GRAVITY

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

GRAVITY

Post by socrat44 » Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:56 pm

GRAVITY
===
1 - Newton's gravity.
Newton explained gravity from Earthly point of view
( as a boy playing on the beach of an ocean)
Newton explained gravity as interaction between two bodies
in the flat Solar system.
( no curved, no distorted, no bent or warped space )
2 - Einstein's gravity.
Einstein explained gravity from Cosmic point of view
( as a boy flying at speed of light )
Einstein explained gravity when there is only one single body (gravity-masses)
These gravity-masses (of Sun) distorted the flat continuum of the Universe
only in Its very small , local region
The local space around Sun's gravity-masses is changed / warped.
Not the all flat continuum of the Universe was curved, only a small,
local region was changed around the Sun.
3 - What is caused the light / photon to change their straight way
in the Universe: the gravity-masses or the warm / hot atmosphere
temperature around Sun ?
( the cold light / photons automatically flow in the warm / hot region,
like a cold air enters in your warm room when window is opened)
4 - It is very possible that light / photons change their way by sum
of two factors ( the hot temperature + gravity-masses ) and this
one factor ( the hot temperature of accelerated gravity-masses )
keeps a gravity-Sun be our ''living-Sun''
=====
Attachments
Newton.jpg
Newton.jpg (17.54 KiB) Viewed 606 times

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re: GRAVITY

Post by socrat44 » Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:56 pm

1 - Newton's inverse square law is right to explain
the interaction between two (2) gravity-bodies.

2 - Einstein's GRT equation is right to explain
effect of gravity for one (1) single gravity-body.
=====

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1402
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: GRAVITY

Post by Scott Mayers » Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:56 pm

I like the topic, but can't determine what you are asserting or asking?

Note the discussion of gravity also began earlier with Aristotle and Galileo, if you are referencing 'thought' experiments. Another significant player is Zeno and his paradoxes if you want to understand how these thought processes were derived. And, of course, even the Socratic dialogue style (from Plato) contributed as well.

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re: GRAVITY

Post by socrat44 » Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:05 am

  My conclusion:
1 - gravity is the weakest ''force'' in nature
2 - gravity is about 10^36 times weaker than EM force
3 - ''gravitational waves'' distort space only by about a factor of 10^-20
4 - gravity is only a local effect in the  universe
5 -  the concept ''Gravity'' cannot be used to the universe as whole
(for example:
Gravity cannot gather all matter of universe into ''singular point'' for
''big-bang'' as ''modern philosophy of science''  teach us today)
========

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re: GRAVITY

Post by socrat44 » Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:43 am

  GRT - 1915 / my opinion /
===
The basis of modern cosmology is Einstein's GRT
GRT equations predict:
1- in the early moment the universe was contained in  a ''singularity'',
where  the mass was enormous, the volume was zero, the density was infinite.
2 - somehow this ''singularity'' was ''expanded'' to the sizes of a star
3- the gravity-masses of star distorted the absolute ''spacetime'' of the universe.
4 - the quantum particles change their straight way moving  near star's masses.
5 - all billion stars in billion galaxies obey Einstein's ''GRT'' scheme.
6 - all billion and billion galaxies are only about 5% of all mass/energy
in the absolute ''spacetime'' continuum.
======

User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: GRAVITY

Post by Cerveny » Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:27 pm

socrat44 wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:43 am
  GRT - 1915 / my opinion /
===
The basis of modern cosmology is Einstein's GRT
GRT equations predict:
1- in the early moment the universe was contained in  a ''singularity'',
where  the mass was enormous, the volume was zero, the density was infinite.
2 - somehow this ''singularity'' was ''expanded'' to the sizes of a star
3- the gravity-masses of star distorted the absolute ''spacetime'' of the universe.
4 - the quantum particles change their straight way moving  near star's masses.
5 - all billion stars in billion galaxies obey Einstein's ''GRT'' scheme.
6 - all billion and billion galaxies are only about 5% of all mass/energy
in the absolute ''spacetime'' continuum.
======
See other tale, please:
1 - in the early moment the universe was contained in a tiny grain (fetus) of crystallic/ordered 4D space, where its growing/crystallizing from the Future started
2 - certain kinds od defects (vacations, interstitials, some kinds of dislocations...) coming from strain, intersections, torsions... naturally are appearing in regullar structure of crystalised (empty) space - the same as in a growing ice, but 4D, eg
3 - particular defects in regular structure of physical space (elementary particles) act mutual “pressure”, some are attracted, some are repulsed
4 - the growth/crystallization of the History (of Universe) is running at the base of (rather random) quantum interactions (“measurements”), that are fixing/put new time (Planck’s) 3D layers at the 4D History surface
5 - “dirty”/defected (physical) space - the “blender” of “pure space” with addition of “matter” - is constituted into great vortexes (galaxies) flowing from the Future. So we need (instead of GTR) somethink like Navier - Skokes equations...
6 - the mass cannot be separated of the (physical) space, mass is rather “quality” of space

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re: GRAVITY

Post by socrat44 » Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:45 pm

Cerveny wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:27 pm
6 - the mass cannot be separated of the (physical) space, mass is rather “quality” of space
Are you mass in a space or a quality mass of space ?
===

User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: GRAVITY

Post by Cerveny » Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:28 pm

socrat44 wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:45 pm
Cerveny wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:27 pm
6 - the mass cannot be separated of the (physical) space, mass is rather “quality” of space
Are you mass in a space or a quality mass of space ?
===
Only logical interpretation of elementary particles is that they are structural defects in regular structure of physical space. I cannot see any other - they are appearing (and anihilating) in complementary pairs (conservation of certain values in frame of base/parent system), in fixed discrete spectrum. They must come from fixed discrete substrate, from physical space. Their decay is caused by temperature waving of physical space/aether. The more complicated defect, the less stable particle/resonance. Antiparticles are complement defects to particle deffects. Antiparticles are probably gravitationally repulsed each other that may be reasoneble explanation of their lack...

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re: GRAVITY

Post by socrat44 » Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:45 am

Cerveny wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:28 pm
socrat44 wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:45 pm
Cerveny wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:27 pm
6 - the mass cannot be separated of the (physical) space, mass is rather “quality” of space
Are you mass in a space or a quality mass of space ?
===
Only logical interpretation of elementary particles is that they are
structural defects in regular structure of physical space.
I cannot see any other - they are appearing . . . in fixed discrete spectrum.
They must come from fixed discrete substrate, from physical space.
Their decay is caused by temperature waving of physical space/aether.
Mass in a space is an object/subject, quality mass of space is a ghost
#
If you see a cat appears from fog, you don't say '' fog created the cat''
The same with elementary quantum particles.
=====

User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: GRAVITY

Post by Cerveny » Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:54 pm

socrat44 wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:45 am
Cerveny wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:28 pm
socrat44 wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:45 pm

Are you mass in a space or a quality mass of space ?
===
Only logical interpretation of elementary particles is that they are
structural defects in regular structure of physical space.
I cannot see any other - they are appearing . . . in fixed discrete spectrum.
They must come from fixed discrete substrate, from physical space.
Their decay is caused by temperature waving of physical space/aether.
Mass in a space is an object/subject, quality mass of space is a ghost
#
If you see a cat appears from fog, you don't say '' fog created the cat''
The same with elementary quantum particles.
=====
I am afreid that mainstream Physics are not able (even in contour) indicate

- why elementary particles apear only in pairs?
- why elementary particles have only strictly discrete values?
- why is only limited number of type of stable elementary particles (why do not apear a new ones)?
- why there are not enought antiparticles?
- why we are not able to find “dark matter” here?
- why real singularities and unlimities are nonsenses?
- why is not possible to quantize GTR?

Those are main questions that I am trying to compose and solve by pure logic. I believe that my point of view brings, at least indicative, appropriate answers.
Ps: Perhaps might be obvious that the incomprehensible adherence to theory of GTR for many decades does not lead us anywhere:(

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re: GRAVITY

Post by socrat44 » Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:14 pm

@Cerveny . . . You believe . . . .
Somebody said that the belief can move mountains, but only
scientific knowledge moves them at right place.
Wish you success

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re: GRAVITY

Post by socrat44 » Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:23 pm

If everything was started from ''singularity'' then we need
to pay more attention on concept  ''singularity''.
#
''Singularity'' is not only ''a point''.
''Singularity'' is also ''a place''.
''A place'' where  the mass is enormous, the volume is zero,
the density is infinite, and the time is zero.
Somehow  this ''singularity place'' was ''expanded''
Who  ''expanded'' this ''singularity place'' ?
In my opinion, it can be only a Zero point energy.
======

User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: GRAVITY

Post by Cerveny » Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:28 pm

socrat44 wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:14 pm
@Cerveny . . . You believe . . . .
Somebody said that the belief can move mountains, but only
scientific knowledge moves them at right place.
Wish you success
Do not mind, Socrat, enjoy expansion;)
As for science, I am graduate as ingeneer of Physics of solid state, but I am not any don Quixote (to fight GTR:)
ps: At the end I have ended in IT, that does not work without logic...

socrat44
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:20 pm

Re: GRAVITY

Post by socrat44 » Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:40 am

Cerveny wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:28 pm
socrat44 wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:14 pm
@Cerveny . . . You believe . . . .
Somebody said that the belief can move mountains, but only
scientific knowledge moves them at right place.
Wish you success
Do not mind, Socrat, enjoy expansion;)
As for science, I am graduate as ingeneer of Physics of solid state,
but I am not any don Quixote (to fight GTR:)
ps: At the end I have ended in IT, that does not work without logic...
@Cerveny
Now i understand why it is easy for you ( as engineer of Physics of solid state )
to look the world trough '' crystallic '' view. You must believe me,
if i were gynecologist, i would look the world trough woman's womb.
All best.
===

User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: GRAVITY

Post by Cerveny » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:30 pm

I am omitting flipping reply;) but to consider that Universe is discrete, suffice studying of so called “Ultraviolet catastrophe” or realize that for more intensive light we need not “stronger” photons but more photons...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest