski's_Star you'd be forced to reconcile the matter in the universe in 72 progressive steps (maximum) to incorporate a situation where stars reacted and dispersed in ~200mil years. This argument is wide open to be assailed.

 

There are topics such as; 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2773962/The-death-star-Universe-Incredible-image-shed-new-light-solar-systems-formed.html

Certain primordial stars—those between 55,000 and 56,000 times the mass of our Sun, or solar masses—may have died unusually, the team concluded.

Astrophysicists at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC) and the University of Minnesota came to this conclusion after running a number of supercomputer simulations at the Department of Energy's (DOE's) National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) and Minnesota Supercomputing Institute at the University of Minnesota. 

First-generation stars are especially interesting because they produced the first heavy elements, or chemical elements other than hydrogen and helium.

In death, they sent their chemical creations into outer space, paving the way for subsequent generations of stars, solar systems and galaxies. 

With a greater understanding of how these first stars died, scientists hope to glean some insights about how the Universe, as we know it today, came to be.

'We found that there is a narrow window where supermassive stars could explode completely instead of becoming a supermassive black hole—no one has ever found this mechanism before,' says Ke-Jung Chen, a postdoctoral researcher at UCSC and lead author of the ApJ paper. 

They found that primordial stars between 55,000 to 56,000 solar masses live about 1.69 million years before becoming unstable due to general relativistic effects and then start to collapse.

---

Here, the equation helps explain stars becoming unstable in 1.69mil years. 

It doesn't change the fact that the larger the volume of the observed universe the less likely galaxies are able to catch all of the ejected matter.

The escape velocity for our region of the Milky way is expected at 537km/s. Matter from Supernovae generally exceeds 1000km/s, so where are the breaks? 'Galactic winds drive and slow matter like using a solar sail. Problematically, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Velocity) it is very difficult to aim matter  along the path of galactic winds and have the Milky Way 'retain' 50% of it's current mass.


 

*Edit* Cornell differentiate the observable universe and the entire universe, NASA expect the audience to already know they are referring to the observable universe.

 

Edited by Frank_Hoenedge
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
5 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

You're throwing all your equations at me that you said were lies.

First off, I was being heavily sarcastic when I said they were lies. They are not lies.

Secondly, it doesn't even matter if they are lies; the point is the existence of gravitational waves was predicted after the fact by studying the equations used to define readily observed gravitational phenomena (motion of planets, comets, etc.).

Your theory assumes the existence of gravitational waves from the start; I don't see any reason why your grid/squeezing/etc. theory suggests the existence of any type of wave a priori.

Question: In your theory, can electric waves, or magnetic waves in free space exist? (Not electromagnetic waves, just one or the other.) If so, how? If not, why not?

5 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

Saying a gravity would move as fast as a light wave is like saying a sound wave moves as fast as a light wave just because they're both waves. There's absolutely no reason to think that a gravity wave should move at or even close to the speed of light and if you can't see that from basic logic I don't know if I can help you.

You are absolutely correct, logically there is no reason to expect all waves to move at the same speed.

I am not basing my statement on logic, I am basing my statement on mathematics. The speed of the wave is built into the wave equation, the wave equation is derived from the fundamental equations for the force in question (electricity, magnetism, gravity, pressure, etc.). When you mathematically manipulate the equations for how pressure equalizes in a gas (or liquid or solid), you can obtain a wave equation for sound. The speed of sound is found within this equation, and it is based on things like bulk modulus and density.

When you mathematically manipulate the equation for how force redistributes itself on a plucked string, you obtain the wave equation for an oscillation on that string (like a guitar or a violin) the speed of this tension wave depends on the tensile strength and linear density of the string.

It turns out that the speed of an electromagnetic wave (as obtained from the electromagnetic wave equation derived from Maxwell's equations) is exactly the same as the speed of a gravitational wave (as obtained from the gravitational wave equation derived from the Einstein field equations).

5 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

My 3d drawing of a gravity field and Einstein's 2d fabric experiment are the same thing on paper. I just took the commonly accepted representation of gravity which is a 2d picture of a whirlpool looking shape and applied it into 3d, which is where I get the drawing of density in space time representing gravity.

[Emphasis mine] This statement highlights the problem here: A ``2d picture of a whirlpool'' may be a commonly accepted representation of gravity, but it is not an accurate description of gravity. The Einstein field equations are the most accurate description of gravity that we know. In 3+1 space-time, the Einstein field equations are 16 linked partial differential equations - very difficult for even experts to understand.

We use analogies - like the rubber sheet - to help visualize certain aspects of gravity.

Ultimately if you want to understand a gravity-related phenomena you must return to the equations to get an accurate and quantitative description.

Without equations a theory is just a story with complicated words.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank_Hoenedge
On 7/25/2017 at 8:47 PM, trevorhbj said:
Space time is made up of an inactive energy field in a grid structure, it only becomes active when energy acts on it. A second component of space time are blocks that line the energy grid. These void blocks, as I call them, are also made of an energy grid much smaller and only become active when acted upon by matter. 
 
The smallest particles of matter, such as protons and neutrons, are made of extremely dense substance of space time. Their density puts a squeezing force in the surrounding space time they exist in. The force is stronger the closer to the particle. This causes a gravity field. When a gravity field touches another gravity field, the same squeezing force of space time on space time applies and the larger gravity field squeezes on the weaker one pulling it harder. Both objects then move towards each other in proportion to there weight.
 
 

One of the best ways to explore the OP's premise is to rationalise the formation of Halley's Comet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley's_Comet), a series of collisions that increase the mass of the object by expending kinetic energy and forming a bond enthalpy.

The formation of Halley's Comet is currently explained as occurring at a remote distance relative to the Sun (https://phys.org/news/2015-06-halley-comet.html - "Like all comets that take less than about 200 years to orbit the Sun, Halley's Comet is believed to have originated from the Kuiper Belt")

The 2 smaller objects were not sufficiently perturbed to head on a crash course to the sun, they were drawn to each other. This occurred whilst the two objects were revolving around the Sun. After the two objects had formed the comet a perturbation in orbit gave more significance to the Sun's center of gravity, likely caused by disruption to the comet's orbit from a different mass. Due to this, Halley's Comet started on a crash course towards a moving object with higher relative velocity. When Halley's Comet approached the gravitational center of the Sun, it's velocity was too high to adjust in time to crash into the Sun, instead it missed and obtained a velocity sufficient to propel it back out of the inner solar system, where it's return to the center of the Sun's gravity began again (while revolving around the sun, while the sun moves at speed).

 

At some point, there was less energy confined in a single object and that object was not drawn to the Sun, when the object had increased in energy potential it was serendipitously drawn towards the Sun, that it had been orbiting for some time in smaller parts. It's orbit reaches as far out as twice the distance to Pluto. For some reason (maybe related to the OP's alternative theory?) it is drawn towards the moving target when 'cold' and misses when it is infused with energy by solar radiation (hot). Those are some pretty massive vectors, when all available factors are included. 

 

Question: If the moon is moving away from the Earth, will it fall into the Sun when it's tidal lock with the Earth is compromised?

Gravity is currently the best description we have, to overturn it would require an enormous rewrite (if you could suicide-cult charm the entire population) and it would be a complete cultural reboot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
18 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

Your theory assumes the existence of gravitational waves from the start;

My theory says that gravity waves are a result of the movement of matter in space time. What do you say they are caused by?

 

18 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

[Emphasis mine] This statement highlights the problem here: A ``2d picture of a whirlpool'' may be a commonly accepted representation of gravity, but it is not an accurate description of gravity. The Einstein field equations are the most accurate description of gravity that we know. In 3+1 space-time, the Einstein field equations are 16 linked partial differential equations - very difficult for even experts to understand.

Imagination is more important then mathematics. Took me years to fine tune my idea of gravity fields being areas of denser space time that can act on one another. I did all my book work in textbooks and such when I was younger. The imagination part is whats important. So although I'm just 

 

18 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

a story with complicated words.

I think you dramatically rule out the importance of imagination. Though you may read my imaginative story in just a few sentences it took a long time to come up with those ideas and a lot of ideas thatt were just dropped. Do your fake or real equations have any imagination to them that describes a mechanism behind gravity? So I'm curious what do the math's you say you teach represent? string theory? something else? 

 

And say, you seem smart, and I appreciate your interest where others might say I don't care or it doesn't concern me. Is a possible equation the idea of cramming a lot of space time into a smaller area making it denser to create gravity and how it relates to moving across space time, cramming a certain amount of distance traveled into a cube the width of the object travelling, that the two may be directly related. So a cube of space-time outside a black hole with 186,000 mile edges would be crammed into an tiny diameter? How could we determine that diameter from thinking about an object traveling light speed?

Edited by trevorhbj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sepulchrave
5 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

My theory says that gravity waves are a result of the movement of matter in space time. What do you say they are caused by?

I assume you are talking about gravitational waves, not not gravity waves. Of course they are caused by the movement of matter in space time.

My point is ``movement of X in Y'' does not necessarily create a self-propagating wave. What type of motion of matter will create waves? And what is the relationship between wavelength, frequency and speed? What types of polarization are possible?

The Einstein equations provide all of these answers, and the outcome of any other type of motion of matter.

Think about all of the searches for dark matter: Astrophysicists are searching for dark matter with very specific properties, because these are predicted by various theories. When they can't find what they are looking for, those theories get chucked in the garbage. (MACHOs are out, sneutrinos are out, the existence of LSPs is looking increasingly tenuous, etc.)

5 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

I think you dramatically rule out the importance of imagination. Though you may read my imaginative story in just a few sentences it took a long time to come up with those ideas and a lot of ideas thatt were just dropped. Do your fake or real equations have any imagination to them that describes a mechanism behind gravity? So I'm curious what do the math's you say you teach represent? string theory? something else?

Imagination is very important in developing the theory; but after you are done you have to have something that can be unambiguously understood by others, and can offer quantitative predictions.

I teach electricity and magnetism, and quantum mechanics. The equations I teach are real: When you substitute in the appropriate numbers for a real-world situation, and crunch through the math, the result accurately describes what would happen next.

Example: The rotation of the earth around the sun is adequately explained by Newton's law, using the inverse-square law for gravity as the force. You need to know the mass of the sun, the distance between the Earth and the Sun, and the current velocity vector for the Earth. Plug those numbers into the equations and you can calculate the location of the Earth at any time in the future.

Example: The shells for an electron in hydrogen (or hydrogen-like) are adequately explained by the Schrodinger Equation, using the Coulomb potential as the potential energy. You only need to know charge of the nucleus (1 e for hydrogen, 2 e for ionized helium, 3 e for doubly-ionized lithium, etc.) and you can calculate the shape and energy level of all the shells by solving the Schrodinger equation.

These theories do not explain what gravity, or energy, or matter really ``is''. Gravity is generated by mass, electric fields are generated by electric charge, magnetic fields are generated by moving electric charges, etc. Why? I don't know, nobody does. It just is.

It is perfectly fine to try to come up with deeper, more fundamental reasons for physical phenomena. That is usually called ``meta-physics''. It is scientifically respected, and socially valuable. It helps us make sense of the Universe.

What I object to is people using their visual, qualitative theories to reject reasonably well-established facts. Gravitational waves travel at the speed of light. Electron shells have negligible influence on the deformation of space-time. Two floating dice spontaneously moving together are almost certainly not doing so due to a mutual gravitational attraction (assuming they are legitimately floating and it is not a hoax or an air current, then it is almost certainly static electricity).

I appreciate that in the last part of your post you are trying to work towards an equation, but I have no idea what you are describing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trevor borocz johnson
17 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

I appreciate that in the last part of your post you are trying to work towards an equation, but I have no idea what you are describing.

I'm talking about calculating the momentum it would take to equal the force of a gravity field say earth's. And then from that understand how density of the field relates to distance traveled at that momentum.

 

17 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

These theories do not explain what gravity, or energy, or matter really ``is''. Gravity is generated by mass, electric fields are generated by electric charge, magnetic fields are generated by moving electric charges, etc. Why? I don't know, nobody does. It just is.

I know they told us these things were unexplained in the nineties when I was in grade school. I ve thought about them ever since. The past six years I've really stepped up that thinking and these are some results. Do you understand them? 

 

17 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

What I object to is people using their visual, qualitative theories to reject reasonably well-established facts. Gravitational waves travel at the speed of light. Electron shells have negligible influence on the deformation of space-time. Two floating dice spontaneously moving together are almost certainly not doing so due to a mutual gravitational attraction (assuming they are legitimately floating and it is not a hoax or an air current, then it is almost certainly static electricity).

Well that sounds wickedly silly if Einstein predicted gravity waves move at light speed. First off they haven't been measured so you can't say for sure if that's true just because Einstein says so. I know you will agree that waves should be detectable from a very large explosion, they currently use lasers which I'm sure is good, but wouldn't it make more sense to use a gyroscope? since you're looking for gravity and weight not energy? Do you understand? What do you think of doing that instead of looking through telescopes at black holes light years away? I don't know how you would determine there speed from that. Do you know they discovered the speed of light using mirrors across a river and a small laser of light bounced back and struck a rotating paper marker? 1850's I think

 

 

Edited by trevorhbj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.