Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Interesting Idea

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on April 14, 2003 13:54:20 UTC

" Donít try to fix it all at once. "

What I really meant was that I don't want to force-fit my idea to facts by introducing esoteric hypothesis; that is what physicists do and I can't possibly beat them in their game. But I'm really intrigued by an explanation for gravity that makes some sense and is very intuitive.

" The rate of expansion is dependent on some factors which have not been addressed. Determine conditions in which the idea is correct and incorrect.
Identical expansion rates work for two objects with the same size and mass.
Identical expansion rates do not work when three equal objects are used. "

As far as I can tell, the rate of expansion has to be the same for all objects. That is, any object's "absolute size" is simply proportional to time. If it were otherwise, the expansion would be measurable.

" When everything expanded at the same rate a it was easy for me to contemplate your model with a coordinate system which did not expand with the model. As I started to think about differing expansion rates for each object it was easier for me to consider the expansion with a coordinate system which could also expand with an object. In this way I could tag along with an object as it expanded. I typically try all coordinate systems to see which makes the model easier to understand. "

The whole idea depends on the notion of "absolute"; there has to be a preferred coordinate system and that coordinate system cannot be expanding or moving (the very definition of "absolute")

Now there are few words that are more taboo these days than any mention of absolute, especially in physics. But if we keep in mind that an absolute coordinate system is just a product of our imagination, I can't see anything wrong with the idea. It is, after all, just an idea; it doesn't have to be "true", it only has to be consistent with facts and easy to understand.

" The observer is accelerating not the falling object. I know this because the observer has a force applied to their feet as they stand on the planet. If the observer has a mass and a force they must have an acceleration because F = M x A. "

Exactly! So the observer is moving! As I'm sitting on a chair typing this message, I am moving! So how can we explain the fact that I don't think I'm moving?

" Two objects A and B are drifting past each other in space....
.... The ghost gravitational fieldís future does not need to be defined for this thought experiment to explain current experimental results. R quickly becomes large enough that the gravitational attraction between the mass particles and their ghost doubles in object B are to small to be detected. "

You know, I don't believe in ghosts but this one is particulary compelling. I'm not sure it won't vanish if gravity turns out not to be a force, but given our current assumptions yours sound like a good explanation for inertia.

I don't know if you realized (or would agree), but in order for your idea to work the gravitational field must be propagated at a speed greater than c. Interestingly, there seems to be some controversy regarding that issue; while most physicists maintain that gravity propagates at c, some dissenters claim that it goes much, much faster. But the dissenters are usually labeled as crackpots, because apparently a faster-than-light speed for gravity violates GR.

So how fast does the field have to propagate for your experiment to work?

" It is amazing what can be accomplished with thought experiments. It is also amazing how the art has been neglected. "

It seems most people have little faith in the power of the mind to discover truths. Which is ironic, since our only sources of knowledge are our mind and our senses, and the former tells us that the latter are not reliable.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins