Gravity/anti-Gravity

[WebFeet]

Question to anyone out there then is: what is causing the expansion to accelerate if not some form of antigravity, or antigraviton?

 

There is NO accelerated expansion of the Universe, merely space becoming more defined.

 

If Space is granular and those granules sub-divide providing the Universe with greater definition, then each sub-division increases the number of granules and subsequently the amount of space between any two objects. The increase is space, caused by successive sub-divisions, would be exponential giving the illusion of acceleration.

 

IMO.

WebFeet.

[coldcreation]

There is NO accelerated expansion of the Universe, merely space becoming more defined.

 

If Space is granular and those granules sub-divide providing the Universe with greater definition, then each sub-division increases the number of granules and subsequently the amount of space between any two objects. The increase is space, caused by successive sub-divisions, would be exponential giving the illusion of acceleration.

 

IMO.

WebFeet.

 

Hello WebFeet,

 

You wrote "There is NO accelerated expansion of the Universe, merely space becoming more defined."

 

Clearly the concept of cosmological acceleration is outlandish. Lambda, quintessence or anti-gravity all sound artificial: like fudge factors, like resurrections from the dustbin of general relativity, albeit, modified radically.

 

Your theory [assuming it's yours] then stipulates a deviation from a linear redshift coming from distant objects (e.g., supernovae Type IA). Do you explain all rcosmological redshift this way or just the deviation from the Hubble flown (which is a non-accelerated, non-decelerated free-fall inward when clocks are reversed).

 

The hypothesis almost explains how space is created. Flatness appears as a false hope though, like the false vacuum in a free-lunch theory.

 

How does space subdivide itself?

 

Mitosis is a well known biological process of cellular subdivision. How in the theory you describe does space subdivide? Without a more explicit illustration the theory sounds like chimera.

 

Finally, why aren't space "granules" observed in nature?

[Jay-qu]

this topic seems to be giving arrise to more questions than it is answering, its so awesome im glad i found this forum! so what kind of qualifications do people round here hold? any doctors or is this a mainly ammatuer site?

[coldcreation]

this topic seems to be giving arrise to more questions than it is answering, its so awesome im glad i found this forum! so what kind of qualifications do people round here hold? any doctors or is this a mainly ammatuer site?

 

Jay-qu,

You rase a very interesting point. This forum is not about philosophy even though it may have philosophical implications. Gravity/anti-Gravity are indeed topics that fall directly into the field of physics. And so qualifications like skills in mathematics are very important.

 

But as you will discover if you wade through books, notably on cosmology, some profesionals are more qualified than others. Not because they learned more math at Cambridge.

 

A well known observational cosmologist by the name of Halton Arp believes the only hope is for the “more ethical professionals and the more attentive, open-minded non-professionals to combine their efforts to form a more democratic science with better judgment, and slowly transform the subject into an enlightened, more useful activity of society.”

 

Halton Arp believes too that “a painfully honest debate is the only exercise capable of galvanizing meaningful change.” Professional scientists have a responsibility to know about the evidence “that violates proven physics [i.e. their assumptions]” and when they block them out, “it is a clear case of falsifying data for personal advantage—a violation of the primary ethic of science.” Halton Arp testifies: “amateurs have a much better grasp of the realities of astronomy because they really look at the pictures of galaxies and stars. Professionals start out with a theory and only see those details which can be interpreted in terms of that theory.”

 

 

I agree.....................................

 

Excuse the slight deviation from gravity/anti-gravity

 

A.M. coldcreation

[Jay-qu]

well that makes a good point, but its not like a PhD physicist will listen to some yr12 physics student that has more passion and enthusiasm than a sound knowlege base (me...)

[WebFeet]

Hi ColdCreation,

 

Your theory [assuming it's yours] then stipulates a deviation from a linear redshift coming from distant objects (e.g., supernovae Type IA). Do you explain all rcosmological redshift this way or just the deviation from the Hubble flown (which is a non-accelerated, non-decelerated free-fall inward when clocks are reversed).

The concept of granular space is taken from Loop Quantum Gravity which predicts that space-time is quantized or granular. Note that although LQG deals with space-time, I'm only dealing with Space.

 

The granular nature of space can be used to account for the accereration, meaning that there is no need for mythical forces acting within the Universe.

As for redshift, there is nothing that says the galaxies can't be moving away each other, just that maybe their velocity is not based on one event, but the combination of a number of events.

The hypothesis almost explains how space is created.

Wouldn't that be nice ...

 

How does space subdivide itself?

 

Mitosis is a well known biological process of cellular subdivision. How in the theory you describe does space subdivide?

A good question.

Maybe the answer is a Cosmological Mitosis, or to put it another way, increased entropy.

 

Second Law of Thermodynamics

The disorder (or entropy) of an isolated system can only stay the same or increase. Any spontaneous process occurring within the system is accompanied by an increase in entropy.

 

Finally, why aren't space "granules" observed in nature?

Space is the very basis of our Universe, without it where would we live ? Space doesn't just exist beyond our atmosphere, we reside in it.

Our bodies consist mainly of water, but to a greater extent, our bodies are predominately space.

 

Take Planck's constant. The basis for the minium wavelength of light.

Now move closer to the sun where the graviational field has the effect of compressing space.

What is the value of Planck's constant now ? It's the same value.

How can something fit into less space, but still maintain its original size?

 

Maybe the distances between the granules has been reduced.

 

What happens when the distance between the granules has been reduced to zero? You end up with a Single granule - a singularity / blackhole

 

I hope all that makes sense.

WebFeet

[ldsoftwaresteve]

coldcreation, you asked,

what is causing the expansion to accelerate if not some form of antigravity, or antigraviton?

and I missed it. Sorry, I try and read - and comprehend - everything being said in the threads I follow. I'm going to try and give McCutcheon's view as well as I can remember it.

 

The fundamental phenomenon does not obey the physical laws that we observe in our universe. But, all of the laws that we see are generated from that phenomenon - are an effect of that phenomenon. McCutcheon also shows why it is very possible that we may never be able to understand the nature below the nature, what you refer to as 'antigravity or antigraviton'.

 

The acceleration happens because the expansion is compounding, that is, it's relative to the size of the fundamental particle, which gets bigger and bigger. This is the 'unnatural' aspect of the phenomenon.

 

His theory is very scary in at least two respects.

 

First, our concept of expansion pulls in, from our experiential memory, the picture of a balloon getting ready to pop. A natural reaction is to reject this idea because we don't want to 'explode'. I'm serious here. Even though the two are not related, it takes a conscious effort to overcome the gut response - and not everyone is capable of doing that.

 

Second, if expansion is ongoing, how come we don't see it directly? Simply put, we are part of that expansion and all things that we would use as a reference, consciously or unconsciously, are expanding as well. We are blind to it. There is only one perception that we have which could indicate to us that an expansion is taking place: the effect of gravity.

 

So, McCutcheon's theory strikes at the heart of philosophy too in the sense that we really might have a reason to doubt our senses - at least in this one respect. I consider philosophy to be a science which should be dedicated to understanding how we relate to existence. And we relate to existence by measuring it and identifying standards for all things that we perceive. That includes cardinal and ordinal systems of measurement. The rules are the rules of logic.

 

This is all thrown into turmoil because now we must include a constantly changing standard as the standard (that which should not change).

 

Pure mathematicians are revolted by the idea of an ongoing expansion at the atomic level because that means that there is NO SUCH THING as a linear equation in existence. Everything has an acceleration to it. Try and picture what THAT means. It is no wonder why his theory is met with such resistance.

[coldcreation]

Hello ldsoftwaresteve,

 

I don't want to write a critique about a book in this thread about gravity and antigravity. I believe there is another place to write about the book you refer to. I will say though, about that theory of expansion, two things: There is a mechanism in space called the cosmological constant that generates quasi-stable equilibrium orbits on many scales (planetary, galactic, between cluster and superclusters).

