I've been thinking about time and space.
A bit of background: The decision that the universe must be expanding started a couple of decades after Einstein's relativity with the observation of a shift in the light spectrum of distant galaxies to be redder. The redshift was attributed to the Doppler Effect, which is where an observer observing the wavelength emissions of an object moving away from the observer sees the object's wavelength's crests as occurring at further apart due to the object moving away from the point where the pulse was emitted in the direction that creates more distance between the object and the observer. If the objects were moving closer together, the Doppler Effect would cause the crests to appear more frequently. So, the redshift was attributed to the Doppler Effect, and the universe was determined to be expanding. As it was discovered that further objects, which were distanced by brightness, shift to be redder faster, it was decided objects in space are not only becoming further apart but are accelerating. To explain the outward momentum of the universe a force setting its expansion into motion, like the big bang, became standard, and to explain the acceleration of the universe, dark energy became standard.
I'm really not partial to that explanation at all, so I thought about what could cause a redshift measurable in every direction other than Doppler effects caused by universal expansion.
Well, here's the main thought process!
1. To estimate the gravitational force within a set, sum up the mass and divide by the distance. Should the mass be spread across a greater distance, the net gravity of that mass would be lesser. If the mass were to be condensing, the strength of its gravitational impact would be increasing.
2. Gravitational time dilation is the effect by which objects pass through time at faster rates when under the effects of less gravity; as well as the inverse, objects pass through time at slower rates when under the effect of more gravity.
3. Mass cannot be created or destroyed, so the net sum of the universe's gravity depends upon the distance between its points. Should the universe be expanding, total gravity ought to be decreasing. If the universe were to be condensing, total gravity should be increasing.
4. If the universe were expanding, total gravity would be decreasing, and the rate at which time passes throughout space would therefore increase. If we were to observe a wavelength undergo a decrease in gravity, its rate ought to increase in correspondence to the increased rate of the wavelength's passage through time.
5. If the universe were condensing, total gravity would be increasing, and the rate at which time passes throughout space would thereby decrease. Wavelengths undergoing an increase in gravity ought to decrease in frequency in correspondence to the decreased rate of the wavelength's passage through time.
If light throughout the universe is becoming redder, the cause for the redshift may be an increase in sum gravity as a result of the universe condensing. Without the expansion of the universe, an event to cause the direction of the universe is unnecessary as so long as there's both mass and distance and no explosive origin, there's an ever-increasing force of gravity bringing it all together.
Well, I'm still thinking about the lot of it as well as perhaps writing a brief book, to organize arguments and evidence for the model as well as explore its implications, but the current stage seemed substantive enough for an initial share 8)
I am not trained in physics, so forgive me if my questions are less than apt. However, your description does not appear to me to be particularly rigorous.
Quote from: OS Not Found on November 10, 2018, 03:03:38 PM
1. To estimate the gravitational force within a set, sum up the mass and divide by the distance. Should the mass be spread across a greater distance, the net gravity of that mass would be lesser. If the mass were to be condensing, the strength of its gravitational impact would be increasing.
A set of what? Masses in a given volume? Gravity is a force of attraction between two (or more) objects. The net force of gravity on an object is the vector sum of the gravitational forces exerted on it by all other masses. So, it's not clear to me what you mean by "gravitational force within a set". And what is this distance you're dividing by? How did you derive this particular relation?
Further, the gravitational force exerted by a mass does not depend on its size (how it's "spread out") so I don't see how this "condensing" makes any difference. Of course, modelling an object as a point-mass is necessarily an approximation, but if something is ten light years away, it's gravitational force on the earth will not change to any significant extent if it is 10 metres across, 20 metres across, or in fact a number of smaller objects separated by a few kilometers.
Two objects need to be quite close to each other (cosmically speaking) before the point-mass approximation of their gravitational attraction becomes inaccurate, and you need to break out the finite element analysis (or however physicists solve this class of problem).
Quote
3. Mass cannot be created or destroyed, so the net sum of the universe's gravity depends upon the distance between its points. Should the universe be expanding, total gravity ought to be decreasing. If the universe were to be condensing, total gravity should be increasing.
What does it mean to sum up the gravity in the universe? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my intuition is that the sum of the gravitational forces in the universe is zero, regardless of expansion or contraction. E.g., the sun exerts a pull on the earth, the earth exerts an identical pull on the sun in the opposite direction, and those two forces cancel out exactly.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on November 10, 2018, 06:00:53 PMWhat does it mean to sum up the gravity in the universe? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my intuition is that the sum of the gravitational forces in the universe is zero, regardless of expansion or contraction. E.g., the sun exerts a pull on the earth, the earth exerts an identical pull on the sun in the opposite direction, and those two forces cancel out exactly.
I can answer this.
This is incorrect, because gravity doesn't work that way.
If what you said were true, binary star systems involving two differently sized stars would have a lower mass than either of the stars on their own. This is provably not correct. Gravity works in some mysterious way we don't actually understand, but the idea of a "field" not unlike an electromagnetic field is close enough that it works.
There is no binary to gravity. There is more or there is less, but there is no negative that we can find, it is always positive. Gravity does not cancel out, anymore than four added to four cancels to zero.
One can imagine the universe's gravity as being the sum of all massive objects in the universe. From a reasonable distance "outside" of the universe, whatever that means, we could treat it as a single point mass as heavy as everything inside of it. This part of the hypothesis isn't unsound, it's actually already used to analyze potential dark energy and similar hypothetical but unobservable things.
Now then.
My problem with this concept is harder to formulate without a lot of research, but I do believe observations contradict it. I've done some low effort google searching with crappy parameters, but nothing has come up so far.
On a whim, I also want to say it implies a "Hubble bubble" (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_bubble_(astronomy) ) even if it's not using the same explanations for the issue as the ones that the term arose from. In particular, why would more distant light be more redshifted than comparatively local (e.g. say, Local Group) light if there weren't a Hubble bubble? Gravity would by definition need to be higher further away than closer by.
One could posit the comparative homogeneity of gravity in the universe continuously slows the light down further and further but this has problems as well, such as that we are still capable of motion on Earth, under the influence of much higher gravity than light in interstellar space. In a universe like this, stars should be alive forever, and any sufficiently massive rock should be eternally frozen in time. This being clearly false, one can assume that gravity does not continuously decelerate objects within its grasp, and has (at least) a constant value of dilation for a given level of gravity.
So I'm inclined to say at a glance that it either necessitates a Hubble bubble, or it cannot be true. This is not a very rigorous rebuttal (because it isn't a very rigorous hypothesis) so it's possible I've completely missed the mark. However, I would take a good long look at it, and maybe try to math out if it does need a Hubble bubble (and if so, how dramatic of one and where) to function. The data suggests pretty strongly that we do not live in a local mass underdensity, which would kill the hypothesis if it requires one.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on November 10, 2018, 06:00:53 PM
A set of what? Masses in a given volume? Gravity is a force of attraction between two (or more) objects. The net force of gravity on an object is the vector sum of the gravitational forces exerted on it by all other masses. So, it's not clear to me what you mean by "gravitational force within a set". And what is this distance you're dividing by? How did you derive this particular relation?
Set of any masses, in this case all masses. Gravitational force for two objects = (the gravitational constant * mass of object 1 * mass of object 2)/the distance between object 1&object 2². Right on about the net gravity being the sum of gravitational forces, and gravitational force is denominated by the distance between the objects squared. The relationship this is derived from is called Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. While finding a precise result for the net gravitational force across all objects in the universe is a job best suited to the demon of Laplace, if the goal is just to know how net gravitational force is effected by an expansion or condensation of distance only the denominator needs to be looked at. If the denominator is increasing and the numerator is the same, the quotient (net gravitational force) is decreasing.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on November 10, 2018, 06:00:53 PM
What does it mean to sum up the gravity in the universe? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my intuition is that the sum of the gravitational forces in the universe is zero, regardless of expansion or contraction.
I've never heard of the sum of gravitational forces needing to be zero, it sounds fairly impossible.
Maybe you're thinking of the Zero-Energy Universe theory, which is a proposed solution to how a something-universe could occur without the massive amount of energy cost something like the explosion of a singularity or abrupt existence of space-time would appear to require, the solution being what appears to be somethings sum up to nothing, so we don't get something from nothing we get a set of somethings which sum up to nothing from nothing, proposed by a 'quantum fluctuation' causing a rapid inflation of opposing particle pairs so that all particles have their equal and opposite particle which balances their existence against the force that created them, which is nothing, so that from nothing you can get two something's which sum up to a nothing. The Zero-Energy Universe isn't in the standard cosmological model.
The other need you might feel for a zero-sum gravity game might be from Newton's Third Law, the 'equal and opposite' one? Newton's Third Law goes 'Every action's got an equal and opposite reaction.' As a fundamental force gravitational pulls are more something that just happens than something that's an action. So long as there's mass and space, there's a positive gravitational force, and while you may imagine an object in the position where for each gravitational force acting upon it there's an equal force acting upon it from the opposing direction, something like the point at the center of a sphere, the surface points of the sphere are also interacting with any masses that might be outside of the sphere, and as an object's mass in the formulation of gravitational force is determined by its center of mass, which is synonymous to center of gravity, though the sum of equal and opposite gravitational forces may cause a stationary center of the sphere, the amount of gravity that point exerts is still a positive sum as though gravity may be pulling different directions, the sum is still positive as the sign isn't determined by the position in space. The local mitigation of acceleration due to gravity contributes to the increase in net gravity as opposed to neutralizing the sum of gravitational forces as the center of mass is increased.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on November 10, 2018, 06:00:53 PM
E.g., the sun exerts a pull on the earth, the earth exerts an identical pull on the sun in the opposite direction, and those two forces cancel out exactly.
Because the sun has significantly more mass than the earth, the center of mass between the earth and the sun is closer to the sun, resulting in the earth being pulled more towards the sun than the sun is pulled towards the earth. A spaghetti example might help. If the earth is the tramp and the sun is the lady, and they are both monching on the spaghetti, the sun pulling the earth and the earth pulling the sun results in the spaghetti between them decreasing as they are pulled together, not canceling each other out. We aren't heading for a head-on collision because as the gravitational force also causes the centripetal force, which is more an effect of gravity than a force in its own right, but I'm physics'ed out for today.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/x28cIQSn19Tbi/giphy.gif)
Quote from: nullified on November 11, 2018, 12:12:56 AM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on November 10, 2018, 06:00:53 PMWhat does it mean to sum up the gravity in the universe? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my intuition is that the sum of the gravitational forces in the universe is zero, regardless of expansion or contraction. E.g., the sun exerts a pull on the earth, the earth exerts an identical pull on the sun in the opposite direction, and those two forces cancel out exactly.
I can answer this.
This is incorrect, because gravity doesn't work that way.
If what you said were true, binary star systems involving two differently sized stars would have a lower mass than either of the stars on their own. This is provably not correct. Gravity works in some mysterious way we don't actually understand, but the idea of a "field" not unlike an electromagnetic field is close enough that it works.
There is no binary to gravity. There is more or there is less, but there is no negative that we can find, it is always positive. Gravity does not cancel out, anymore than four added to four cancels to zero.
You didn't understand what I wrote. I don't know how to add
gravity, nor do I even know what that would mean, but I do know how to add up gravitational
forces. I can accept (but will not claim) that there is no such thing as gravity with negative amplitude, but gravity certainly has a
direction, and in a case where there are two masses acting on each other, there are two gravitational forces acting in opposite directions, and the sum of those vectors would be zero.
Quote from: OS Not Found on November 11, 2018, 12:28:41 AM
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on November 10, 2018, 06:00:53 PM
E.g., the sun exerts a pull on the earth, the earth exerts an identical pull on the sun in the opposite direction, and those two forces cancel out exactly.
Because the sun has significantly more mass than the earth, the center of mass between the earth and the sun is closer to the sun, resulting in the earth being pulled more towards the sun than the sun is pulled towards the earth. A spaghetti example might help. If the earth is the tramp and the sun is the lady, and they are both monching on the spaghetti, the sun pulling the earth and the earth pulling the sun results in the spaghetti between them decreasing as they are pulled together, not canceling each other out. We aren't heading for a head-on collision because as the gravitational force also causes the centripetal force, which is more an effect of gravity than a force in its own right, but I'm physics'ed out for today.
No. The gravitational forces between the sun and earth are equal, and in opposite directions. The location of the center of mass has nothing to do with it. Hell, the forces between
me and the earth are equal, and in opposite directions. The earth is pulling me down with about 162 lbs* of force, and I'm pulling the earth
up with 162 lbs of force.
Look at the vector form (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Vector_form) of the law of gravitation. The natural (and intuitive) consequence is that F
21 = -F
12. What was the sum of a vector, and its inverse, again?
Bluntly, I don't think you even physics. I see no reason to spend for me to spend further time on this.
*
Yes, I know, I'm on a diet, shut up.
You base this all on physical laws derived by humans from the data we got by observing the TV-screens aliens put up in the sky. They are designed to almost but not quite to make sense so our top scientists waste infinite amount of time rather than come up with anything useful.
P.S. Wouldn't a lightwave traveling in decreasing gravity be analogous to one climbing up from a gravity well?
Quote from: nullified on November 11, 2018, 12:12:56 AM
On a whim, I also want to say it implies a "Hubble bubble" (see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_bubble_(astronomy) ) even if it's not using the same explanations for the issue as the ones that the term arose from. In particular, why would more distant light be more redshifted than comparatively local (e.g. say, Local Group) light if there weren't a Hubble bubble? Gravity would by definition need to be higher further away than closer by.
The distant light being more redshifted than the comparative local light could occur without a Hubble Bubble due to the Doppler Effect. While an increase in universal gravity could universally increase a red-shift, the momentum of light sources would still impact the frequency at which we receive the light wavelengths as they do to a degree in the standard model.
The strength of gravity increases as objects condense, so objects further apart are not affected by as much gravitational acceleration as those closer together. In the phase of this gif where the source is moving towards the head, the speed at which the object approaches increases the frequency of its wavelength. While the redshift as a result of increased gravitational time dilation would be stronger than the decrease due to that of gravitational acceleration, objects further apart would experience less gravitational acceleration. The source would approach us slower than sources closer to us approach us, and due to the Doppler Effect, the object approaching us slower would have a greater redshift due to its having less acceleration in our direction.
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FastDaringBuzzard-max-1mb.gif)
Quote from: nullified on November 11, 2018, 12:12:56 AM
While
One could posit the comparative homogeneity of gravity in the universe continuously slows the light down further and further but this has problems as well, such as that we are still capable of motion on Earth, under the influence of much higher gravity than light in interstellar space. In a universe like this, stars should be alive forever, and any sufficiently massive rock should be eternally frozen in time. This being clearly false, one can assume that gravity does not continuously decelerate objects within its grasp, and has (at least) a constant value of dilation for a given level of gravity.
The observable redshift doesn't occur until an estimated 1 billion light years apart https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html (https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html) (I'll start outsourcing some explanations because there's a lot at play here). The theory doesn't place gravity as being homogeneous as the force of gravity is concentrated to the center of mass between objects, which doesn't have to occur within a centralized point. Objects appearing slower as they approach us due to increases in gravity doesn't entail that we are any closer to the center of gravity than any other galaxy for a similar reason those positing a universal expansion in the standard model don't place Earth at its center.
The solution to all objects moving away from the observer under the standard model is explained as raisin bread. As the bread expands, all of the raisins expand further apart from all of the other raisins. This is a very idealistic raisin bread, but its a pretty good metaphor because it isn't the raisins moving towards or away from each other that primarily causes their apparent expansion, its the increase in space between them.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wQwBagmPDec/WrVoaof7sFI/AAAAAAAABcc/aqYTOiFAdoIDyu6QE38CLnHhaP4EPjmLgCLcBGAs/s1600/tumblr_inline_nhov15hj6i1sxaqsp.gif)
If space is condensing due to increased gravity, the condensing proceeds from the center of mass between objects, not the objects themselves. The observed redshift occurs only when observing objects significantly out of our solar system, so the centers of masses between far away space objects we see undergoing the redshift wouldn't cause crushing, time-stopping gravity here on earth. Gravity doesn't stop increasing, and as the rate at which objects pass through time occurs in conjunction with the gravitational force that object is undergoing, that the universe is increasing in gravity is evidence for objects to not to be stopped in time.
No matter how big a rock gets unless its the only rock in the universe, it will still have gravitational interactions. For example, black holes are thought to have extreme gravity. But black holes are still on the prowl, and it is still possible for objects to be pulled into black holes because they only account for a portion of the total gravitational force. If the universe were to be finite and reached a point of singularity, which would take literally forever as proportional to the increase in gravity as it condenses is the increase in time dilation, it would be safe to say that time has stopped for that singularity. However, the space between the raisins can always be reduced more as space isn't a physical commodity. As for stars being eternal, I'm really not sure what could suggest that.
For gravity, not decelerating objects, my thought is that gravity accelerates objects through spatial distance but elongates time-distance causing the perceived change in their position to occur slower. For a constant level of time dilation, the minimum level of time dilation would be the point in space with the least gravitational force being applied to it. From thereon, time dilation increases directly with the increase in gravitational force being applied.
The observations relating to the redshift don't appear to require a Hubble Effect as they can be explained by the variable rate of approaching objects depending upon their distance due to gravitational acceleration, and I don't see the condensing of the universe running into those observational problems, but the Hubble Bubble is definitely something I'm now thinking about because I'm not a particularly big fan of raisin bread and it may be another way to explain the same thing.
Quote from: Frontside Back on November 11, 2018, 01:48:46 AM
You base this all on physical laws derived by humans from the data we got by observing the TV-screens aliens put up in the sky. They are designed to almost but not quite to make sense so our top scientists waste infinite amount of time rather than come up with anything useful.
P.S. Wouldn't a lightwave traveling in decreasing gravity be analogous to one climbing up from a gravity well?
Agreed, from my perspective we've spent a solid century on explaining the expansion of the universe with only the dimness and hue of light to go on as evidence for it after a point.
Gravity wells are interesting and feed into the idea of a Hubble Bubble caused by gravity wells. Here's what I think about them at this point:
If the center of mass between the distant galaxy and us is the highest point in gravity, the light traveling from the distant galaxy towards us may go over something of a gravity hill. While approaching the half-way point, it encounters increasing gravitational time-dilation, over the hill the light is further from that particular concentration of gravity and may pick up some more speed. I think this is a similar effect to the Hubble Bubble, but it doesn't require a high-density shell. I'm definitely going to think about how gravitational hills between distant galaxies and our own might impact the redshift if it does at all. Because the hill occurs at the center point of mass, there should be an equal amount of uphill slope as there is a downhill slope. So should an effect like the Hubble Bubble be occurring through gravitational concentrations, its impact on the redshift should be mitigated as far as changes in time-dilation resistance. Increasing gravity would still result in increasing heights of the slopes, meaning there is more distance for the light to travel between objects as gravity increases.
Quote from: OS Not Found on November 10, 2018, 03:03:38 PM
2. Gravitational time dilation is the effect by which objects pass through time at faster rates when under the effects of less gravity; as well as the inverse, objects pass through time at slower rates when under the effect of more gravity.
I don't know if I'm just interpreting this wrong, but haven't you got this one backwards? I saw the movie with black holes and shit, and when the astronauts go to the planet near the gravity well, they experience like couple hours of time, while for the dudes waiting on the spaceship it feels like years. So from the point of view of an outside observer time goes by
faster under more gravity and
slower under less gravity. Maybe there's just a perspective shift, but I'd like to have a clarification.
Also, about those hills. If a wave is traveling on a hill that is stretching/contracting, wouldn't the wave stretch/contract with the hill?
So much for not wasting my time, this brain doesn't have an off switch.
Gravity is the curvature of space-time caused by mass. The gravitational force between two objects decreases as the objects move further apart; however, the spatial curvature caused by each mass is independent of that separation. So, if the amount of mass in the universe is constant, then so is the "amount" of gravity, regardless of how that mass is distributed.
You can add up the amplitude of the gravitational forces in the universe, and find that as the universe expands, that sum becomes smaller, but I don't see how that value has any meaning. It's like adding the voltages in a computer power supply. One rail is at 12V, and another is at 5V, but adding those numbers together to make 17V doesn't make any sense.
My claims, then, are:
1. The vector sum of all gravitational forces in the universe is zero.
2. If the mass of the universe is constant, then the total amount of gravity (space-time curvature) in the universe is constant.
3. Adding up a bunch of scalar gravitational forces is meaningless.
4. Disclaimer: Claim #2 assumes that space-time curvature adds linearly, and I don't have any justification for that (hence my earlier comment that I don't know how to add gravity).
5. Apples mean trouble.
This was certainly a lot of words.
Suspiciously many words. He might turn out to be a random word generator.
Quote from: Frontside Back on November 11, 2018, 05:07:12 PM
Quote from: OS Not Found on November 10, 2018, 03:03:38 PM
2. Gravitational time dilation is the effect by which objects pass through time at faster rates when under the effects of less gravity; as well as the inverse, objects pass through time at slower rates when under the effect of more gravity.
I don't know if I'm just interpreting this wrong, but haven't you got this one backwards? I saw the movie with black holes and shit, and when the astronauts go to the planet near the gravity well, they experience like couple hours of time, while for the dudes waiting on the spaceship it feels like years. So from the point of view of an outside observer time goes by faster under more gravity and slower under less gravity. Maybe there's just a perspective shift, but I'd like to have a clarification.
Also, about those hills. If a wave is traveling on a hill that is stretching/contracting, wouldn't the wave stretch/contract with the hill?
I've got it forward, sounds like you do too, so in the movie the guy goes to a higher gravity place, closer to the gravity well, and he passes through time slower than it does for the people on the spaceship, so he passes through time a few hours while the dudes on the spaceship pass through time a few years. If you think of their experience of time like a line, and their trajectories through space-time as a U at an angle so you only see the line, and give the parabolas the same amount of length, the more you stretch pull the U from the center down the less of it you see on the line showing the amount of time the astronaut has experienced.
The wave should stretch/contract with the hill, significantly more than the hill stretches I think, which should account for at least some of the redshifting as the stretching would occur as it travels. The model so far would look like a U where at each end of the U is a galaxy. Galaxy from the end on the left sends a point of light to the end on the right at the same time the left point is moving towards the right point, pinching the middle point further. The heightening of the hill would occur throughout the whole U as it stretches.
The idea might be similar to running up a down escalator and then running down an up escalator, except in this case the acceleration/deceleration is the opposite. I just can't think of an example where something has to go slower to go further. Waves traveling across the hill without the hill stretching would have an effect similar to walking up stairs, since it decelerates moving up and accelerates moving down when you fold the U both of the ends are still at the same point.
If the escalator to be run up starts to go in the down direction, and the escalator to be run down starts to go up at the same constant speed as the down escalator, the U should still fold so that both ends have the same Y-coordinate.
Now, if the escalators are going in opposite directions like the two sides of the gravity hill, but are increasing their speeds at a constant rate, going up the first escalator requires less speed than going down the second escalator. The U for these escalators will fold with the side being traveled to always being higher on the Y-axis than the side being traveled from. This isn't a perfect example because in the case of lightwaves what should be happening is more akin to a fast escalator slowing down and the wave having to maintain a constant speed relative to that escalator so the wave slows down as well, but the effect of asymmetric experience of the distance across the U is equivalent and having to run up down escalators is more relatable.
:lulz:
So while the U may stretch proportionally from one end to the other end from an 'objective' experience, when the wave stretches while traveling the course of the U, the wave has an asymmetric amount of distance to travel as well as an asymmetric experience of time dilation.
So, my personal opinion is that something seems off in both your initial assumptions as well as something seeming off around steps 3 and 4.
However, I am not a physicist. Double however, I know some physicists. If I can have your permission, may I submit your working hypothesis to Chang Kee Jung (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_Kee_Jung), who was part of the Super-Kamiokande (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande) coalition which won the Nobel prize in Physics back in 2015? He might know a thing or two about gravity, time, and light.
Let me know.
Quote from: LMNO on November 12, 2018, 01:07:04 PM
If I can have your permission, may I submit your working hypothesis to Chang Kee Jung (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_Kee_Jung), who was part of the Super-Kamiokande (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande) coalition which won the Nobel prize in Physics back in 2015? He might know a thing or two about gravity, time, and light.
:aaa:
I can see a number of places this might be headed, and I like all of them.
Quote from: chaotic neutral observer on November 12, 2018, 01:23:04 PM
Quote from: LMNO on November 12, 2018, 01:07:04 PM
If I can have your permission, may I submit your working hypothesis to Chang Kee Jung (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_Kee_Jung), who was part of the Super-Kamiokande (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande) coalition which won the Nobel prize in Physics back in 2015? He might know a thing or two about gravity, time, and light.
:aaa:
I can see a number of places this might be headed, and I like all of them.
Same. I love a good train wreck.
It's also worth mentioning that I was on Kitt Peak with Dr Probst when the announcement came down that the Alcubierre Drive couldn't work because, mathematically, gravity has to be common to all universes.
Which makes this even more complicated. You may have to deal with gravitational forces from objects which, strictly speaking, don't exist.
Quote from: LMNO on November 12, 2018, 01:07:04 PM
So, my personal opinion is that something seems off in both your initial assumptions as well as something seeming off around steps 3 and 4.
However, I am not a physicist. Double however, I know some physicists. If I can have your permission, may I submit your working hypothesis to Chang Kee Jung (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_Kee_Jung), who was part of the Super-Kamiokande (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande) coalition which won the Nobel prize in Physics back in 2015? He might know a thing or two about gravity, time, and light.
Let me know.
I'm currently making a powerpoint (which I'm going to convert into a picture book called "One Shift, Two Shift, Redshift, Blueshift") to get feedback from some of the physics/metaphysics people that I know from university connections. I found Chang Kee Jung's email with a search as well as pictures of him jumping off a bridge on the same page, so I can submit it to him as well once I've got the information as concise as I'd like it to reduce the odds on it getting skimmed, scanned, and trash-canned.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 12, 2018, 04:19:58 PM
It's also worth mentioning that I was on Kitt Peak with Dr Probst when the announcement came down that the Alcubierre Drive couldn't work because, mathematically, gravity has to be common to all universes.
Which makes this even more complicated. You may have to deal with gravitational forces from objects which, strictly speaking, don't exist.
Part of the incentive for this model is to reduce reliance on phenomenal phenomena. Without the big bang, there's reduced incentive for belief in massive quantum inflation and the multiverse that would have resulted. With a cosmological arrow for an increased trend in gravity, there's reduced incentive for the negative mass, which the Alciuberre Drive depends on utilizing.
Not too dependant on this model, but related to the Alciuberre Drive: Wormhole theory tends to be around black holes, but if we find the supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies, it seems simpler to imagine black holes as being the center of the gravitational force between the objects in the galaxy rather than as being its own physical object, considering there has never been a visual observation of black holes themselves just surrounding effects, near all images of black holes being illustrations or taken from computer simulations/the ones of actual black holes only showing its effect on surrounding space stuff. If gravity is increased and concentrating to a center point within galaxies, I don't think there's any room for the wormhole bijection sign flipping in the case where a black hole is just a massive gravity well formed as a result of surrounding objects' center of gravity. Observational evidence for black holes being centers of gravity and not physical objects, aside from them lacking physical characteristics, may be found in the observation that supermassive black holes are located at the center of almost every massive galaxy as well in explaining the M-σ relation without dependency on an inobservable feedback mechanism.
Will update with peer feedback as it goes, while the emails ping and pong I'll be focusing in on One Shift, Two Shift, Redshift, Blueshift for a solid.
Related, to the elongated U suggesting an increased redshift always at the side of the observing end, a blueshift should occur from the observers in an expanding/decreasing density model similar to if the escalators were decreasing in speed while running up/down them.
Quote from: OS Not Found on November 13, 2018, 12:00:15 AM
I'm currently making a powerpoint (which I'm going to convert into a picture book called "One Shift, Two Shift, Redshift, Blueshift")
:lulz: I love it.
We should hold a Jake Day for particle physicists to slightly set back their summoning rituals at CERN.
Buddy, I have some news for you about black holes that you're not gonna like.
Quote from: OS Not Found on November 13, 2018, 12:00:15 AMconsidering there has never been a visual observation of black holes themselves just surrounding effects, near all images of black holes being illustrations or taken from computer simulations/the ones of actual black holes only showing its effect on surrounding space stuff.
This sure aged really poorly. I wonder if ever the OP will return to admit defeat.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna992111
Quote from: nullified on April 11, 2019, 05:26:48 AM
Quote from: OS Not Found on November 13, 2018, 12:00:15 AMconsidering there has never been a visual observation of black holes themselves just surrounding effects, near all images of black holes being illustrations or taken from computer simulations/the ones of actual black holes only showing its effect on surrounding space stuff.
This sure aged really poorly. I wonder if ever the OP will return to admit defeat.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna992111
Yeah, AND we have a new math legend.
I haven't heard about that. Do tell.
Quote from: nullified on April 11, 2019, 05:34:41 AM
I haven't heard about that. Do tell.
Doctor Katie Bouman. She built the model, then developed an algorithm to handle the 5 petabytes of data that led to more or less making a photograph of an actual object out of radiowaves. But the photograph isn't a model itself, it's actually a photograph.
Think of it as being to television what television was to radio.
Fuckin cool as hell, you mean?
No but really serious, that's awesome. I wish literally any of the news articles I saw mentioned the details.
Quote from: nullified on April 11, 2019, 05:39:26 AM
Fuckin cool as hell, you mean?
No but really serious, that's awesome. I wish literally any of the news articles I saw mentioned the details.
They keep referring to some dude. Dr Bouman made the model, wrote the algorithm, and led the team. But they keep interviewing some dude.
Surprise.
It's totally unsurprising but ... still really fucking irritating. Like getting splinters while doing woodwork.
Saw the news while at the barber. Haven't finished my initial hypothesis yet, and I haven't found all their information that I'm hoping they'd publish. Also, there will be more information after a few years of watching the hue/brightness/circumference/isco/thickness/and the perpendicular diametric flare's hue/width/brightness/spread at further points.
My central point on black holes has been the lack of evidence for 'point of no return's or singularities. This image, being made by rendering the surrounding gas, same as prior fictional renditions have been, still doesn't warrant inferring an infinitesimal. My current prediction for isco's, innermost stable circular orbit, is an 'insufficient negentropy' reaction. The closer gas is spun to the center point, assuming the center point of the black hole is its center of mass, more negentropic force is required to maintain parallel orbit. If insufficient negentropic force were provided to keep that debris in line, it would be shot out, to be either pulled back into the disc or in for a brisk escape.
As for the redness, the consistent explanation I've read/listened to so far attribute it to being pulled inward. I do think the contents of its disc are being pulled inward, up until reaching isco, but the primary motion is the spiral. At each point of an object in a spiral, an outward orthogonal redshift will occur as a result of its centripetal motion, regardless of if the spiral is condensing or expanding. Adding a condensing/expanding doppler would add another hue shift, but due to the density of the disc, condensation is likely not the predominant doppler. This is useful to note as with more images over time we will learn more about speed and the direction of their respective galaxies, the spin will be either increasing or decreasing at a different rate near the isco as it is on the circumference, possibly along some orbits between the two, but that is unlikely as a rate of increase greatest in the center would signal the complete absence of the original force.
Biggest thing to keep an eye on will be how those perpendicular diametric beams. I am predicting the beam, which should be a vortex, forming emissions occur at a speed/frequency to be blueshifted into the gammas, the study that resulted in this image should be repeated using satellite telescopes next so we can get a picture without our atmosphere's gamma filtration, but without being able to see the gammas now, we should be able to see the beam increase in diameter and redden as it further reveals itself. As what we see of the beam so far looks to be its early stages, I think its likely the orthogonal emissions of the gamma vortex initially hitting the pan, adding to its brightness, but as the diameter of the gamma vortex increases with distance, the orthogonal emissions focused towards and will eventually be shot directly through the hole, then return to hitting the pan until it shoots past the pan. First observing the hue-shift of those flairs overtime or repeating the survey with gamma satellites to look for supporting/dissenting evidence needs to be done, but if confirming, the currently apparent red beams can be used to determine the corresponding diameters of the gamma vortexes, point of orthogonal perpendicularity (when the tail becomes perpendicular before spinning out, its possible this doesn't happen until hitting the pan or until outside collision entirely/knowing the point of orthogonal perpendicularity will be necessary for a predicting a complete negation of the doppler vortex), as well as give hints to age/life expectancy. I didn't consider gamma vortexes before this picture and have more to learn about refractions, so I'm not yet prepared to do too much of any predictions on how the orthogonal (presumably red, as a light with varied angle of entry should have a doppler refraction) waves will react upon reaching corresponding positions with their respective enveloping gamma vortexes, but that is my first day's impressions.
:tldr:
I only read really one post here, and it sounded like fucking magick, but I'm an idiot so it could've been science. I've, been trying to figure out why this space donut is such a big deal, but, if, as that post says, it's going through shifts in the polar jets, then it deserves paying attention to, it just doesn't deserve all this OMFG A BLACK HOLE LEMME WAX POETIC news...
Yes, it is a space donut, yes, there is a strong possibility it's a previously unobserved singularity. Big deal, we already know those exist, what are the facts?
I'd hate to add to any thread derailment but...any thoughts on the idea of black holes as they relate to the information paradox? I personally really like the idea of encoding Information on the surface of a black hole; we could all be stellar holograms and not even know it.
https://youtu.be/yWO-cvGETRQ
I am going to shit in my pants. :kingmeh:
Quote from: Fujikoma on April 11, 2019, 11:20:06 PM
I only read really one post here, and it sounded like fucking magick, but I'm an idiot so it could've been science. I've, been trying to figure out why this space donut is such a big deal, but, if, as that post says, it's going through shifts in the polar jets, then it deserves paying attention to, it just doesn't deserve all this OMFG A BLACK HOLE LEMME WAX POETIC news...
Yes, it is a space donut, yes, there is a strong possibility it's a previously unobserved singularity. Big deal, we already know those exist, what are the facts?
They probably should have asked you before they invented new technology - more or less the scanners from Star Trek - and a whole shit ton of new math, right?
Waste of bloody time, because we already KNEW that so there is no reason to get EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE or do ANYTHING cool, because some fucking hipster knob end can't resist a fucking chance to sneer at the coolest thing to happen since 1969.
We are all very impressed by your jaded magnificence. Now get back on the hurdy gurdy. That hip ain't gonna stir itself.
Even at the resolution this is currently at, you could take an image of cloud cover on most discovered exoplanets as if you were in the equivalent of low Earth orbit. If you could set things up with the right amount of angular traverse speed you could see a dude standing on Mars waving at you, from Earth. (Actually I think you could see the last time he trimmed his fingernails but still!) No normal telescope can give you that, look at the Hubble and you have a pretty low resolution limit, and that's about the best we could do before without building a megastructure.
Shame there's no like button on posts. Alas~
Um, I do hope you don't believe I was agreeing with you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was agreeing with Howl while you were musing on possibilities for intergalactic selfies?
I was expanding on the part of it I found most interesting: new technology and the possibilities for it. Meanwhile, you act as though you've entirely switched your beliefs to the exact opposite of what they were a mere two posts ago.
You contradict yourself so regularly it's nigh impossible to keep up with where your little head is floating at any given time. So I won't bother anymore.
I actually think he's just an emotional masochist who likes the kind of abuse Howl dishes out.
Quote from: Al Qədic on April 12, 2019, 12:56:15 AM
I'd hate to add to any thread derailment but...any thoughts on the idea of black holes as they relate to the information paradox? I personally really like the idea of encoding Information on the surface of a black hole; we could all be stellar holograms and not even know it.
https://youtu.be/yWO-cvGETRQ
I think what's happening is more akin to shaking an etch-a-sketch, redistributing the information through ultra-gamma spaghettified bursts, than spaghettified and stored in a cold dark prison. Still in lieu of singularities, some total internal refraction may make storage possible, but I don't think there is sufficient force to prevent verticle escape from the event horizon. Seeing this black hole as a surprisingly regular disc, I think its more probable form is a black pole of centralized mass along mostly one axis, with less of an inherent spin, as the centralized mass would be immaterial in itself, and more like someone gyrating with such force all that is becomes its hula hoops until they are indistinguishable.
So, I don't think any information is lost or perpetually trapped, but as for whether the information is recoverable, it hinges on whether or not separate causes can have equivalent effects at large scales
I don't think a black hole would be immaterial, I mean, there's material there, it's just, material we'll never see, and a lot of it.
What is, a black hole's closest relative? A neutron star? These come in many forms, magnetars, pulsars, etc. Magnetars can be some of the brightest objects in the sky, just by virtue of their field, this is something far denser. It's so dense it makes ME jealous.
Quote from: Pergamos on April 12, 2019, 02:03:54 AM
I actually think he's just an emotional masochist who likes the kind of abuse Howl dishes out.
Don't be giving away my secrets.
This has now reached Babylon Horuv levels.
What, did the black hole explode and throw our galactic comfort zone into question?
This, is highly unlikely, space is time, yes? Infinitely dense space slows to a crawl. You'd likely die of old age long before your bones get spaghettified from actually getting close enough, to such a dense object. Maybe I missed the "this is not how black holes work" class.
Quote from: Fujikoma on April 12, 2019, 02:27:35 AM
What is, a black hole's closest relative? A neutron star? These come in many forms, magnetars, pulsars, etc. Magnetars can be some of the brightest objects in the sky, just by virtue of their field, this is something far denser. It's so dense it makes ME jealous.
For now, singularity defined black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars are children of overly-sufficient negentropic gravitational collapse. May change if their social bond isn't strong enough for closest relative status once they learn overly-sufficient negentropic gravitational collapse isn't the real dad to all of them.
Heat death of the universe... that's, not appealing at all.
Wait, how are white dwarfs any kind of singularity? Is this question racist?
Quote from: OS Not Found on April 12, 2019, 03:14:55 AM
Quote from: Fujikoma on April 12, 2019, 02:27:35 AM
What is, a black hole's closest relative? A neutron star? These come in many forms, magnetars, pulsars, etc. Magnetars can be some of the brightest objects in the sky, just by virtue of their field, this is something far denser. It's so dense it makes ME jealous.
For now, singularity defined black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars are children of overly-sufficient negentropic gravitational collapse. May change if their social bond isn't strong enough for closest relative status once they learn overly-sufficient negentropic gravitational collapse isn't the real dad to all of them.
The Big Rip would make all of those things more interesting than anyone really wanted.
Quote from: Fujikoma on April 12, 2019, 03:18:24 AM
Wait, how are white dwarfs any kind of singularity? Is this question racist?
You know what? I'm bailing on this one, too. JFC.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 12, 2019, 03:19:04 AM
Quote from: Fujikoma on April 12, 2019, 03:18:24 AM
Wait, how are white dwarfs any kind of singularity? Is this question racist?
You know what? I'm bailing on this one, too. JFC.
Nooo, don't, shutting up. What does JFC mean?
Quote from: Fujikoma on April 12, 2019, 03:18:24 AM
Wait, how are white dwarfs any kind of singularity? Is this question racist?
White dwarf is akin to a neutron star that doesn't have enough numbers to sustain a sign flipping somersault, so it falls back the way it came before trying again. If white dwarf not being strong enough to sustain a sign flip estranges it, I can't say I'm optimistic for the future of these phenomena as siblings.
Fucking quarks ruin everything.
.
How is this, white dwarf/neutron star a singularity in space time sense?
A focus group will be in here in ten minutes, I expect you'll have answers for them.
Quote from: The Johnny on April 12, 2019, 03:31:04 AM
.
Oh, oh, I got this!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/l3nW8CdFXPlQbqrqE/giphy.gif)
With thanks to LMNO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk