Don't quite understand how gravity affects space/time

[IDMclean]

In GR, gravity field is done away with.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

In GR, gravity field is done away with.

And replaced with a warped space-time trampoline. How does it get warped?

 

McCutcheon's expansion makes more sense.

[Erasmus00]

And replaced with a warped space-time trampoline. How does it get warped?

 

McCutcheon's expansion makes more sense.

 

Only at first glance. As some have commented in the thread in the books forum, McCutcheon's theory is difficult, perhaps impossible, to rectify with experiment. Perhaps threads to discuss McCutcheon's ideas should be started in the strange claims forum, as it is far from standard physics.

-Will

[IDMclean]

Spacetime is warped by Charged mass, or simply by energy, because as I've explianed in the past, all mass has charge and all energy has charge.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

KickAssClown:

Spacetime is warped by Charged mass, or simply by energy, because as I've explianed in the past, all mass has charge and all energy has charge.

Warped by charged mass. Hmm. So, let me get this straight, space and time get bent by a charged mass. What kind of charge and relative to what? Ionic charge? As in an extra or lack of an electron? But we don't really even know if a thing called an electron exists. Something does which has some properties that we attribute to an 'electron' and you're saying that when we have more or less of these things space and time or spacetime gets warped. That, to me sounds strange. Standard theory should be in the strange claims forum.

And what property of space (nothing) gets bent? Or is it just time? But we have an argument right now if time is even a measurable entity or not. Space is nothing. But time, possibly not even a measurable entity, gets bent.

You'll need to 'explain' it better I guess.

[IDMclean]

No Simply charge... It is a mainstay of GR that energy is the result of Electromagnetic Fields. Not Electron, photon. Time is a function of distance. When you reduce the distance something has to travel you reduce the time it takes for it to get to it's destination. Space is distance. Distances gets bent.

 

A photon travels along a straight path, space curves and energy follows the curve.

[infamous]

Only at first glance. As some have commented in the thread in the books forum, McCutcheon's theory is difficult, perhaps impossible, to rectify with experiment.

I was giving this possibility some thought the other day and it occured to me that if we could drill a hole in the Earth's crust sufficiently deep enough, we might be able to test his theory. I'll explain: According to his theory, gravity is the result of material expansion and not the attractive force we commonly undersand it to be. If this is true, an object dropped down a deep hole in the Earth's crust will accelerate at 32 ft/sec/sec initially. As it falls deeper, the expansion of the surrounding material will slow down. If the object were allowed to proceed to the center of the Earth, if would come to rest at the center. This is not the same result we would experience using standard gravitational theory. According to standard theory, the object would attain enough velocity to pass through the center. This experiment can ofcourse, never be realized by drilling a hole that deep. However, the rate of velocity can be measured and the difference between the two opposing theories calculated by dropping an object down a deep enough hole in the Earth's crust. Just how deep the hole must be drilled to obtain enough data to accurately determine this difference I'm not enough of a Physicist to say. At any rate, if we were serious enough about finding the answer, I believe this experiment would bear enough information to settle the question.............Infy

[arkain101]

Charge is not even a difinitive term. Many things are not defined whole heartedly.

 

I am beginning to believe nuclear forces and charge has to do with an energy balance.

 

Alike thermodynamics, particle charge is explained in here as a disipation or absorbtion of energy of particular forms. One including kinetic.

 

Some things want to take energy, and some want to give away energy. Those that want to take, take from those who can and want to give. This attracts. Those that want to give, that contact others that want to give repell.

The magnetic field of 'force' in these thoughts is a form of light energy traveling in compacted frequency (meaning as good as zero wavelength, and zero frequency-the stage beyond gamma radiation-). It has significant energy on individual particles but can apply a force.

[arkain101]

I was giving this possibility some thought the other day and it occured to me that if we could drill a hole in the Earth's crust sufficiently deep enough, we might be able to test his theory. I'll explain: According to his theory, gravity is the result of material expansion and not the attractive force we commonly undersand it to be. If this is true, an object dropped down a deep hole in the Earth's crust will accelerate at 32 ft/sec/sec initially. As it falls deeper, the expansion of the surrounding material will slow down. If the object were allowed to proceed to the center of the Earth, if would come to rest at the center. This is not the same result we would experience using standard gravitational theory. According to standard theory, the object would attain enough velocity to pass through the center. This experiment can ofcourse, never be realized by drilling a hole that deep. However, the rate of velocity can be measured and the difference between the two opposing theories calculated by dropping an object down a deep enough hole in the Earth's crust. Just how deep the hole must be drilled to obtain enough data to accurately determine this difference I'm not enough of a Physicist to say. At any rate, if we were serious enough about finding the answer, I believe this experiment would bear enough information to settle the question.............Infy

 

Could we not just make a very tall vacume to drop an object through? This would be similar in detail and easier to accomplish. Gravity is already shown to differentiate at different distances. Though, Im not sure I get exactly what your experiment suggests if it can not (and it cant) reach the center area of the earth. (the pressure is just too much even if we could drill that deep.)

[infamous]

Though, Im not sure I get exactly what your experiment suggests if it can not (and it cant) reach the center area of the earth. (the pressure is just too much even if we could drill that deep.)

I'm not suggesting we drill clear through to the center of the earth, this ofcourse is an impossibility. What I'm suggesting is a hole as deep as we can with present technology. We could then interpolate the difference in observed velocity compared to what we would expect it to be under present theory against McCutcheon's theory. You see, McCutcheon explains gravity as the ever expanding acceleration of matter. From his understanding, an object is not really falling, it is the earth expanding out against the object causing the illusion that it is falling.

 

Hypothetical #1: If we could drill a hole clear through the earth, and ofcourse not have to deal with the molten interior, we could then observer the physics of an object dropped into this hole.

Hypothetical #2: We would then need to figure into the math the friction of air within the hole and also make sure the object did not rub against the side of said hole causing other frictional losses.

Hypothetical #3: Figuring into this would also be the presumed gravitational attraction of the material earth above the object as it fell into the hole.

 

Under present theory, the object would reach enough velocity to pass through the center of the earth and travel up the other side some distance before it reversed direction and again falls toward the center.

 

Under McCutcheon's theory, because the object is not really falling, it will never reach the center because the expansion of the material earth will be slowing down the closer the object comes to the center.

 

Now that we can see the difference in both models, using this very deep hole I have already discribed, we should be able to interpolate the difference in apparent velocity depending upon which model is really responsible for the gravitational effect. If present gravitational theory is correct, there will be a higher value and if McCutcheon is right, the apparent velocity should be less...............Infy

[arkain101]

Thanks. I understand what you mean now.

 

I follow your concept and it would be interesting to find out!

Although there is probably a more realistic way to go about performing such an experiment. I am not sure exactly at the moment what it would be.. but since I am in the drilling industry I would have to say this wouldnt be the best way to test.

 

I agree that gravity is not a force. It can actually be proven it is not a force. It is a result from a relation ship between things like einstien seems to have explained it.

 

I wont get into my ideas and points on gravity... but I can understand where McCutcheon is coming from in his theoretical model to describe it as a motion not seen from our dimensional perspective.

[infamous]

Thanks. I understand what you mean now.

 

I follow your concept and it would be interesting to find out!

Although there is probably a more realistic way to go about performing such an experiment. I am not sure exactly at the moment what it would be.. but since I am in the drilling industry I would have to say this wouldnt be the best way to test.

 

Maybe we could drill a hole in an asteroid, if it were large enough maybe we could gather enough information from such an experiment to determine the truth..........................Infy

[Erasmus00]

To infamous:

 

I propose an even simpler experiment. According to McCutcheon's theory, gravity is the result of expansion. Now, no matter how far away two objects move, the expansion of the surfaces is the same hence the 'force' is the same.

 

If we make detailed measurements of force we should quickly discover whether or not gravity follows an inverse square law or a constant force.

 

Luckily, we don't actually have to do the experiment as these fine people: http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/ have done it for us. (notice the link on the search for deviations from inverse square). Notice that gravity does indeed follow an inverse square.

 

Another way to test would be to look at various celestial bodies as they orbit the sun. By making a study of the shape of their orbit/distance from the sun/relative velocity to the sun we can discern some properties of the force pulling on them. Luckily, we don't have to do this either as Newton did it for us. Newton showed mathematically (and now any analytical mechanics text will) that an inverse square law results in the observed conic section orbits. A constant force will not. (For anyone interested in the mathematics, let me know and I'll see about using the latex feature to type some stuff out.)

-Will

[infamous]

To infamous:

 

I propose an even simpler experiment. According to McCutcheon's theory, gravity is the result of expansion. Now, no matter how far away two objects move, the expansion of the surfaces is the same hence the 'force' is the same.

 

If we make detailed measurements of force we should quickly discover whether or not gravity follows an inverse square law or a constant force.

 

Luckily, we don't actually have to do the experiment as these fine people: http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/ have done it for us. (notice the link on the search for deviations from inverse square). Notice that gravity does indeed follow an inverse square.

 

Another way to test would be to look at various celestial bodies as they orbit the sun. By making a study of the shape of their orbit/distance from the sun/relative velocity to the sun we can discern some properties of the force pulling on them. Luckily, we don't have to do this either as Newton did it for us. Newton showed mathematically (and now any analytical mechanics text will) that an inverse square law results in the observed conic section orbits. A constant force will not. (For anyone interested in the mathematics, let me know and I'll see about using the latex feature to type some stuff out.)

-Will

Thanks for the informative link Erasmus00, I'll be giving it a good deal of my attention. I'm a little weak in the math department so I may need some future help from you regarding the study of this material.............Infy

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Infamous:

I was giving this possibility some thought the other day and it occured to me that if we could drill a hole in the Earth's crust sufficiently deep enough, we might be able to test his theory.

Thanks for having an open mind Infy. I'm very impressed with what you propose because it is one of the mind experiments covered in McCutcheon's book and also in the thread on the book. There's even math to support what you say. The thread is enormous but the math is discussed by BeagleWorth, myself and others in the thread. I am honestly impressed with what you've done. I would not have been able to come up with it on my own.

[HIENVN]

I've seen a million times the example of a ball on the trampoline and how it deflects the fabric of space. I understand this perfectly, but only because it is happening in an environment with gravity: ie. the ball "falls" into the fabric, stretching it. But what happens when there is no source of gravity (besides the ball)? The ball "falling" doesn't make sense. Also, there must be more than one deflection or dimple in the fabric of space/time because orbiting objects do not need to follow the same plane - so basically there are an infinite amount of deflections at all angles. When I try to imagine this I picture a sphere surrounding the ball which doesn't make sense either.

 

Here is a related question: If the fabric of space/time deflects like a ball on a trampoline, then if you were to shine a light directly towards the center of the ball, won't the light curve towards the edge of the ball as it enters the deflection?

 

Einstein proposed curve Space/time to describe a special manner of gravitational waves, which is a cause of gravity. Scientists will clearly understand curve Space/time if they discover gravitational waves in the future.