I have wondered about another explanation that I have never seen anyone mention,No it's definitely expanding - if it weren't expanding, then we'd need a new and logical explanation for the cosmological redshift that we observe, and frankly nobody sees any theoretical or observational motivation to come up with an alternative explanation because the Hubble expansion looks 100% legit.
thank you“The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,” Clifford M. Will, 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.7377.pdf
I have wondered about another explanation that I have never seen anyone mention,
electromagnetic waves can have forces that push themselves apart, now I know they travel at the speed of light, so they should not have "time" to spread out, but maybe given enough travel time, they might redshift that way.
but I have no idea how to test this idea
thank you
Man, you're really cursing up a storm in this post Gambeir - chill out buddy, we're only debating physics here, not something really nasty like American politics.
Sorry about the terminology but when you read a bunch of academic papers all the time, the nomenclature becomes habitual because that's how physicists most readily specify what they're talking about. The term "metric curvature" is used to refer to the spacetime metric which is "flat" (i.e., Euclidean, with space and time at right angles to each other) in the absence of matter, and curved in the presence of matter (or energy, that works too because they're equivalent). Physicists say "metric" because relativity is generalized: it doesn't matter what kind of geometry you're using, as long as the angle between space and time is correct for any given situation. Sometimes using the polar coordinate system is most efficacious for studying a given scenario, for example, but the choice of coordinate system is arbitrary.
I don't know where you got this tetrahedral idea; there is no preferred geometric description of spacetime. Any coordinate system will do just fine as long as it's self-consistent and it obeys the correct space and time deformations when calculating relative velocities and gravitational fields. It's good to bear this in mind when thinking about relativity, because it's not a theory of spacetime structure, it's a theory (or rather, theories) of spacetime geometry, and any convenient and applicable geometry will do.
No it's definitely expanding - if it weren't expanding, then we'd need a new and logical explanation for the cosmological redshift that we observe, and frankly nobody sees any theoretical or observational motivation to come up with an alternative explanation because the Hubble expansion looks 100% legit.
We only know of two physical mechanisms for redshift: receding velocities, and gravitational redshift. And since it makes no sense that galaxies of the same size would have stronger gravitational fields at greater distances (and no corollary gravitational lensing effects are observed), then it has to be a receding velocity causing the redshifting, which is greater at greater distances, i.e., the universe is expanding, and the rate of recession is greater as the distance is greater.
I skipped a bunch of posts but I'll have to get back to them when I have more time.
Meanwhile - Gambeir and spacecase0, you guys really need to become acquainted with this excellent review paper; it will answer all of your questions about the experimental and theoretical status of general relativity, and it specifically explains why we're so confident that curved spacetime models are the only possible answer to the observations we've made over the past century:
“The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,” Clifford M. Will, 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.7377.pdf
We did a podcast about this paper here, if you'd rather listen than read about it:
Post-Newtonian Gravitation | Free Podcasts | PodOmatic"
Man, you're really cursing up a storm in this post
I skipped a bunch of posts but I'll have to get back to them when I have more time.
Meanwhile - Gambeir and spacecase0, you guys really need to become acquainted with this excellent review paper; it will answer all of your questions about the experimental and theoretical status of general relativity, and it specifically explains why we're so confident that curved spacetime models are the only possible answer to the observations we've made over the past century:
“The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,” Clifford M. Will, 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.7377.pdf
I don't know where you got this tetrahedral idea; there is no preferred geometric description of spacetime. Any coordinate system will do just fine as long as it's self-consistent and it obeys the correct space and time deformations when calculating relative velocities and gravitational fields. It's good to bear this in mind when thinking about relativity, because it's not a theory of spacetime structure, it's a theory (or rather, theories) of spacetime geometry, and any convenient and applicable geometry will do.
So... light travels forever until it is absorbed by a mass...
Does the mass grow in proportion to the light energy it absorbs???
Yes: the more energy that a body of matter absorbs (say, as you heat bar of iron with a torch), the more mass-energy it possesses. But it takes a c^2 magnitude of energy to yield one unit of mass (in whatever units one chooses to use, cgs units or SI units or whatever), so matter would vaporize long before you could measure the mass increase. But there are other approaches, for example, some kind of flywheel that employs a field containment system to keep it from exploding at high energies. To date we've never been able to store enough energy to observe a mass increase in such a manner, but it's there.So... light travels forever until it is absorbed by a mass...
Does the mass grow in proportion to the light energy it absorbs???
I didn't say that it was a bad thing (smarter people tend to swear more, I've heard). But you don't usually cuss that much so you seemed agitated.So swearing isn't really as bad a thing as some make it out to be.
You're underestimating the adversarial process of modern science. Whenever scientists can blow a hole in the conventional models, they write papers about it, and sometimes win a Nobel Prize for finding such errors. Academic theoretical physics is more like a bar room brawl between eggheads, than it is some big club of conspirators dreaming up an "official narratives" about the nature of reality. This is clearly evident when one follows an on-going debate about some controversial idea, like the black hole information paradox, where things get very heated between adherents of the various sides of an issue, until an answer is found, and somebody goes home with slackened shoulders.I appreciate the link and knowledge contained in the 113 pages, but I also understand that arxiv.org is owned by Cornell University. Papers from arxiv can only be expected to support the official version of reality: The same reality that this institution teaches and which students pay for.
arXiv.org e-Print archive
I don't know a suitable term for this "Quantum-FFF theory" but it doesn't even remotely resemble theoretical physics. Perhaps we could call it "abstract conceptual art?" The one guy writing about this idea, a Dutch architect, seems to be completely crackers, in my estimation.Thomas, as near as I can determine the idea comes from this conceptualization.
Have no idea where this image originated but I found it at this link.
FUNCTION FOLLOWS FORM in the Quantum world with a splitting pairing Fermion repelling Black Hole .
From that link:I'm sure you will be quite comfortable with the information found at that link as well.
No those energies (Birkeland currents) are way too small.Ah, so you're searching for an possible explanation to the Expand'0 planet model Kchoo? If so then I've been there myself and here's what I think in short hand.
In a way you could say so, but really I think that if there is validity to the idea then the energies which create matter would be coming in to planetary bodies from Brikeland Currents. Those are the primary connections to our own star and feed the earth primarily at the polar regions.
I pose this Question, To anyone, What are some of the natural or even unlikely phenomena that could also interact with Spacetime? Is Gravity the only force in the universe that can Manipulate time? Could there be other forces?
seems to me that if you are to correctly model reality in order to get time travel,
you have to get past the space and time linking.
they are 2 clear ideas, and to mix them up seems to limit what you can visualize
so, in a world where you have linked space and time, how do you time travel ?
if you change your point of reference a bit and see time as its own thing, then you have some hope of changing it.
and I have a device that uses counter rotating electrostatic fields (and likely magnetic in there as well) that messes with gravity and time.
pretty sure that a gravity field is not a real thing. but a change in time fields that causes gravity as a side effect.
and that is why they can't find that gravity field
go look at star clusters that "should" collapse on themselves, if it is a change in time field, then they should be stable like we see them in the stars...
as far as the simulation issue,
seems to me that reality is an invention of consciousness
and it was so fantastic that many of us moved into "reality"
and that is why it follows the same rules of a simulation
In special relativity, faster-than-light travel will do the trick for time travel into the past. In general relativity there are "closed timelike curves" that could take you into the past, and wormholes might work as well, if one of the two ends is placed in a strong gravitational field (but you couldn't go back any further than the moment that you set up the system).I get why you started this thread
sorry for messing with the original thread so much,
but seems to me that if you are to correctly model reality in order to get time travel,
you have to get past the space and time linking.
they are 2 clear ideas, and to mix them up seems to limit what you can visualize
so, in a world where you have linked space and time, how do you time travel ?
Impossible! Haha =)People take Physics far too seriously in some circles.
So... light travels forever until it is absorbed by a mass...
Does the mass grow in proportion to the light energy it absorbs???
I think you might have provided that link in the ARV thread, because I remember recently trying to read that book, and it was just too damned ponderous to get through. Maybe there’s something of value there – I’ll have to try again when I’m feeling exceptionally patient, and awash in leisure time. There aren’t many days when I feel prepared to completely forget everything that I’ve learned about physics and start from scratch with an entirely new model of reality with a gazillion new concepts inter-related in ways that may, or may not, be valid in a meaningful, self-consistent, and practical manner. My first impression was that it was incredibly woo stuff – but that’s not a final judgment: a proper evaluation of a book like that can take weeks or months, sometimes even years to fully comprehend, manipulate through applications to known physics, and determine whether it has any real merit.Thomas,
just kind of curious if you have ever looked at a book called "the new science" by wilbert smith
resonantfractals.org/Wilbert Smith/The-New-Science-&-TensorBeam.pdf
I link to this version because of the added archives at the end, the website that hosts it is a bit fringe for even me (then again I did try to reproduce some of what he said with no results), so please don't judge the book by where I linked it from.
I read it once and thought about it,
read it again and took notes.
ran a few tests, and it seems like there is something new going on.
The first part of this section contradicts the second part: relativity doesn’t predict the absorption/emission spectra of atoms. So I don’t know how you’re deriving spectra predictions from relativity. Please explain your methodology explicitly so I can understand what you’re talking about.by the way, you have mentioned a few times about studying relativity before discounting it,
I have studied it in detail.
I don't discount it.
like many ideas, it gets at least most everything correct.
just like predictions of bright line spectrum, I know of 3 of them, one only gets hydrogen correct and none of the others, the other 2 get all the elements correct.
maybe it is just me, but the 2 that get all of them correct have vastly differing assumptions going on
Do you teach physics? If so, at what level? None of the physics PhD’s I know take exception to SR and GR as you do; and I’d like to understand that disparity better. Most of the theoretical physicists I study are looking at extensions of relativity, rather than chucking it altogether and starting over. Although once in great while, a refreshing and totally alien model of reality appears in the physics literature, like this one:and I have seen this sort of thing many times in physic, wrong assumptions if carried out with proper logic and math often get you the correct result, and I mean way more often that it should. I don't know why this happens, but it happens all the time. (you see this all the time when correcting papers in physics classes)
Perhaps my advocacy for relativity and quantum field theory gives the wrong impression. Given that these two models have been irreconcilable for roughly a century, I think it’s safe to assume that the next major advancement in theoretical physics will radically transform our understanding of physical reality, similar to the manner in which relativity superseded Newtonian mechanics, and throw open the doors to new technologies well beyond our present capabilities. But note that even in that case, the applicability of Newtonian mechanics in the weak field limit is preserved – it’s sufficiently accurate for modeling the flight trajectories of the Voyager and Pioneer probes, for example.I know I have said (or asked) this over and over now,
but what do you think of other models of reality (even if flawed) that may predict building of hardware that does something unexpected when looking at other models of reality ?
not asking you to tear apart the wilbert smith book word at a time. (but if you need to do that, I get why)
but what do you think of it as an alternate model of reality ?
I think you might have provided that link in the ARV thread, because I remember recently trying to read that book, and it was just too damned ponderous to get through. Maybe there’s something of value there – I’ll have to try again when I’m feeling exceptionally patient, and awash in leisure time. There aren’t many days when I feel prepared to completely forget everything that I’ve learned about physics and start from scratch with an entirely new model of reality with a gazillion new concepts inter-related in ways that may, or may not, be valid in a meaningful, self-consistent, and practical manner. My first impression was that it was incredibly woo stuff – but that’s not a final judgment: a proper evaluation of a book like that can take weeks or months, sometimes even years to fully comprehend, manipulate through applications to known physics, and determine whether it has any real merit.
I went through that process with Daniel Fry’s books, for example – and it took a decade to definitively determine that the concepts therein do in fact represent a significant advancement in theoretical physics. And I’m still not done unraveling it all, because the clues are very cleverly hidden in a variety of subtle ways that only become evident as one reaches very advanced levels of understanding in physics, which is an arduous and on-going process. I feel confident, however, that within his books is the key to understanding the underlying principle of gravitational fields – their true fundamental nature and the proper methodology for synthesizing them (both polarities) with attainable magnitudes of energy.
The first part of this section contradicts the second part: relativity doesn’t predict the absorption/emission spectra of atoms. So I don’t know how you’re deriving spectra predictions from relativity. Please explain your methodology explicitly so I can understand what you’re talking about.
Do you teach physics? If so, at what level? None of the physics PhD’s I know take exception to SR and GR as you do; and I’d like to understand that disparity better. Most of the theoretical physicists I study are looking at extensions of relativity, rather than chucking it altogether and starting over. Although once in great while, a refreshing and totally alien model of reality appears in the physics literature, like this one:
“Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time,” Julian Barbour, Tim Koslowski, and Flavio Mercati, Physical Review Letters, 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.0917.pdf
Perhaps my advocacy for relativity and quantum field theory gives the wrong impression. Given that these two models have been irreconcilable for roughly a century, I think it’s safe to assume that the next major advancement in theoretical physics will radically transform our understanding of physical reality, similar to the manner in which relativity superseded Newtonian mechanics, and throw open the doors to new technologies well beyond our present capabilities. But note that even in that case, the applicability of Newtonian mechanics in the weak field limit is preserved – it’s sufficiently accurate for modeling the flight trajectories of the Voyager and Pioneer probes, for example.
But the tiny deviations from Newtonian mechanics that were predicted by relativity under conditions proximal to the Earth, required a radical transformation of our fundamental understanding of physical reality.
I expect a similar transformation when we achieve the first unified field theory. But note that this new understanding will require a level of sophistication equal to, or greater than, the tensor calculus of general relativity – because we now know that all of those effects are real, and cannot be described by any simpler mathematical edifice. Likewise, the unified field theory will require a minimum level of sophistication equal to or greater than the Schrödinger wave equation and associated Hamiltonians and so forth of quantum field theory.
That’s why I dismiss all alternative models which fail to reach those levels of mathematical precision and sophistication - we know that these are minimum requirements for describing the physical observations that we’ve made to date.
But we can be certain that both of these physics models are only special cases of a larger encompassing theory that remains undiscovered, so the game is on. The universe originated from a single object that defies our current understanding, where gravitational and quantum fields were unified (and remain fundamentally unified even today) in a way that eludes our present comprehension. We will discover that underlying unifying physical theory, because it exists – the proof is literally all around us.
Making key steps toward that unified field theory is the primary focus of my theoretical physics studies.
So don’t misunderstand me – I’m not a conventional academic thinker. I advocate passionately for general relativity and the established physical theories only because of their astounding and thoroughly verified observational predictions and elegant theoretical frameworks. But I know they’re not the end of the story.
Well, let's assume for the sake of argument that the photonic metamaterial now undergoing analysis by doctors Puthoff and Davis in Austin, does in fact lose a measurable magnitude of mass under activation with THz radiation. In that case, we're going to learn about a heretofore unknown coupling mechanism between quantum field theory and gravitation. A rigorous theoretical analysis of such findings should provide the key to a unified field theory, and throw open the door to a gravitational field technology.I have a theory that in an indirect way. Extreme temperatures could be used to focus and tune space-time. I believe it's possible that the Bose-Einstein condensate under the right conditions. Bose–Einstein condensate - Wikipedia could trigger a black hole, Within a certain critical density. By this reasoning, since extreme cold can affect density, at the very least it can indirectly affect Time. at least relative to the mass affected by the condensate. The Exotic material we need to properly bend space-time Would have to be a metamaterial that creates condensate when it's accelerated. Or at the very least, A metamaterial that can hold the condensed state for a longer period of time.
Well, let's assume for the sake of argument that the photonic metamaterial now undergoing analysis by doctors Puthoff and Davis in Austin, does in fact lose a measurable magnitude of mass under activation with THz radiation. In that case, we're going to learn about a heretofore unknown coupling mechanism between quantum field theory and gravitation. A rigorous theoretical analysis of such findings should provide the key to a unified field theory, and throw open the door to a gravitational field technology.
Naturally, I'm extremely excited to hear about their findings - because once we have a quantified and qualified experimental result to examine in detail, we won't have to guess about the nature of this pivotal coupling mechanism; we'll be able to reproduce and manipulate it as we desire via the theoretical framework that will emerge.
No those energies (Birkeland currents) are way too small
Look guys - I don't know why you're so willing to spend your precious time reading up about the bazillion crazy ideas that people publish on random websites and stuff...but are totally allergic to reading up on credible physical theories like GR. If you're in the mood for a walk on the wild side, you might even have a gander at Einstein-Cartan torsion field theory. There's lots of stuff to learn there - and as an added bonus, it's actually valid scientific reasoning so you won't be wasting your time.