 

The universe and atoms are therefore not expanding. This mechanism is not antigravity in that it is not a force opposite to gravity.

 

Any theory that postulates expansion, or creation of space, must explain how it occurs in nature. So far, there exists no text, link, paper, book, logical theory, or natural law that explains the creation of space. Unless of course you buy the kooky energy hypothesis.

 

I agree that gravity still needs to be defined more clearly still than general relativity. Einstein's theory leads to many aberrations when pushed to infinity or to zero. Black holes, big bangs, white voids (the opposite of a black hole).

 

And so restrictions imposed by nature, by empirical evidence, need to be properly define. That is easily taken care of with introducing new, physics, new hypothesis that will never be observed (eg, 'everything expanding' together falls into this category).

 

I'm still waiting for black hole hunters to come up with one catch...

 

It follows that if expansion is not real, then cosmological acceleration is non-operational.

 

Antigravity or antigravitons do not form part of a consistent theory.

 

Parallel universes, multiverse, etc. to date remain science fiction, and so I will not elaborated on this Website.

 

You write ldsoftwaresteve, "we really might have a reason to doubt our senses - at least in this one respect. I consider philosophy to be a science which should be dedicated to understanding how we relate to existence. And we relate to existence by measuring it and identifying standards for all things that we perceive. That includes cardinal and ordinal systems of measurement. The rules are the rules of logic."

 

Very well put.

 

You write too, "now we must include a constantly changing standard as the standard."

 

The empirical evidence shows that there are fundamental constants of nature that do not change with time. The ultimate theory must explain this undeniable fact.

 

The fact that today the cosmological constant is not considered a fundamental constant of nature—the identified physical attributes of which constitute a basic law of nature—is one of the most cavernous missed opportunities of contemporary science.

 

Coldcreation

[ldsoftwaresteve]

coldcreation, thanks for the time it took you to read me.

 

You said,

The empirical evidence shows that there are fundamental constants of nature that do not change with time. The ultimate theory must explain this undeniable fact.

I agree, if McCutcheon is wrong. But if he's right, those constants just represent a constant rate of change. Which to us would appear as zero change. That doesn't make them any less important, just perhaps slightly more understandable.

[Anomalous]

 

http://www.geocities.com/anomalytransformer/Blackhole.GIF

 

Look at the picture carefull, a ray of light is comming shown as red line, it take a turn from near the black hole while green line shows the original path. But there is a problem. The black lines shown as space being bend, light always travels in straight line and hence light should travel along the black line and regain its path direction at the green line. The black lines being bend is the space and any thing inside that space must bend along with it without any structural bending and hence the light should travell through the black line regradless of space is in a bend or not.

[coldcreation]

coldcreation, thanks for the time it took you to read me.

 

...those constants just represent a constant rate of change. Which to us would appear as zero change. That doesn't make them any less important, just perhaps slightly more understandable.

 

Robert Millikanmeasured the electron charge in 1911 (and earned the Nobel Prize for his work in 1923). The charge of an electron is not a fundamental variable that changes with some ficticious expansion at the atomic level. It was a good try, but I wouldn't buy it.

 

 

Anomalous wrote "Look at the picture carefull, a ray of light is comming shown as red line, it take a turn from near the black hole while green line shows the original path. But there is a problem. The black lines shown as space being bend, light always travels in straight line and hence light should travel along the black line and regain its path direction at the green line. The black lines being bend is the space and any thing inside that space must bend along with it without any structural bending and hence the light should travell through the black line regradless of space is in a bend or not."

 

You're observation is a worthy one. There is great confusion with regard to spacetime curvature, even among proffesionals, espacially because it is hard to visualize a 4-D curvature in reduced dimensikon, let alone in full.

 

Recall though that the process you discuss is called the deflection of light. I would study that word more carefully. It will provide the clue to the true nature of Einstein's Gravity.

 

Space is not stretched, it is compressed. I repeat, gravity is a compressed spacetime phenomenon. The field is an extension of ther massive body. The stretched spacetime view is deceptive because it implies, as you point out, that light does not travel in straight (geodesic) lines according to your illustration.

 

Coldcreation

[WebFeet]

Recall though that the process you discuss is called the deflection of light. I would study that word more carefully. It will provide the clue to the true nature of Einstein's Gravity.

The change of direction of light with respect to gravitational fields can be explained in terms of the curvature of spacetime, or the straight forward refraction of light caused by a polarized vacuum. Both theories give the same results, although the polarized vacuum method does rely on more tangible evidence.

[coldcreation]

The change of direction of light with respect to gravitational fields can be explained in terms of the curvature of spacetime, or the straight forward refraction of light caused by a polarized vacuum. Both theories give the same results, although the polarized vacuum method does rely on more tangible evidence.

 

Polarization of the vacuum is not responsible for the deflection of light from a distant star when it grazes the sun during a solar eclipse. Recall that this observation brought Einstein to fame . It was a prediction of the general postulate of relativity due to the curvature of space, gravity.

 

Polarization is indeed an interesting property of the vacuum. WebFeet, you should start a thread about the vacuum...

[LaurieAG]

There are some other interesting experimental possibilities.

 

You could test it in a wave lab with a vortex. The pattern of diffraction would be expected to be distorted in the direction of the spin of the vortex as the wave passes away.

 

This isn't exactly an example of a 'gravity wave' as such but a pattern that shows how polarised light could be distorted by gravitational anomalies that compress and twist photons flowing through space.

 

Alternately, if the vortex is experimentally represented as a dense thickening of the medium, the diffraction wave pattern would appear very similar to that of a plain obstacle regardless of whether the vortex was spinning or not.

[arkain101]

I thought that dent in a graph was only a topology geometric representation of gravity.

 

Where a 3 dimensional view of gravity curve is more like a funnel that comes from all directions all as one and is hard to visually imagine.

 

One visual model that I found can be imagined is that of a density orb around a body of mass.

 

The orb would be represented as black at the futherst weakest part of the gravity curve and would transition from black to grey, and finally to white where the strongest part of the gravity field is located with a transparent shading of this orb.

 

When you take this orb model you can transform it into a dent with topology 2d(?) geometry.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Hey ColdCreation, I appreciate your comments. Thanks. You are very persuasive when you are polite.

 

By the way, have you started a thread on the cosmological constant?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I've been reading and rereading the posts on this thread.

I do have an agenda. I wouldn't be here if I didn't. My agenda is simple: to get folks to just consider how expansion could explain all of the effects/phenomena that are being discussed. The importance of the expansion theory comes from the very real possibility that if it's correct, many things that are being discussed are blind alleys because they simply cannot happen.

The phenomena of light 'bending' as it passes a star is real. The only question is if we truly comprehend what it is we see happening.

Expansion can explain the bending as a simple geometric effect. McCutcheon's theory says that light is made up of particles. Standard theory says that light behaves like a particle and like a wave. If the tiniest particles are expanding and if that expansion is responsible for all of the physical properties that we've identified (including the effect of gravity), then to go back in time (or to achieve anti-gravity) would mean reducing the size of all particles. But there is the strong possibility that if we could do that we'd literally change the nature of reality. Things wouldn't behave as they do now. And that means that we couldn't predict what the consequences would be.

That means that we can't reverse the effect of gravity. On the bright side, we'd at least know where to focus our efforts to achieve the same result.

 

Isn't it possible that the experiments that conclude light is not just a particle but also a wave do not consider the possibility of expansion and how that might affect the results?

 

I don't know if McCutcheon's theory is correct. But it bothers me that if it is, an awful lot of mental effort is being spent on blind alleys. And also, it would mean we're overlooking some very real consequences. It would seem to me that we should push to have an answer, once and for all - and that won't happen until enough people think it's a possibility.

 

So that's my agenda.

I just want to know, one way or another.

McCutcheon to me is not a religious icon. If it turns out that he is correct, no doubt he will become one. But not to me. I only worship the search for truth and life.

 

That's just a common man's opinion and I hope I haven't offended anyone.