The irony is this"expansion" is intergalactic, balancing the galactic gravitational contraction of gravity and thus is Einstein's cosmological constant, resulting in an overall flat space, as is observed. All the math is already there, but the herd belief simply overrides logic.
Regards,
John M
Georgina,
Consider that what is apparent, is a second or third order effect of real physical space-time-energy dynamicism. GR is not like dropping a pebble into a bird bath, the rubber sheet illustration is actually backwards and you can see that on any pool table in any towny bar in the States. Imagine the curvature of spacetime being necessary because the mass is already present and space through time must be conserved. Its a chicken and egg salad sandwich to ask which comes first (?): time, space or energy. I think the question of observational extrapolation of inflationary expansion of intergalactic durational distances, calls into question whether what we are truly observing is a timeline across the vastness which places our own point of observing on a slope of a standing gravitational warp and sees across a trough to the distant past through a crest of an earlier position of warpage. The search for 'gravitons' and 'gravitational waves' has assumed that because the translation of gravitational effect is deemed to propagate at light velocity, that a 'wave' of that effect would itself also physically travel at light velocity. Here we go back to Bohm's pilot wave concept. The warp piles up because it lags behind light velocity potential.
I'll go back to my hibernation now. Happy Holidays, All. jrc
Georgina and John M,
Thanks for your comments.
Dieu Le
I submitted a proposal of new general system theory, dealing with first istant of universe, its form and on nature of energy: it's a brief and simple script, http://viXra.org/abs/1501.0093
about time: it is information (energy) and it continuously 'flows' from the singularity of the origin (big bang), (that is out of the system but communicate with it) to the black hole at the end of timelines (another singularity with no spacetime
infinity exists, but it is possible only in a situation of pure energy, with no spacetime; infinity is out of the system
As I have said before, the big bang theory is bunk.
I have proponed the genesis formula since the early 90s and in my year 2000 book. And the new book is out. The eBook is also available at www.kinematicrelativity.com. And there are pages there about my own theory of kinematic relativity.
Hawking himself is now into the idea of cosmic creation because of gravity. But he has not shown us the genesis formula.
Brans-Dicke, Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar, and others came so close to it. But they where hampered by Einstein's space-time transformations idea.
The genesis formula is as simple as Einstein's E=mc2. But its intepretation presents the more comprehensive ramifications.
The genesis formula has two requisites in order for it to work. The requisites suggest a necessarily infinite cosmos in both time and space. The genesis formula accounts for the observed CMB, the foreground mass formation and the observed cosmic expansion.
The genesis formula debunks the idea of creation from nothing. It shows creation out of the infinite kinematic field implied by the requisites. And it allows the most convincing explanation regarding the nature and origin of gravity.
I'd discuss my ideas here. But typing is such a strain. I have a bit in my essay. But I have a lot at my website if you are really the intellectually inclined. Also, it would be nice if you buy the eBook or donate. It would help a lot.
P.S. I was hoping FQXi could help in advancing the foundational ideas of an armchair cosmologist/physicist. That has not happened for me yet. I doubt if the FQXi people really take a look at what we have. Perhaps this time around they will or, at least, perhaps they'll take a look at my work also.
Revising The Newton's Laws of Motion
While revisiting Newton laws of motion, especially the First one --"When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force "(W) - I was bothered by this question:
What makes objects REMAIN AT REST? And how is it done? Or more specific: What creates Inertia, the resistance force of any physical object to any change in its state of motion?
Is there any answer out there that I should know?
After having posted this question on Theoretical Physics group, APS and FQXi community's fora, I received no responses indicating that a serious answer exists meaning it's safe now to say that my research's results do not repeat something already existed or "discovering the discovered".
So, here's the report of my investigation:
(See attachment)Attachment #1: Revising_The_Newton.doc
Correction: The language of Newton's Third Law that I proposed is not quite accurate. The following paragraph has been added:
Actually, to be precise, the 3rd Law should read: "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously reflects it back with a reaction power that varies by its kinetic (if any), shape, size, weight, and "made-of" material of both parties."
A professor's story about his students' reaction when first encountering Newton's Third Law touched me and inspired me to keep on fighting for the truth.
He wrote: "During 1st and 2nd years of graduate school, grad students were required to spend a few hours per week in a large conference room to supply tutorial help for undergraduate students... the biggest issue by far was Newton's 3rd law. The most common question was "If the force and reaction force are equal and opposite, then how can there be any motion if the net force is always zero?"
This legit question and many others that came from the kids shouldn't be ignored. And "feeling the resistant power while pushing the chair" has never been a good enough answer (No doubt that "actions ask for re-actions" but always with equally re-acting force?)
The students do not only think intuitively, but also base their judgments on the knowledge and experiences that three hundred years ago, Newton never had. They have known about the life saving function of airbags, witnessed stuntmen safely landing on a huge pile of empty cardboard boxes after falling from the top of a building. Many had seen with their own eyes the event at the junkyard in which old cars being pressed into metal blocks without any chance to fight back the oppressing force with "equal reacting power". And they know that a bullet-proof vest (with special made-of material) can stop a bullet.
I wish that he and all the teachers, scientists, physicists in the world when confronted by these intelligent, curious children would stop and ask themselves: "HOW, WHERE and WHEN does the phenomenon of "the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal" can insert itself into that solid chain of events that turned an old car into a small block of metal, or bullet - meeting no body armor - easily proceeded through human body.
And: "Let's assume it's true that at the moment of impact 'the force acting on each other is exactly the same'... How long would this phenomenon last? Is it long enough for the airbag to collapse the driver's chest and the empty cardboard boxes to smash the stuntman's body?"
With these questions in mind, they will recognize that Newton's 3rd Law is impractical from a physical point of view, to say the least. And they would desist from forcing their students to laboriously swallow the defected product that was fabricated over three centuries ago.
Dear Dieu,
"A professor's story about his students' reaction when first encountering Newton's Third Law touched me and inspired me to keep on fighting for the truth.
He wrote: "During 1st and 2nd years of graduate school, grad students were required to spend a few hours per week in a large conference room to supply tutorial help for undergraduate students... the biggest issue by far was Newton's 3rd law. The most common question was "If the force and reaction force are equal and opposite, then how can there be any motion if the net force is always zero?"
This legit question and many others..."
The undergraduate students were showing confusion about when Newton's Second, and Third Laws apply. I am sure the grad students explained the differences clearly. The Third Law and the Second Law can apply simultaneously for the same overall action although at different physical points. An example is when one pulls horizontally on a rope that is attached to a block that is sliding horizontally. If the block is increasing its speed, then both the Second and Third Laws apply. One needs to know where in the example each applies.
James Putnam
Dear James,
Please explain to me where the Newton's Third Laws applies in the two examples:
airbags and empty cardboard boxes.
Dieu Le
Dear James,
Since you're already there, in a teaching position, would you please answer this question:
"HOW, WHERE and WHEN does the phenomenon of 'the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal' can insert itself into that solid chain of events that turned an old car into a small block of metal, or bullet - meeting no body armor - easily proceeded through human body?"
I believe all the undergraduate students in the world who are confused by Newton's Law would be grateful for your clear explanation.
Dieu Le
Dear Dieu,
I read both of your messages. There will be nothing more coming.
James Putnam
Dear James,
Understood. Many thanks for paying attention, and spending time to read my posts.
Dieu Le
HOW GRAVITY READS WEIGHT
How does gravity recognize that a steel ball is heavier than a same size aluminum ball?
After discovering what produces an object's inertia, solving a big mystery of the century, (and having a modest victory lap,) I continued on, searching for an answer to the above question - "Never stop questioning" as Einstein advised.
A correct answer would reveal many more understandings about the operation and structure of the Universe.
Please review the updated version of "Revising the Newton's Laws of motion" at:
http://www.einsteinerrs.com/newtons-laws.html
or this attachmentAttachment #1: Revising_The_Newton-A.pdf
Why do two balls with the same size but different masses falling from the same height have the same acceleration (in the absence of air resistance)?
We experienced that these two balls (one heavier than the other) arrived to the ground at the same time as they would have the same weight. How does this happen? What is the reason behind this mysterious phenomenon?
Professor Viktoria Nyamadi, while participating in the search for an answer to my question: "How does Gravity read weight?" came up with the above question.
I hope someone out there already has a physically sound answer.
Note to FQXi
Call to reason (analogous to "call to arms")
Information is not something out there, existing in the universe. Information is something you form in your mind.
Therefore, no information could leak out of a black hole. Only some physical fact could leak out, but I don't know if that happens (that is up to you to determine).
Complexity is the same thing. The only complexity exists in our minds (because we are so stooopet - which is how one of my daughters spelled it some years ago).
So what I want you to realize is that there is no such thing as information (or complexity). We will never achieve AI. There is no such thing as entanglement (you will have to figure out something else to explain the correlations).
And for our ontologists, I have this to say. Existence has no attributes. You cannot say that because of this and this something exists. We perceive attributes of things, but we do not perceive their "existence." I am only writing this for the best and the brightest of you. We perceive the characteristics of things, but never their existence.
Our sun will not expire for some time yet, and we can stumble to our greater understanding.
I could tell you more, but for now it might be enough.
En
Oh, I forgot something,
You cannot have reverse-time causality, nor the universe splitting into many. Just forget about those things.
Are we so daft?
You can figure it out. Just go back to where we went off with QM. We went off the rails. I cannot do it, but you can.
I should not say this (and my wife would advise me against this), but I cannot share certain things with you because you cannot handle them.
En
Gravity does not read weight! Weight is mass acted upon by gravity causing a measurable output on a weighing device that can be thought of as the force acting on the body due to gravity.
There is an Einsteinian and a Newtonian explanation of gravity -take your pick.
Einsteinian: Gravity is not recognizing the objects, treating them differently or actively doing anything, the objects are just obeying Newton's first Law as best they can. The Objects are in free fall, just following the curvature of space-time, (I would like to call that space imagined over time to be consistent with my own explanatory framework).
From the reference frame of the falling object and an accelerometer of same mass falling with it it has no (proper)acceleration BUT that is an apparent acceleration when not viewed from the reference frame of the falling object itself. Gravity is, using Eisenstein's reasoning, a pseudo force.
However if you wish to consider it a force, thinking like Newton, it acts with 1G on each mass giving enough force for both to accelerate so that they fall at the same rate. Assuming both have even mass distribution and same shape,as these factors could affect the outcome. F=MG but a small mass will accelerate more easily than a larger mass so it doesn't matter that the force is smaller for the small mass and larger for the large mass.Once again Gravity is not recognizing the objects or treating them differently.
Both explanations are well known to mainstream physics. Sometimes the first explanation will be most useful for the problem being tackled and sometimes the second.It isn't that one is right and the other wrong but they are different ways of considering the phenomenon. The first does not regard gravity as a force and there is no proper acceleration in the second it is regarded as a force causing the (perceived) acceleration.
Anonymous replied on May. 11, 2015 @ 22:15 GMT That was me, Georgina
HOW GRAVITY READS MATTER'S DENSITY
AND CREATES WEIGHT
Here's my answer to the question:
"How does gravity read weight? How does it recognize that a steel ball is heavier than an aluminum ball with the same size?"
http://www.einsteinerrs.com/creating-weight.html
or see the attachment.