Notices
Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: Missing the concept all together. New Guy here. thoughts on

  1. #1 Missing the concept all together. New Guy here. thoughts on 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Gravity.

    I think we have gravity all wrong. I think Einstine had it mostly wrong.

    What if the thing we don't see is that partical wave interaction is the cuase for the force we call gravity.

    Space must have mass of some sort becuase we have reaction at a distance. So ergo some medium must transport this matter interaction for the effects of gravity to be viable.


    Thoughts ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I think it would be worthwhile for you to ask yourself these questions.

    What are the chances that an idea conceived by a mind as brilliant as Einstein's, affirmed by hundreds of minds as, or almost as, brilliant, and validated to many decimal places by thousands of diverse experiments, is wrong in some significant way? What is the probability that any individual, lacking - as I suspect you do - a post graduate degree in a relevant field of physics and probably unable to deliver a series of lectures on the current views on gravity, would come up with the flaw in those current views and a viable alternative hypothesis?

    There will be those reading the foregoing who will say, 'That's a bit harsh. The guys is at least using his imagination.'

    I applaud your use of your imagination. I admire the desire to question established order. I respect your wish to better understand the world around you. However, I urge you to obtain a better grounding in the fundamentals before launching into the realm of alternative hypothesis formation.

    And welcome to the forum. :wink:


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Its been over 70 years since general relativity and special relativity were published. Yet we still can't figure out what cuases gravity. We can;t even prove those thoerys and yet we have spent billions and had the best minds looking at the problem.

    I am working on the matmatical end of the problem and I am certianly using alot less imangination then the string theorists.

    What if most all of the forces we obsevre in nature are simpyl particle interaction ?

    the nuclear forces, the EM forces and gravity.

    Why would this be so hard to belive ?

    It also makes sense if you progress forward from this idea to building larger items like atoms and it removes many problems with quantum mechanics.

    It puts the order back into the universe.

    There is no Boson Higgs. We have been looking for 20+ years and no dice. It simply doesn;t exist. We might not even have as many particles as we think we do in the standard model if you look objectively at the data that as we add more energy we get more particles. This suggest we aren;t getting more particle but the same particle as higher energys.

    There is simply particle interaction and it most likely occurs at speeds beyond the speed of light in a pattern resembling molecular motion interactions. You can make a case for how this would "Glue " things together.

    Dark matter is most likely the gaint particle field that is space. Space must have mass becuase light would travel instantenously if something was not acting as a medium to slow it down.

    If we combine the ideas of wave and particle physics the illumination on the problem begins to open itself up.

    We simply cannot merge the 2 seperate ideas of quantum mechanics with the rest of the observable universe.

    this would be a problem and I am suggesting what might be a real solution.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I think it would be worthwhile for you to ask yourself these questions.

    What are the chances that an idea conceived by a mind as brilliant as Einstein's, affirmed by hundreds of minds as, or almost as, brilliant, and validated to many decimal places by thousands of diverse experiments, is wrong in some significant way? What is the probability that any individual, lacking - as I suspect you do - a post graduate degree in a relevant field of physics and probably unable to deliver a series of lectures on the current views on gravity, would come up with the flaw in those current views and a viable alternative hypothesis?

    There will be those reading the foregoing who will say, 'That's a bit harsh. The guys is at least using his imagination.'

    I applaud your use of your imagination. I admire the desire to question established order. I respect your wish to better understand the world around you. However, I urge you to obtain a better grounding in the fundamentals before launching into the realm of alternative hypothesis formation.

    And welcome to the forum. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    gc
    gc is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    What are the chances that an idea conceived by a mind as brilliant as Einstein's, affirmed by hundreds of minds as, or almost as, brilliant, and validated to many decimal places by thousands of diverse experiments, is wrong in some significant way? What is the probability that any individual, lacking - as I suspect you do - a post graduate degree in a relevant field of physics and probably unable to deliver a series of lectures on the current views on gravity, would come up with the flaw in those current views and a viable alternative hypothesis?
    What are the chances that an idea conceived by a mind as brilliant as Newton, and supported by hundreds if not thousands of minds as bright as his, that has stood for nearly 250 years, is wrong? What are the chances that a patent cleark named Albert, who didn't have a graduate degree at the time, would come along and prove them all wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    That's just it, though. Newton was NOT wrong. It's just that his ideas were limited. Same with Einstein. He was NOT wrong, it's just that his ideas only apply in certain frames. The conjecture in the OP doesn't even come close to offering a suitable replacement, specifically not one with any explanatory power.

    On top of that, particles and waves don't "interact" in the way he's presenting. It's a misunderstanding of quantum phenomenon (a description of the behavior of small objects, and how that behavior appears differently depending on how we measure it), and he is using that misconception as the foundation of the entire idea. If the premise is flawed, then so too is the conclusion (unless by accident the conclusion is correct... much like a broken clock is twice per day).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    gc
    gc is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    210
    I'm not saying the the opening post is correct, just that we should never rule out an idea just because the person who came up with it does not have a graduate degree in physics.
    The fact that we need to invoke dark matter and dark energy shows that the brightest minds in the world are still missing something. One possible explanation is that there is more to gravity than we think. Or it could be something else that we are missing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    They don't interact as we have observed them. Observation being the fundemental key problem here.

    I don't know that I buy into time dilation or many other things that Einstien predicts. Most of which have not been observed and or even proven. I can use newtonian physics to plot the course of a planet though.

    Time can simply be defined as

    Change over distance.

    I understand the quantum thoerys. They just don't hold water. IE I can't take the quantum ideaology and have it move forward. This tells me we have a flawed observational system.

    I tend to work from the idea that we have 1 maybe 2 particle and given how those particle interact relavtive to each other we have going forward the basis for matter. A almost binary universe.


    I will try to do a more comprehensive wirte up on how this would work over the weekend but math is not my strong suite.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    That's just it, though. Newton was NOT wrong. It's just that his ideas were limited. Same with Einstein. He was NOT wrong, it's just that his ideas only apply in certain frames. The conjecture in the OP doesn't even come close to offering a suitable replacement, specifically not one with any explanatory power.

    On top of that, particles and waves don't "interact" in the way he's presenting. It's a misunderstanding of quantum phenomenon (a description of the behavior of small objects, and how that behavior appears differently depending on how we measure it), and he is using that misconception as the foundation of the entire idea. If the premise is flawed, then so too is the conclusion (unless by accident the conclusion is correct... much like a broken clock is twice per day).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by gc
    I'm not saying the the opening post is correct, just that we should never rule out an idea just because the person who came up with it does not have a graduate degree in physics.
    The fact that we need to invoke dark matter and dark energy shows that the brightest minds in the world are still missing something. One possible explanation is that there is more to gravity than we think. Or it could be something else that we are missing.
    that there is no gravity particle. Thats what we are missing. Gravity is in my minds eye a force derived from particle interaction. The same with the other forces.

    My suspcion is that particles are a like a jar of sand or various sized grains. As they arrange into groups they become matter. So it allows for both the Wave thoery and the particle thoerys to coelsce together into the building block of atoms.


    If you look into moleculre motion you can start to see how these things can and do work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    I don't know that I buy into time dilation or many other things that Einstien predicts. Most of which have not been observed and or even proven.
    <cough> Satellite based GPS </cough>
    <cough> Hafele-Keating </cough>


    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    I understand the quantum thoerys. They just don't hold water.
    <cough> Your computer wouldn't work without it </cough>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    I don't know that I buy into time dilation or many other things that Einstien predicts. Most of which have not been observed and or even proven. I can use newtonian physics to plot the course of a planet though.
    You can't use it to plot the orbit of Mercury. The predictions don't match observations. That was one of the very first hints that something was wrong with Newton's universe. As for time dilation, that's been directly tested using several different methods, including the Hafele-Keating experiments in which atomic clocks were accelerated in aircraft. The accelerated clocks return to us out of synch. As inow points out, there are other tests of this, including the dilation effects experienced by the GPS system. This has all been tested and re-tested. It's real. So at the very least the equivalence principle is solid. We've also observed doppler shifting of light and, as one of the very first tests of General Relativity, we've directly observed gravitational lensing.

    So which of the consequences of GR were you suggesting have not been tested?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    gc
    gc is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Your computer wouldn't work without it.
    To be fair, just because something works most of the time, doesn't mean we understand it. Pendulums would not work without gravity, yet they have been around since before Newton.

    I also think it's possible to reject certain aspects or interpretations of quantum mechanics without throwing away the whole theory. For example, Einstein is (unfairly I think) seen as opposing quantum mechanics. I don't think he was opposed to quantum mechanics altogether, just certain aspects of it. It's not that he thought it was wrong, just incomplete. That is a reasonable objection, in my opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    I don't know that I buy into time dilation or many other things that Einstien predicts. Most of which have not been observed and or even proven.
    <cough> Satellite based GPS </cough>
    <cough> Hafele-Keating </cough>


    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    I understand the quantum thoerys. They just don't hold water.
    <cough> Your computer wouldn't work without it </cough>
    How do you know that those are not measurement errors ? Also time dialation isn't a real phenomenon.

    I will again state.

    Time is change over distance.

    Rate of travel might come into play here but as to time being effected by velocity ?? Not really. Maybe the obeservation of time but not the actual throughput.

    But if you'd like to actually prove that go right on ahead.

    I also beg to differ on quantum mechanics. My computer would work just fine without quantum mechanics becuase it already does. Quantum mechanics is simply a probobalistic mathmatical representation of what we belive particle behavior to be.

    Your still not providing a convincing argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    so in the sense that newtonian physics do not consider enough variable to accurately plot a planetary position you belive them to be false ? Hardly. The thing that newtonian physics has difficulty modeling is the many intricate layers of force interaction of the various other orbital bodies and the discontiguity of the suns effectual gravitational output. If you factored all those things in using newtonian physics you'd get the same answer the right way.

    As for your accelerated experiments. did it not occur to you that adding velocity also inherently added observable mass and energy density to the objects traveling at high velocitys.

    A inaccurate clock does not a theory prove.

    If Time dialtion thoerys held true we would never see light escaping from black holes becuase it would cease to move forward as it reached the epicenter.

    In fact no matter would ever make it into the black hole in the first place becuase at the center of the black hole the matter would simply stop moving and the black hole would cease to exist.

    Thats reality.

    If time was controlled by gravity. Which it is not. Obviously becuase of the black hole paradox.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    I don't know that I buy into time dilation or many other things that Einstien predicts. Most of which have not been observed and or even proven. I can use newtonian physics to plot the course of a planet though.
    You can't use it to plot the orbit of Mercury. The predictions don't match observations. That was one of the very first hints that something was wrong with Newton's universe. As for time dilation, that's been directly tested using several different methods, including the Hafele-Keating experiments in which atomic clocks were accelerated in aircraft. The accelerated clocks return to us out of synch. As inow points out, there are other tests of this, including the dilation effects experienced by the GPS system. This has all been tested and re-tested. It's real. So at the very least the equivalence principle is solid. We've also observed doppler shifting of light and, as one of the very first tests of General Relativity, we've directly observed gravitational lensing.

    So which of the consequences of GR were you suggesting have not been tested?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    gc
    gc is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    A inaccurate clock does not a theory prove.
    The measured effects were much greater than the experimental error from any clock inaccuracies. Why do you suspect the clocks were inaccurate?
    If Time dialtion thoerys held true we would never see light escaping from black holes becuase it would cease to move forward as it reached the epicenter.
    Do you mean we would never see light enter a black hole? Because we don't see it escaping. If you meant it would never enter the black hole, I'd agree with you. In fact, I've started a thread to that effect called "black holes vs dark stars".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    Your still not providing a convincing argument.
    I provided examples which directly showed your claims to be false. If that's not a strong enough argument for you, then I'm really not interested in wasting any more time on this.


    BTW - You meant "You're," not "Your."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by gc
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    A inaccurate clock does not a theory prove.
    The measured effects were much greater than the experimental error from any clock inaccuracies. Why do you suspect the clocks were inaccurate?
    If Time dialtion thoerys held true we would never see light escaping from black holes becuase it would cease to move forward as it reached the epicenter.
    Do you mean we would never see light enter a black hole? Because we don't see it escaping. If you meant it would never enter the black hole, I'd agree with you. In fact, I've started a thread to that effect called "black holes vs dark stars".
    If you added energy to atom by way of velocity increase would it not stand to reason that the velocity of the atom may in fact be changed in a way which cuased it to orbit slower.

    In fact that very effect would further back my ideas about space being a giant particle field. Atomic motion should slow as you pass through a field of particles at ever increase speeds.You will have increasing amounts of wave interferance at high velocitys. It doesn't mean time slows down it means atoms struggle to function as speed get progressively higher. If we are measuring time based on the rythm of atoms then of course the clock errors will exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    Your still not providing a convincing argument.
    I provided examples which directly showed your claims to be false. If that's not a strong enough argument for you, then I'm really not interested in wasting any more time on this.


    BTW - You meant "You're," not "Your."
    Still no evidence outside of some observations that don't jive with the ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    so in the sense that newtonian physics do not consider enough variable to accurately plot a planetary position you belive them to be false ? Hardly. The thing that newtonian physics has difficulty modeling is the many intricate layers of force interaction of the various other orbital bodies and the discontiguity of the suns effectual gravitational output. If you factored all those things in using newtonian physics you'd get the same answer the right way.
    That's what they said before Einstein. They added a load of "fudge factors" to account for the difference. But they weren't universally applicable. Tell you what, show us some calculations based on your idea which fully account for the orbit of Mercury.

    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    As for your accelerated experiments. did it not occur to you that adding velocity also inherently added observable mass and energy density to the objects traveling at high velocitys.
    And what does that imply? Show how this accounts for the differences between the clocks obtained in those experiments.

    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    A inaccurate clock does not a theory prove.
    What evidence is there that the difference was due to an inaccuracy? Also why did the "inaccuracy" just happen to match the predictions of GR? Every time?

    And the question I previously posted still stands. You've said that many of the implications of GR are untested. Which ones?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    That's what they said before Einstein. They added a load of "fudge factors" to account for the difference. But they weren't universally applicable. Tell you what, show us some calculations based on your idea which fully account for the orbit of Mercury.

    They didn't have full observational measurements of the gravametrics affecting the orbits of various bodies. I am not gonna watse my time on it. You already have your answer even though its not proven or even testable.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    what does that imply? Show how this accounts for the differences between the clocks obtained in those experiments.



    What evidence is there that the difference was due to an inaccuracy? Also why did the "inaccuracy" just happen to match the predictions of GR? Every time?

    And the question I previously posted still stands. You've said that many of the implications of GR are untested. Which ones?
    No the GR and SGR thoery is a predictive behavoir model but it does not adress the underlying cuase of such phenomenon. I am trying to imply that just becuase someone predicts a phenomenon does not mean that the theory predicting it is true or accurate.

    Secondly why does atomic motion slow with increase velocity.

    Nice dodge on the question though. Since obviously slower atomic motion would in fact record as less time passing as far as those experiments are concerned.

    Stick that one in the GR SGR thoerys.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    gc
    gc is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    f you added energy to atom by way of velocity increase would it not stand to reason that the velocity of the atom may in fact be changed in a way which cuased it to orbit slower.
    How so?

    If we are measuring time based on the rythm of atoms then of course the clock errors will exist.
    I think time is nothing more than what we measure, so how do you propose we measure time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by gc
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    f you added energy to atom by way of velocity increase would it not stand to reason that the velocity of the atom may in fact be changed in a way which cuased it to orbit slower.
    How so?

    If we are measuring time based on the rythm of atoms then of course the clock errors will exist.
    I think time is nothing more than what we measure, so how do you propose we measure time?
    The basis of the atomic clock is the steady rythmic pulsation of the orbit of the electrons. So what could cuase the elctrons to slow.

    Hmmm.

    a primer on the atomic clock. Its not to bad.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock

    So what could cuase the electrons to slow ?

    There your Dialation of time.

    Also time is

    Change over distance. Nothing more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    gc
    gc is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    210
    I am aware of how an atomic clock works.

    If an atomic clock shows that time is slowing down then time really is slowing down, unless you can think of another way of measuring time where it doesn't slow down.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by gc
    I am aware of how an atomic clock works.

    If an atomic clock shows that time is slowing down then time really is slowing down, unless you can think of another way of measuring time where it doesn't slow down.
    No that means the Atom is slowing down. That doesn't nessacarily prove that time is slowing down.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    Quote Originally Posted by gc
    I am aware of how an atomic clock works.

    If an atomic clock shows that time is slowing down then time really is slowing down, unless you can think of another way of measuring time where it doesn't slow down.
    No that means the Atom is slowing down. That doesn't nessacarily prove that time is slowing down.
    How would you test the difference?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    Quote Originally Posted by gc
    I am aware of how an atomic clock works.

    If an atomic clock shows that time is slowing down then time really is slowing down, unless you can think of another way of measuring time where it doesn't slow down.
    No that means the Atom is slowing down. That doesn't nessacarily prove that time is slowing down.
    How would you test the difference?
    Exactly. Time is the measurement of relative movement.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    Quote Originally Posted by gc
    I am aware of how an atomic clock works.

    If an atomic clock shows that time is slowing down then time really is slowing down, unless you can think of another way of measuring time where it doesn't slow down.
    No that means the Atom is slowing down. That doesn't nessacarily prove that time is slowing down.
    How would you test the difference?
    That is a very good question. There is already some proof of this phenomenon occuring. The bigger issue that remains unanswered is

    WHY ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    There is already some proof of this phenomenon occuring.
    What proof?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    Quote Originally Posted by gc
    I am aware of how an atomic clock works.

    If an atomic clock shows that time is slowing down then time really is slowing down, unless you can think of another way of measuring time where it doesn't slow down.
    No that means the Atom is slowing down. That doesn't nessacarily prove that time is slowing down.
    How would you test the difference?
    Exactly. Time is the measurement of relative movement.
    The best definition of time is change over distance.

    Obviously as velocitys go up you get less change more or less over longer distances. The illusion is that time slows down becuase at the atomic level it certianly appears to be happening. The question remains. Why.

    That is what the Idea I am proposing accutually sort of takes care of.

    If space is a giant particle field and it behave in a manner similar to what we can observe with molecular motion then it would make sense that a particular batch of particle grouped into atoms trying to move through this particle fluid would in fact slow down as it had to increasingly higher resistance to movement at the subatomic level. It would also explain why these things are occuring with the observation of time dialation.

    It also adress the black hole paradox of matter getting into the black hole. If a black hole is a void in the space particle field then it would make sense that matter could accelearte to FTL.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    There is already some proof of this phenomenon occuring.
    What proof?
    Atomic clocks slow down at higher velocitys.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater

    If space is a giant particle field and it behave in a manner similar to what we can observe with molecular motion then it would make sense that a particular batch of particle grouped into atoms trying to move through this particle fluid would in fact slow down as it had to increasingly higher resistance to movement at the subatomic level. It would also explain why these things are occuring with the observation of time dialation.
    No, it wouldn't.

    For one, you would have to show how such a "resistance" causes an effect that matches the observed time dialtion factors. Just saying that it would is hand waving. Where's the math?

    For another, this explanation is akin to Lorentzian Realtivity, wherein it assumes that there is an absolute frame by which motion can be measured, and that it motion relative to this frame that results in time dilation. But this is not what SR says.

    SR says that you cannot perform a one to one transformation of time measurements between relatively moving frames. The key word here is "relatively". There is no absolute motion in SR.

    What's the difference?

    Assume that you have a lab where you are measuring the decay of sub atomic particles traveling at some speed "v" relative to the lab.

    There is a second lab with identical equipment doing the same experiment with particle moving at v relative to them. However this lab is moving at "w" with respect to you.

    Now assume that when one the labs does its measurements, it gets the same results in the time it takes for the particles to decay no matter what direction the particle are moving with respect to the lab.

    With your particle field idea, this means that it is at rest with respect to the field. The other lab is therefore moving. This means that particles moving at the same speed realtive to the lab but in differenct directions would have different speeds relative to the field, some would be moving at v+w and some at v-w. This lab would get different decay rates for the particles depending on their direction of movement with respect to the lab.

    However with SR, both labs would get exactly the same results for their decay rates for all particles. This is because in SR it is only the relative speed with respect to the measuring equipment that counts not some absolute motion with respect to space.

    Now here's the thing. We do this type of experiment all the time. We are always creating high speed particles and measuring their decay rates with particle accelerators and the Earth itself is a moving lab. It orbits the Sun. If there was any credence to the particle field idea, then we should measure differences in particle decay rates depending on whether or not the accelerator is pointing in the direction o fthe Earth's orbital motion or not. (And since the Earth also rotates, any particle accelerator will point in different directions over the course of a day.)

