Re: G/t=u

On Apr 5, 4:04 am, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 5, 3:37 am, rick_so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:



It is possible, that Einstein may have come up with special relativity
and general relativity, and not known how the acceleration which gives
rise to gravity was caused. Its possible, but not likely because of
all the work that had been done since the middle 1800's on n
dimensional space.
In fact it is more logical to assume, that he began there, and worked
forward.

Now regarding geometry, since you are dealing with relative motion and
the field in this case is not the same as a magnetic field, but rather
a topographic type of field in 4 dimensions including time, the energy
involved is not electromagnetic energy, not part of the EM spectrum,
but rather a Newtonian force.
All he did is translate that, from a straight line, into curved space
where it becomes a geodesic.

And so why include times as a dimension?

Because if you consider that you are standing on the earth, and it is
expanding, and that line of acellerated force is beneath you to the
center of the earth, outwards through the top of your head, then in
that line that direction, that is along the arrow of time.

So to take two measurements along that line of force to determine the
rate of acceleration, you need to take two measurements along that
line over time. Not because the earth itself is moving along that line
through space, but because it is getting bigger along that line in
time. Hence time is a dimension, in this case, because you can use it
to describe the size of the earth now, and the size it was, even
without actually seeing it expand, which is impossible to see because
you are expanding along with it, as are all atoms, and even space-time
itself. So you can only assume that is the cause, since there is no
other possible cause, and you know the universe is expanding.

Now you would think, that it must be possible to detect regardless,
and sure it is by many many means.

For instance, force drops off proportionally.

And so then why hasn't anyone formalized it and shown how it all fits
together and I suppose someday someone will.
Maybe by not doing that, it leaves lots of work to do, and by uniting
the forces formally, it would reduce the amount of work to do.
And people with all their pet theories would have less to think about,
and maybe they might find something yet. Something new or different
while they look to unite what is already united.

For instance, if you understand what quantum theory is truly, why
would you really think, that there could be a quantum gravity?

Is there a quantum theory of acceleration?

Do we need one?

Is there a quantum description using quarks, that further describes
what acceleration really is?

Is there a probability theory, necessary, to describe gravity, when
gravity is universal, and works 100% of the time?

Is gravitational theory, GR, a complete theory which describes
gravity?

Is there some part of gravity we do not yet understand?

So what is it we are expecting to unite? Are we first suggesting, that
the fictitious representation known as an instantaneous point
particle, has substance, and further has constituent parts, that have
substance, and those same parts, may be behind gravity as well?
Then the quantum foam fits that description I would think.
All that remains is to show how that could work.

You see you could do away with any perfect fluid, around the quantum
foam, and say it was in a state, of foam, much like ice is in a state
as opposed to a liquid state of water.

That in its present state, after the inflationary period of the
universe it expanded proportionally to the force behind it, and then
from then on, was subject to the force of a pull, from the void,
wanting it to expand like a normal foam would expand in a vacuum bell
jar.

So the initial force, created the foam, and then the pressure of the
void, gives it the force of gravity, as it expands into n dimensional
space.

Now then why it has formed planets and stars and galaxies, is because
as it expands, it is subject to forces within it. High and low
pressure areas, currents, vortices, and even remnants of th
einflationary period, in way of force, such as the background
radiation from the early part of the universe.

By studying older galaxies with Hubble, you can see that the early
universe was less anthropic and galaxies were more primordial, and not
spiral.

Freudian slip there, that should read entropic, not anthropic.


So it is possible to surmise that the big bang, had an initial effect,
and then the pressure of the void taking over had a different effect.

The former chaotic, and the latter uniform motion.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Need some assistance
    ... a lot of the other things in the universe. ... General Relativity says that gravity is the curvature of absolute ... These balloons are expanding. ... when you expand the balloon. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: moving through space vs space expanding
    ... The difference is that the observed horizon of our universe appears to be ... expanding between the objects. ... It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: moving through space vs space expanding
    ... The difference is that the observed horizon of our universe appears to be ... expanding between the objects. ... It includes a new theory of gravity and it unites gravity with the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Accelerated expansion of the universe-some questions
    ... than succumbing to gravity from gravitational forces. ... universe would be suddenly expanding or had suddenly expanded at any ... will justify the claim for acceleration of expansion. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Fermats Last Theorum Part II
    ... united gravity with electro-magnetism in 1992, ... Is there proof, that we are not expanding into n-dimensional space, at ... And we can see this because during an eclipse of the sun, ... invisible force at work attracting one thing to another like a magnet, ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading