| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
wg48
National Hazard
Posts: 821
Registered: 21-11-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Sorry melgar and all I must have been half a sleep when I wrote my last post. I have deleted it while I still can. I will post an updated version when
I have time.
If aga was traveling at c as his travel time in our frame suggests. He would arrive instantly. Stopping and starting would be painfull very painfull.
This does assume SR is applicable.
Oops forgot to hit the post button on this post last night must have been in half sleep mode again.
|
|
|
wg48
National Hazard
Posts: 821
Registered: 21-11-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Melgar  | The issue is that I'm pretty sure I understand the standard model of the universe, but I'm not sure I understand you. However, the sentence
before your points a, b, and c was the one that I thought best explained it:
| Quote: | | Although this expansion increases the distance between objects that are not under shared gravitational influence, it does not
increase the size of the objects (e.g. galaxies) in space. |
That is, for objects that are not under shared gravitational influence, general relativity apparently doesn't describe the governing laws.
|
Given you do not understand the difference between commoving parameters and proper parameters I would be surprised if you understand the geometry of
the model but no more surprised than the fact that some physists don’t either.
If you willing deny two fundamental tenants of physics SR and GR and I do not, then we have no common frame of reference so will never come to a
common understanding.
I have started so I will finish.
Locally the model obeys all laws of physics just like say the house I am in does.. Globally (large scale) if the modelled universe is not expanding or
contracting its also correct. However If the modelled universe is expanding or contracting globally the model does not correctly represent the large
distances in the actual universe They are larger relative to the real universe. The distances in model are called commoving distances to distinguish
them from distances in the real universe which are called proper distances.
The confusion over expanding space and some values of the size of the universe arise from this simple confounding of comoving distances with proper
distances and yes I find that hard to belive too.
This is not difficult its not rocket science but apparently its even harder LOL
PS I am not half a sleep so hopefully I have this about correct.
[Edited on 31-10-2017 by wg48]
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by zts16 | | That's about the best you could get, end of story. You won't be able to travel at light speed or faster to get there. Demanding that people offer you
a sci-fi alternative is just trolling. |
I'm not Demanding anything of anyone.
It would be just great to hear about a new idea from anyone at some time, rather than the repeated refrain : "the science i learnt so far says it
can't be done".
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | It would be just great to hear about a new idea from anyone at some time |
Not to worry ─ if the good Lord wanted us to stay put he wouldn't have created dark energy...?
|
|
|
yobbo II
National Hazard
Posts: 709
Registered: 28-3-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
and then there was dark time
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
In the end, Reality is RIGHT THERE, staring us in the face, every single day.
Strange nobody has thought sideways a bit and come up with another idea in 112 years.
|
|
|
SWIM
National Hazard
Posts: 970
Registered: 3-9-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Sure they have, dozens and dozens of them.
Unfortunately most of them were total crap. ("gravity is just the kicked back nut of the screwing bolt of radiation")
The problem is that this isn't some Douglas Adams novel where you just make up a new cosmology and it's true because it's improbable, or because it
was written down in a bistro. (Although here in America many people take supply-side economics seriously based on something a guy scribbled down on a
napkin in a trendy restaurant)
Things have to actually fit with the reality which stares us in the face. And fit better than SR and GR do.
Coming up with something that does fit better, if that's possible at all, is unlikely to be possible if you structure your theories around the
preconceived condition that it must make it possible for us all to play Captain Kirk, or Dr Who, in real life.
All this yearning for long distance travel is a waste anyway; because as Dr Banzai once said, "Wherever you go...there you are."
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Ah.
So Thinking and Imagining are useless in the face of Established Science.
Somebody should have told Copernicus that to save him the rather nasty bother.
OK.
So here, and only here, we remain, and die, same as most species ever seen on this planet, if we cannot be different.
Personally i see alternative options, however it does not fit with the Establishment.
Yes, new ideas MUST be evaluated to see if the magic potato is really just a potato.
Same as all science - idea, test it out, it ends up as real or bollocks.
Oh well, nothing really changes, ever, not even the fact that everything always changes.
Edit:
Clearly what has already been established though mountains of actual Work is the foundation to build on, and cannot be disregarded as it establishes
Facts.
The only (not)New thing i'm pushing here is that people should Think for themselves and not be Bound by existing Science and thereby be limited in
what they can imagine.
We cannot (currently) get to Mars and back in a useful time.
Someone make it so 
[Edited on 31-10-2017 by aga]
|
|
|
SWIM
National Hazard
Posts: 970
Registered: 3-9-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga | Ah.
So Thinking and Imagining are useless in the face of Established Science.
Somebody should have told Copernicus that to save him the rather nasty bother.
|
If you don't like what someone says, just pretending they said something else is always a good way to convince yourself you're right and they're
wrong.
Good luck with that.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
In my own experience i'm always wrong, no matter what subject, who i talk to, how much i know about a thing etc.
Basically i am always wrong.
Everyone knows better than me, always, making me the tenth man most times.
|
|
|
Chemetix
Hazard to Others
Posts: 375
Registered: 23-9-2016
Location: Oztrayleeyah
Member Is Offline
Mood: Wavering between lucidity and madness
|
|
Some theories are complete Nuttery; I mean there are kooks that love to peddle electric aether theory of gravitation and others that deny SR based on
specious understanding of the simplest mathematics that describe the theories, nuts flock to gravity and black hole theory like flies to shit. But
then, the ideas like string theory are so complex that it takes decades to come to the conclusion it was nuts all along.
But amateur science shouldn't back away from tackling the big ideas any more than it should stick to the small ones.
It just means our peers need to be vigilant and be a bit more critical than when reviewing a more reputable source. I like kook, it's good to dabble
in "free energy" stuff because it sort of sets a baseline of crazy and broken logic, reading orthodox work then becomes somehow clearer and the
weaknesses in the science don't become lost by assumptions about it's validity.
I've got my own idea about what gravitiation is, the mathematics seems to work and the whole thing has an elegant simplicity about it...but I've never
published it anywhere, I'm too afraid I'll get labelled a kook and the idea will never get developed. Can we float gedanken experiments on phys.org?
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
If you have an idea about Gravity i would very much like to hear about it.
Edit:
"accepted" work with gravity are seriously lacking in actual Science.
[Edited on 31-10-2017 by aga]
|
|
|
Chemetix
Hazard to Others
Posts: 375
Registered: 23-9-2016
Location: Oztrayleeyah
Member Is Offline
Mood: Wavering between lucidity and madness
|
|
Good to hear from you again Aga; I missed your irascible ways, and low tolerance of talking in preference to doing. I'll post something but have some
work to do now, give me a few hours to put something together and I hope it can be shot down in flames by the SM team before I embarrass myself in
front of academia.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
I look forward to your post.
Being 'shot down' is fine.
Every idea yields new ideas, especially if they are good ones.
|
|
|
Chemetix
Hazard to Others
Posts: 375
Registered: 23-9-2016
Location: Oztrayleeyah
Member Is Offline
Mood: Wavering between lucidity and madness
|
|
Gravitation idea
Ok... let's just start off by saying that all mass interacts by it's matter wave, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave) where it's wave function spreads inversely as a function of distance. The wave is really in information
field that contains the quantum description of it's momentum. You can pin down either position or velocity but not both. This information of it's mass
and velocity interacting as a wave gives rise to diffraction patterns with slits such as Youngs' double slit experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) or phenomena like electron tunneling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling).
Given that matter has a quantum level momentum interaction, matter also has a macroscale momentum interaction. Momentum in a multi mass system is
conserved because momentum is a form of energy and energy just doesn't come from nowhere. m1v1 =m2v2 is a simple relationship that describes how a
system will behave when two masses interact. I posit that two masses interacting via their matter waves, probability fields or wave
function...whatever we want to call it, has consequences to the macroscale momentum.
Just think for a moment about two masses in space in some sort of proximity to each other, they have two wave matter fields that spread out and
overlap at some point.
The field is a probability of finding the mass at any point in time, the mass is more or less a blur in spacetime, only after a large number of time
periods does it seem like it is at a"position". What happens when the masses overlap their information about their position in space time is that
there are consequences to the energy of the system.
As the two masses are 'statistically' brought closer, due to the randomness of their positions the two masses exchange information about momentum. If
they decide that they are a system, they behave as though they have undergone an inelastic collision (or a part of one, statistically speaking). m1v1
=m2v2 becomes v2= m1v1/(m1+m2 ). Say both masses have a unit mass and a unit velocity in a perfect inelastic collision. As they collide the final
velocity is halved. As the wave function 'collides' the mass increases but the velocity reduces.
The consequence of the wave field having a reduced 'velocity' is spacetime slowing. The energy consequence to the system can be described as a
momentum increase with reducing distance. Mass one approaches mass two and the momentum changes with distance. The choice of which mass approaches
which mass is relative to the frame of reference that is chosen, it's why relativity works. The main consequence of momentum changing is there must be
a force involved. Momentum changing with distance is the same as saying force operating over distance. This is work.
Work is Force times distance. Two masses interacting set up a work potential between them, the potential is felt only at a quantum statistical level,
but no less the effect is that if the masses are probabilistically closer they have lowered the work potential. In order to overcome the lowering of
the work potential they will need external energy to change the system to have higher potential. In other words they fall towards each other. They
need extra energy to overcome the loss of potential. This is the 'Force' of gravitation and why it's so weak compared to other fundamental forces. The
pair of masses are statistically uphill and down hill of each other at any given moment but each quantum exchange means they inevitably get drawn
closer and the work potential gets eventually turned into a macroscopic increase in velocity towards each other, the acceleration due to gravity,
while at the quantum level they exchange information to become one mass with reduced velocity. You can also see that as you increase mass of the
system, the velocity must slow down, the more mass the slower the velocity component to the wave function of the mass. Eventually with enough mass the
velocity is slower than the speed of light, no quantum interactions, any particle exchange will take an infinite time to complete. No particle can
escape the work potential created and voila, black hole.
The work function F.d can be expressed as F ~w/d (~ = proportional to) , the force that exists between two masses can be expressed as the sum of the
two work functions. F~ (w1/d ) x (w2/d)
Work is proportional to the mass so the equation becomes
F~ m1.m2 / d^2
The force is equal to these variables only when the subtle quantum nature of the effect is taken into account, just how many particle exchanges
translate to a "measurement" in the real world, per second is something someone with a particle accelerator can answer. In this case we'll say there's
a variable k. So we have based on an interpretation of the work function derived from quantum momentum, we have an equation for the force due to
gravity that looks like:
F= k m1m2 / d^2
Which I must say isn't very original.
But that's the point isn't it, it seems to be a step in the right direction and I'm kind of satisfied by the simple uncomplicated interpretation of
the cause behind gravitation.
But I may very well have overlooked something blindingly simple and come to a conclusion from a disastrous flaw in logic. Which I humbly submit as a
possibility.
|
|
|
zed
International Hazard
Posts: 2277
Registered: 6-9-2008
Location: Great State of Jefferson, City of Portland
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-repentant Sith Lord
|
|
Well, there is the argument that as your ship goes faster, it becomes more massive, and thus much more difficult to accelerate.... But, we should
keep in mind, that your fuel onboard shall have become more massive too, and thus should contain much more Umph.
[Edited on 1-11-2017 by zed]
|
|
|
Chemetix
Hazard to Others
Posts: 375
Registered: 23-9-2016
Location: Oztrayleeyah
Member Is Offline
Mood: Wavering between lucidity and madness
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by zed | Well, there is the argument that as your ship goes faster, it becomes more massive, and thus much more difficult to accelerate.... But, we should
keep in mind, that your fuel onboard shall have become more massive too, and thus should contain much more Umph.
[Edited on 1-11-2017 by zed] |
Changing the rest mass by actual velocity I say comes from the Doppler shift of the matter wave. By compressing the matter wave you have shortened the
wavelength, this is a change in energy. And so alters the work function of the matter wave to make it interchangeably more massive or higher velocity,
as it's quantum momentum which has changed.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
@Chemetix thanks for sticking your neck out and posing an idea in public.
It will take some time (for me at least) to digest what you wrote before i could post any meaningful response/questions about it.
Edit:
What you mean by 'wave field' would be helpful.
[Edited on 2-11-2017 by aga]
|
|
|
Chemetix
Hazard to Others
Posts: 375
Registered: 23-9-2016
Location: Oztrayleeyah
Member Is Offline
Mood: Wavering between lucidity and madness
|
|
I think the accepted term is wave function, written as the Greek letter Psi, the probability distribution of finding a particle in space. It's a
complicated thing to describe, it's either the velocity or the position but not both. Rather than pin down one property it's easier to think of it as
a momentum field but with wave like properties.
I read Tollmans' "principles of statistical mechanics" among countless general physics texts on introductory quantum principles, but as someone once
said 'If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you obviously don't.'
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
'Wave Function' i am familiar with, thanks to blogger's beating it into me with all that maths (i should sue for Maths Abuse as soon as he gets out).
'Wave Field' is still unclear.
Please describe it more.
Use loads of pitchforks and LaTex if needs be.
|
|
|
Chemetix
Hazard to Others
Posts: 375
Registered: 23-9-2016
Location: Oztrayleeyah
Member Is Offline
Mood: Wavering between lucidity and madness
|
|
I think the way I used the term 'wave field' is my way of looking at the wave function acting as a field, because I introduce the concept of the wave
function creating a field of potential energy.
Electric field or magnetic fields are gradients of potential energy and are able to do work. Field lines are points of equipotential, the resultant
work function acts perpendicular to this field. Both in terms of Electromagnetism and gravitation.
|
|
|
zed
International Hazard
Posts: 2277
Registered: 6-9-2008
Location: Great State of Jefferson, City of Portland
Member Is Offline
Mood: Semi-repentant Sith Lord
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvN6-RK66Bo
Heh, heh. Lemme think on that.
|
|
|
Chemetix
Hazard to Others
Posts: 375
Registered: 23-9-2016
Location: Oztrayleeyah
Member Is Offline
Mood: Wavering between lucidity and madness
|
|
Hah... ok stop me when I get to tiaba kolbaka lemongrass....
|
|
|
wg48
National Hazard
Posts: 821
Registered: 21-11-2015
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The universe was very different 13 billion years ago, which means the simple calculation of its observable radius using its age and the velocity of
light is incorrect. To correctly calculate the distance you need the mass energy density and velocity along its path. The simple calculation grossly
underestimated that distance. It would be correct in a static universe.
Below is a pic of a plaque that appears at the Rose Centre for Earth and Space in New York. It does not even use the correct definition. You would
think a centre for space would have got it better. Perhaps some would say myths and fairy tales are fine if they are directed at undergraduates and
children (sarcasm) LOL
pic from wiki
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
The Universe was a lot bigger when i was a lad.
It was all trees around here, now look at it.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
