SyntaxVorlon said:
However, I believe that the laws of conservation fail to explain the Big Bang and Black holes. And as I have pointed out, it’s much too difficult to have gravity as the agent for the expansion and contraction of space-time.
[quote:460d2] Can you give some credence to this? The Laws of conservation do fine when applied to the Big Bang and Black Holes up to the point at which we are able to test. Gravity is not given the position of the agent of expansion at all, I don't see how you could have come to this conclusion. The culprit for this is as yet unknown, but it is suspected that Dark Energy is what drives spacial expansion, though this is a very bleeding edge part of cosmology so little is known.
It must be so, that the greatest advances in science were because someone overcame some sort of anomaly. The best example is Einstein and the Michelson-Morley experiment. It seems to me that our modern science is cluttered with left-over anomalies.
Scientist today are smarter and much better equipped than ever before!
I don’t understand why these very bright folks and their magnificent machines are stuck under the thumb of ........ what-who?
It’s my hope that maybe, my wild ideas and questions could be an inspiration for someone.
In Chapter 10 of Brian Greene’s book “The Fabric Of The Cosmosâ€Â; I read that Einstein showed mathematically that “pressure†could reverse gravity and changed the 200 year old idea that gravity was only an attractive force. And some scientist believe today that it was reverse gravity (in a very short moment) that reversed itself and expanded the universe shortly after it began.
The anomaly of gravity is that two or more objects accelerate toward each other without overcoming inertia or any expenditure of energy.
The anomaly of the graviton is that it requires every atom to be touching gravitons from every other atom in the universe.
With the Planck volume as the smallest division of space, where does the additional material (Plank volumes) come from when spacetime expands? And, What happens to them when space contracts?
Since gravity propagates at Lightspeed, how can black holes have a gravitational field?
Gravity is not very well understood in many ways, its affects are easy to study, just jump, but at a quantum level it is very hard to get a handle on. The reason that gravity does not expend energy is because a great deal of energy was expended to bring objects apart, all things in the universe still have that initial kinetic push from the big bang that started everything going and that led to the universe having bits of itself not touch.
Kinetic energy is usually associated with gravity ..... it seems like the explanation is using gravity to explain gravity. ???
[/quote:460d2] The way you can think of this, and I realize this is a bit backward, is to imagine all things in the universe as a bunch of sand grains. The big bang was everything in the universe, a great pillar of sand, being pushed up to the top of a craggy mountain full of little niches. At the top they have a great deal of potential and at the bottom the sand can go no further down, at which point everything in the universe would be superimposed on itself. As sand falls down the mountain it comes closer together, but sometimes gets stuck in little craggy valleys where it is hard to get out. In this state the parts of the universe are held apart by another force or the fact that they don't have enough kinetic energy to get out of the potential well. So the Earth Sun system, is one where the Earth is basically stuck out forever falling sideways at the Sun. Always having enough energy to go around but never so much to fly away or so little to fall in. This is also why hydrogen doesn't automatically fuse into helium, but requires a great deal of heat and pressure to overcome electrical repulsion, but once it does, it is in so much lower an energy state that it is virtually impossible to pry apart. [/quote]
An interesting analogy. I think I see your point. That the big bang pushed everything out, and now it’s all coming back and it’s called gravity?
As for the Planck volume, such a concept is non-existent in physics. Quantization refers to energy, not space, or even time. Planck time is simply the shortest amount of time in which a change can occur. Spacetime is elastic, it can stretch and it can shrink.
There are plank lengths and plank squares, the smallest possible dimensions. There are no fractions.
“Once again, this is a strong theoretical clue that space, like electrons, comes in discrete, indivisible chunks.†Brian Greene (The Fabric of the Cosmos) pg. 491
Space is granular! And cannot be elastic.
Something must be added for it to expand. Something must be removed for it to shrink. Like a pile of sand or a bar of concrete, it cannot bend.
But if the effect of gravity was space flowing into an object, an object would make a curved path, like a boat crossing a river current. Einstein’s equations would still hold!
This occurs observably, in fact just google image search: Gravity Lensing. You will see examples of the image of a far galaxy being altered or multiplied by a near galaxy's gravitational field. This is because the straight lines of spacetime along which photons propogate have been bent. This could also compress or expand the space around. This compression is what keeps objects within galaxies and galaxy clusters from being expanded by the expansion of space on large scales.
The lensing effect would still hold if gravity was space shrinking.
As far as gravity in a Black Hole is concerned, gravity is not light. It bends space time and as a result the affect of gravity is felt by objects around it. This is actually where relativity changed the way we understand gravity.
The affect itself must propagate at the speed of light, as you point out below, that the gravitons is a particle and a wave.
Gravitons, and gravity is not like light. All of space time is compressed by all matter and energy, it is changes in the positions of matter and energy that propagates at the speed of light. The graviton is the field particle that represents this and a particle is also a wave, a graviton is a ripple in the sheet of time and space.
For there to be such things as gravitons; all the bits of matter in my body would have gravitons from little bits from every star in the universe and they would of had to be associated with those bits from the beginning.
It may not be a scientific critique, but it’s just too doggone cumbersome.
The reason we consider space and time to be one in the same is because propagation must occur at light speed. So we put together what is called the four vector [x, y, z, ct]. x, y, and z are the normal spatial coordinates, where ct is the coordinate of time, transformed into a distance by the speed of light.(Speed times time = distance) The way it works is that far objects are removed from us both temporally and spatially. So when you shine a light at Mars, which is at rest for some reason with respect to earth, the light does not strike Mars at the same time, it must cross that distance, which takes an amount of time.
The way I understand it, is that space is dimensional (static) and the time-flow is dynamic. Almost comparable to matter and energy.
What if the C in the Einstein equation were converted into pure speed, distance over time d/t ? So that the d represents length or space and the t is just time. Then solve for t.
Could it actually be that matter and energy and even space itself is an expression of time???
In my hypophysis this is true; so that the time-flow then, MUST be converted into mass, energy or dimension.
All that talk of converting Planck seconds to Planck volumes seems nearly nonsensical to me. Sorry to say it that way, but it sounds like jargon strung together. You seem to have made an attempt at understanding modern physics, but I don't think you've got it. I barely understand relativity, but then it's one of the hardest bits of theory to learn.
You are very gracious; it is noted and appreaciated, thank-you!
It seems like nonsense because the ideas are based on a set of assumptions that may not be acceptable, even if you were aware of them.
Relativity is a little easier to understand if the internal image is changed. A person has to get rid of the idea that the universe is a huge sphere full of little lights or a big rubber balloon with spots.
“A beam of light will return to the point of origin.†Einstein
Imagine a model universe that’s only 10 seconds across and only has one object, a flashlight.
Experiment 1:
Have the flashlight point left and turn it on. 10 seconds later the image of the back of a flashlight appears to the extreme left while at the same moment the back of our flashlight is illuminated. Looking to the extreme right, we can see the front of a flashlight.
Experiment 2:
Repeat experiment 1, After putting on “super-eye-sight†glasses that enable you to see faster than light. As the beam proceeds to the left we see a beam proceeding from the extreme right, progressing at the same speed.
Speculation; all the objects seen are the same object separated by time. Each is a center, there is no outside edge.
Experiment 3:
Shine the light in a multitude of directions.
Experiment 4:
Run the experiment 1, for 30 seconds, allowing the beam of light to traverse the model universe 3 times.
Experiment 5:
Replace the flashlight with a lightbulb.
Note: moving the light to any other place in the model universe will have exactly the same results.