    We do not. No matter what, we always get results that are consistant with the accelerated particles speed with respect to the accelerator.

    SR holds up to experimental evidence, your particle field hypothesis does not.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater

    If space is a giant particle field and it behave in a manner similar to what we can observe with molecular motion then it would make sense that a particular batch of particle grouped into atoms trying to move through this particle fluid would in fact slow down as it had to increasingly higher resistance to movement at the subatomic level. It would also explain why these things are occuring with the observation of time dialation.
    No, it wouldn't.

    For one, you would have to show how such a "resistance" causes an effect that matches the observed time dialtion factors. Just saying that it would is hand waving. Where's the math?

    For another, this explanation is akin to Lorentzian Realtivity, wherein it assumes that there is an absolute frame by which motion can be measured, and that it motion relative to this frame that results in time dilation. But this is not what SR says.

    SR says that you cannot perform a one to one transformation of time measurements between relatively moving frames. The key word here is "relatively". There is no absolute motion in SR.

    What's the difference?

    Assume that you have a lab where you are measuring the decay of sub atomic particles traveling at some speed "v" relative to the lab.

    There is a second lab with identical equipment doing the same experiment with particle moving at v relative to them. However this lab is moving at "w" with respect to you.

    Now assume that when one the labs does its measurements, it gets the same results in the time it takes for the particles to decay no matter what direction the particle are moving with respect to the lab.

    With your particle field idea, this means that it is at rest with respect to the field. The other lab is therefore moving. This means that particles moving at the same speed realtive to the lab but in differenct directions would have different speeds relative to the field, some would be moving at v+w and some at v-w. This lab would get different decay rates for the particles depending on their direction of movement with respect to the lab.

    However with SR, both labs would get exactly the same results for their decay rates for all particles. This is because in SR it is only the relative speed with respect to the measuring equipment that counts not some absolute motion with respect to space.

    Now here's the thing. We do this type of experiment all the time. We are always creating high speed particles and measuring their decay rates with particle accelerators and the Earth itself is a moving lab. It orbits the Sun. If there was any credence to the particle field idea, then we should measure differences in particle decay rates depending on whether or not the accelerator is pointing in the direction o fthe Earth's orbital motion or not. (And since the Earth also rotates, any particle accelerator will point in different directions over the course of a day.)

    We do not. No matter what, we always get results that are consistant with the accelerated particles speed with respect to the accelerator.

    SR holds up to experimental evidence, your particle field hypothesis does not.
    What wondeful rationalizations you espouse. What would the orbit of the earth have to do with space being a giant particle filed and having any noticable effect on your particle physics experiment.

    You do get very consistent results becuase you are in effect reorganizing any particle field with the accelrator itself. Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp????. You are effectively changing the behavior of the particle field through the use of massive amounts of EM. You are adding energy that is not naturally there. Of course your results will be consistent. Nothing I am suggesting should actually change that.

    come up with a better idea for gravity or maybe that gravity particle and I'll buy in. The onyl thing tat consistently comes out of particale excelerator testing is that when you put more energy in you get more energetic particles. Actually makes a good case for my argument more then the one you are trying to make.

    If you want the math your going to have to wait. I am trying to solve that problem myself and I am far from a mathematician.
    Ultimately the issue is the 2 dimensional thought process.

    Here is a experiment you can perform at home folks.

    Fill a jar up with rocks of varying size and shake it. Preferably a very large bucket to minimize the effects of boundry walls constricting motion. introduce a few bodies to that are relatively stationary and you can start to see the interaction I am suggesting is occuring at the subatomic level.

    Tell me that it doesn't look just like what alot of the proboblistic mathmatics indicate to be true about particle posistion or induce wave motion via some other method.Either way your going to get very unpredictable behavior until you start looking at thing as interactive and moving in 3 dimensions.

    I am trying to use as a base for my idea fluid dynamics computations and adding in molecular motion ideas. I have to merge that with some other ideas but my idea does fix several LARGE holes in current scientific thinking and doesn't break anything. All without exoctic extra unvierses and other such tripe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    Quote Originally Posted by gc
    I am aware of how an atomic clock works.

    If an atomic clock shows that time is slowing down then time really is slowing down, unless you can think of another way of measuring time where it doesn't slow down.
    No that means the Atom is slowing down. That doesn't nessacarily prove that time is slowing down.
    How would you test the difference?
    That is a very good question. There is already some proof of this phenomenon occuring. The bigger issue that remains unanswered is

    WHY ?
    What proof?
    Atomic clocks slow down at higher velocitys.
    We're going in circles. This would be the bit where you tell us how you test whether the evidence supports GR or your alternative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    Quote Originally Posted by gc
    I am aware of how an atomic clock works.

    If an atomic clock shows that time is slowing down then time really is slowing down, unless you can think of another way of measuring time where it doesn't slow down.
    No that means the Atom is slowing down. That doesn't nessacarily prove that time is slowing down.
    How would you test the difference?
    That is a very good question. There is already some proof of this phenomenon occuring. The bigger issue that remains unanswered is

    WHY ?
    What proof?





    Atomic clocks slow down at higher velocitys.
    We're going in circles. This would be the bit where you tell us how you test whether the evidence supports GR or your alternative.
    Why can't GR "which is already being revised anyways" simply be what it has been for many years. A predictive model of the behavior of large objects. GR ties things together somewhat inapproriately without adressing the why.

    What I am suggesting is that Space Time is really a particle field and that the particle field has behavior similar to what can be observed in molecular motion studys done on larger molecules. It doesn't break relativity it simply reframes a few of the ideas about how the universe works.


    Why would a particle smaller then a photon by bound by the same speed limit as a photon ? Why does light have a speed limit ? If there was not some form of resistance light should be infinately fast.

    Why hasn't the standard model or any other models come up with a good solution "btw with no lack of talent of money working on the problem BTW" solved any of these isues.

    The idea I am suggesting allows for most current observational models to work, fix's several large issues, Explains black hole and also fix the issue with the elusively named Dark Matter.

    It also allows for the building blocks of matter larger then the atom and progresses forward.

    This behavior is all over nature. Why we continue to ignore it is beyond me. Chaos from a distance appears to be order. But the chaos itself may even be the order.

    Lastly the Idea I am putting forward does solve the biggest thing that even the big E disliked.

    Reaction at a distance.

    If we conceed that the very space we think is empty is actually full.

    He is one to ponder

    why is the orbit of the planet slowing ? it is indeed slowing. Just becuase we can't measure the friction does not mean it does not exist. It is simply a lower coefficient then when can currently measure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by ParticleHater

    If space is a giant particle field and it behave in a manner similar to what we can observe with molecular motion then it would make sense that a particular batch of particle grouped into atoms trying to move through this particle fluid would in fact slow down as it had to increasingly higher resistance to movement at the subatomic level. It would also explain why these things are occuring with the observation of time dialation.
    No, it wouldn't.

    For one, you would have to show how such a "resistance" causes an effect that matches the observed time dialtion factors. Just saying that it would is hand waving. Where's the math?

    For another, this explanation is akin to Lorentzian Realtivity, wherein it assumes that there is an absolute frame by which motion can be measured, and that it motion relative to this frame that results in time dilation. But this is not what SR says.

    SR says that you cannot perform a one to one transformation of time measurements between relatively moving frames. The key word here is "relatively". There is no absolute motion in SR.

    What's the difference?

    Assume that you have a lab where you are measuring the decay of sub atomic particles traveling at some speed "v" relative to the lab.

    There is a second lab with identical equipment doing the same experiment with particle moving at v relative to them. However this lab is moving at "w" with respect to you.

    Now assume that when one the labs does its measurements, it gets the same results in the time it takes for the particles to decay no matter what direction the particle are moving with respect to the lab.

    With your particle field idea, this means that it is at rest with respect to the field. The other lab is therefore moving. This means that particles moving at the same speed realtive to the lab but in differenct directions would have different speeds relative to the field, some would be moving at v+w and some at v-w. This lab would get different decay rates for the particles depending on their direction of movement with respect to the lab.

    However with SR, both labs would get exactly the same results for their decay rates for all particles. This is because in SR it is only the relative speed with respect to the measuring equipment that counts not some absolute motion with respect to space.

    Now here's the thing. We do this type of experiment all the time. We are always creating high speed particles and measuring their decay rates with particle accelerators and the Earth itself is a moving lab. It orbits the Sun. If there was any credence to the particle field idea, then we should measure differences in particle decay rates depending on whether or not the accelerator is pointing in the direction o fthe Earth's orbital motion or not. (And since the Earth also rotates, any particle accelerator will point in different directions over the course of a day.)

    We do not. No matter what, we always get results that are consistant with the accelerated particles speed with respect to the accelerator.

    SR holds up to experimental evidence, your particle field hypothesis does not.
    What wondeful rationalizations you espouse. What would the orbit of the earth have to do with space being a giant particle filed and having any noticable effect on your particle physics experiment.

    You do get very consistent results becuase you are in effect reorganizing any particle field with the accelrator itself. Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp????. You are effectively changing the behavior of the particle field through the use of massive amounts of EM. You are adding energy that is not naturally there. Of course your results will be consistent. Nothing I am suggesting should actually change that.

    come up with a better idea for gravity or maybe that gravity particle and I'll buy in. The onyl thing tat consistently comes out of particale excelerator testing is that when you put more energy in you get more energetic particles. Actually makes a good case for my argument more then the one you are trying to make.

    If you want the math your going to have to wait. I am trying to solve that problem myself and I am far from a mathematician.
    Ultimately the issue is the 2 dimensional thought process.

    Here is a experiment you can perform at home folks.

    Fill a jar up with rocks of varying size and shake it. Preferably a very large bucket to minimize the effects of boundry walls constricting motion. introduce a few bodies to that are relatively stationary and you can start to see the interaction I am suggesting is occuring at the subatomic level.

    Tell me that it doesn't look just like what alot of the proboblistic mathmatics indicate to be true about particle posistion or induce wave motion via some other method.Either way your going to get very unpredictable behavior until you start looking at thing as interactive and moving in 3 dimensions.

    I am trying to use as a base for my idea fluid dynamics computations and adding in molecular motion ideas. I have to merge that with some other ideas but my idea does fix several LARGE holes in current scientific thinking and doesn't break anything. All without exoctic extra unvierses and other such tripe.
    Just about the response I expected: a bunch of hand waving nonsense.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus

    Just about the response I expected: a bunch of hand waving nonsense.
    So what your saying is that you have factual basis to dismiss the idea so you drop down to the level of juvinille drivel based comments to make yourself superior.

    I am so glad I skipped on my oputunity to work in this field when I did.

    Yeah I am writing a new ground up theory for the universe and you expect me to have it sorted out today ? I have been working on the mechanics of how it would work for 4 years. Now I am getting to proofing with math. There has been alot to consider.

    I will say this. It started with the premise that SPACE MUST HAVE MASS.

    If you can't see that. your doomed to keep faling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    No, Janus is right. Your post makes no real sense. SR and GR explain the universe's behavior quite well. There is no "particle field" otherwise the friction of this field on the earth would be noticeable, and the earth would slow down and approach the sun. Sorry dude, but it doesn't hold up to the scrutiny that Einsteins theories have.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    No, Janus is right. Your post makes no real sense. SR and GR explain the universe's behavior quite well. There is no "particle field" otherwise the friction of this field on the earth would be noticeable, and the earth would slow down and approach the sun. Sorry dude, but it doesn't hold up to the scrutiny that Einsteins theories have.
    Except the orbit of the earth is changing. Also the excleration of the gravity effect itself could be sustaining its current orbital speed. Just becuase the amount of friction or interferance is low doesn't negate its existance. It could also be that due to the low amount of interferance from such a small particle and potentially one with a nuetral charge we might not get to see anything friction related till velocitys get extremly high.

    As I siad before. There is no reason that light does not instantaneously transmit.

    We have issue with reaction at a distance. We can't explain that.

    There must be a meduim.Some form of conductive matter.

    Working on the mechanics of it andits starting to come together.

    GR and SGR both make assumptions with regard to the speed of light being some form of constant in the universe. We have observed objects and light going above FTL and we have observed light going slower.

    Give me some time to work on this but the mechanics of it are very sound. My problem is trying to reconcile the particle interaction into something that can be elegantly exspressed in simple mathmatical terms. I am still trying to determine what the relative particles might be. Are they nutrally charged and they interact in various way and become positive and negatively charged particle groups ? Are they more like lego's that click together ? That where I am focusing my effort. If I can figure out whats there and how it interacts the rest of it falls into place easily enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •