Thread: The great connection theory

D'you know Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity? Well, I have a new one. Let's say that everything (atoms) in the universe- no dark matter- is connected to everything else in the universe by these little particle strings, which pull atoms and clumps of atoms (masses) closer.But instead of a rubber band-like touch, they would get weaker as something stretches them more- it is farther away. There are also anti-gravity strings that work best when longer-A. K. A. dark energy. Stars more tightly packed together would pull more because the connection pull is coming from a more concentrated area. If the connection goes through another particle, the other particle would make one more connection to the closest particle, thus making dense stars stronger. Black holes would have no particle strings within them because they are infinitely small, but then, they would make stronger outward particle strings to pull harder on everything. These strings cannot be broken and have no mass. I like friendly, polite criticism and would appreciate your helpful objections!

Anyone?

D'you know Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity?

Yes. Pretty well, actually.

Anyone?

I think I'll stick with GR for now

Originally Posted by bgi

But instead of a rubber band-like touch, they would get weaker as something stretches them more- it is farther away.

Do they get weaker according to an inverse square law by any chance?

Stars more tightly packed together would pull more because the connection pull is coming from a more concentrated area. If the connection goes through another particle, the other particle would make one more connection to the closest particle, thus making dense stars stronger. Black holes would have no particle strings within them because they are infinitely small, but then, they would make stronger outward particle strings to pull harder on everything. These strings cannot be broken and have no mass.

It sounds a bit like something I have heard of before called "gravity" that a chap called Newton came up with. If you gave the strings some mass, you might even be able to approximate GR...

I'm not sure how it gets rid of dark matter. After all, dark matter appears to have these "strings" attached to it as well.

Originally Posted by bgi

I like friendly, polite criticism and would appreciate your helpful objections!

Hello and welcome to the forum. You have presented a conundrum for me. I really do want to be helpful and I do have some outstandingly good advice. Unfortunately I suspect you will consider it impolite and unfriendly.

That leaves me with the dilema of either offering you no help at all, but hopefully being thought of as friendly and polite, or of launching my thoughts and risking achieving nothing and losing your regard. Which would you like me to do?

MODERATOR NOTE : Moved to "New Hypothesis".

The rubber band theory of gravitation. At least it is new!

bgi:

Sorry for having a bit of a laugh at your expense.

First off, when you try and figure out something new, is you have to ask yourself in what way is it better than General Relativity, because GR does a pretty good job as it is.

Secondly, how hard have you tried to break your idea? That is one of the first things you have to do. For instance, you are proposing a new particle that doesn't fit in the standard model and have never been found before.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

The rubber band theory of gravitation. At least it is new!

Or the Rubber Band Relativity?

To the original poster:
Do you have some mathematics formulated for this? If not, it can not be tested at all. You need equations, equations, and more equations

Originally Posted by bgi

The thickness of them would be dependent on how long they are to fit the calculations of the needed dark matter. But instead of a rubber band-like touch, they would get weaker as something stretches them more- it is farther away.

If the thickness of the strings were dependent on their length such that they were able to account for the rotation curves of stars around a galaxy at galactic sized lengths, they would be too thick to properly account for the rotation curves of planets around stars at solar system sized lengths. And vice versa - of they were thick enough to account for orbits at solar system lengths, they would be too thin to account for orbits at galactic sized lengths.

This is the problem that dark matter is there to address in the first place. There must be thicker strings across the disc of the galaxy than the strings between the visible matter of the galaxy alone.

In order to account for this, you would need to introduce another factor - something that changes the way that your strings work across galactic lengths relative to the way they work across solar system lengths.., hmmm... what should we call it?

John Galt, go ahead!
Everyone-I have edited my theory. If you read it now, there is nothing about dark matter because I realized my mistake because of your criticism, but there is more on dark energy.
I didn't say GR is wrong. Why, this is Albert Einstein! It's just an idea- maybe a dumb one!
Strange- it does follow the inverse square law- and it is an explanation for gravity.


Dumb idea, right? Just me thinking randomly about science.

Originally Posted by bgi

JStrange- it does follow the inverse square law- and it is an explanation for gravity.

It is a reasonable analogy for gravity. Of course, these strings cannot be physically real (they would have to have impossible physical properties).

They would be infinitely small, and we would not feel them.

Originally Posted by bgi

it does follow the inverse square law- and it is an explanation for gravity

...except that the inverse square law is only an approximation for very weak fields; in actual fact, gravity is much more complicated than that. Take for example the simple case of a ray of light grazing the surface of the sun : the difference between Newton ( inverse square ) and GR is of the order of 100%, meaning Newton is getting it wrong rather badly.

Yes, I know, and inverse square doesn't take into account the difference in density between objects with the same mass.

SOMEONE POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i​ don't care if it's negative

Yay!!!!!!!!!

Anyway, the equation is General Relativity's equation modified by (10^-10m/s/s)The MOND pages

Originally Posted by bgi

Anyway, the equation is General Relativity's equation modified by (10^-10m/s/s)The MOND pages

The MOND model as it stands has two major problems :

1. It violates the strong equivalence principle
2. It contradicts observational data

Originally Posted by bgi

John Galt, go ahead!
Everyone-I have edited my theory. If you read it now, there is nothing about dark matter because I realized my mistake because of your criticism, but there is more on dark energy.
I didn't say GR is wrong. Why, this is Albert Einstein! It's just an idea- maybe a dumb one!
Dumb idea, right? Just me thinking randomly about science.

You don't have a theory. You have a poorly constructed, ill conceived, lightweight speculation. Ideas like this are amusing to have, but rather like farts they are best kept private.

You would be far better off investing what intellectual skills you have in learning many more of the basics before indulging yourself in foolishness. I am relieved to see that, in your later posts, you appear to have recognised you don't really have anything of value.

"You don't have a theory. You have a poorly constructed, ill conceived, lightweight speculation. Ideas like this are amusing to have, but rather like farts they are best kept private.

You would be far better off investing what intellectual skills you have in learning many more of the basics before indulging yourself in foolishness. I am relieved to see that, in your later posts, you appear to have recognised you don't really have anything of value."

Never discard a theory until it is proven wrong. Until then...
In what way is it like a fart? Anyway, what is "foolish" about it?

Eventually, galaxies will keep speeding apart from each other until there are just far-spread galaxies. Feeling their own gravity increase and diminishing gravity from other galaxies, also stronger anti-gravity, they will get smaller and denser until there is nothing left but a black hole. The universe will just have far-spread black holes- the "death" of our universe.

Originally Posted by bgi

They would be infinitely small, and we would not feel them.

Almost as if they don't exist ...

Originally Posted by Strange

Almost as if they don't exist ...

Like light...only these would be more like rays and less like photons.

Originally Posted by bgi

Originally Posted by Strange

Almost as if they don't exist ...

Like light...only these would be more like rays and less like photons.

But we can detect those things. Your "strings" would have to be infinitely rigid (to propagate changes at the speed of light) and yet undetectable. How does that work?

You see, these strings can have mass-only we do not feel it because they themselves are gravity. Atoms are all connected to them, so if an atom passes through, the string would absorb into the atom and come out again, leaving the atom. We cannot detect them because they do not change gravity or give off electromagnetic rays: light goes right through them.

Originally Posted by bgi

We cannot detect them because they do not change gravity or give off electromagnetic rays: light goes right through them.

Which brings me back to the point: if they cannot be detected then they might as well not exist; in which case, they don't exist as far as science is concerned. Occam's razor.

Originally Posted by bgi

Never discard a theory until it is proven wrong. Until then...

You got this the wrong way around. No new theory is ever accepted until there is observational or experimental support for its predictions. It's called the scientific method.
If you think otherwise, then perhaps I should claim that electrons are in fact microscopic pink unicorns - can you prove me wrong ? No ? So that must mean they are indeed pink unicorns, until such time as you can prove me wrong !!

Yes I can and it doesn
By the way, I don't mean you have to accept. it. I mean that you still have to consider it.



People should shut up!!! (like me!)

Science considers a hypothesis that explains the evidence, it accepts​ a hypothesis that makes accurate predictions.

Originally Posted by bgi

"In what way is it like a fart?

It is ephemeral, it smells bad and I wouldn't want to take ownership of it.

If you look at it like i'm suggesting a new particle, than so is GR.
There's got to be something that is space-time-what is it?

Originally Posted by bgi

There's got to be something that is space-time

Why?

Originally Posted by bgi

If you look at it like i'm suggesting a new particle, than so is GR.

No it isn't.

There's got to be something that is space-time-what is it?

That "something" is geometry: you know, measurements of distance on curved surfaces, stuff like that.

Space-time has to be made out of something-gravity cannot just pull on ​nothing

Originally Posted by bgi

Space-time has to be made out of something-

No it doesn't. What is length or area made of?

gravity cannot just pull on ​nothing

Gravity "pulls on" mass.

If gravity really is a warp in space-time, how would it pull on time, if time is nothing. You can't say that space-time is nothing.

Originally Posted by bgi

If gravity really is a warp in space-time, how would it pull on time, if time is nothing. You can't say that space-time is nothing.

Gravity doesn't "pull on time". Gravity "pulls" on mass (and energy).

Originally Posted by bgi

If gravity really is a warp in space-time, how would it pull on time, if time is nothing. You can't say that space-time is nothing.

You just said it yourself: gravity is a warp (intrinsic curvature) of space-time, i.e. it's very definition already says that it influences time.

Originally Posted by bgi

If gravity really is a warp in space-time, how would it pull on time, if time is nothing.

Because what becomes curved is space-time, i.e. space and time. Curved space gives you tidal forces, whereas curved time manifests as gravitational time dilation. These are both manifestations of the exact same thing, i.e. a distortion in the geometry of space-time. The field equations of GR provide a unified description of these. Note that what we experience ( here on earth ) as "gravity" is largely the result of time dilation ( i.e. curvature in the time direction ), since the magnitude of the tidal forces present here is very, very small.

You can't say that space-time is nothing.

Space-time is just the set of all events, and its geometry is how these events are related. No one said it is "nothing"; it's just not something that has any mechanical or kinematic properties.

Antimatter has the strings too