My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post Reply
User avatar
normal
!
!
Posts: 9071
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:23 pm
About me: meh
Location: North, and then some
Contact:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post by normal » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:04 am

Brian Peacock wrote:I like normal's hat.
Thanks, I like it too :tup:
Image
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable, let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   -Douglas Adams

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post by mistermack » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:37 am

pErvin, I can't believe the crap that you are coming out with.

You've completely missed the point. I posted about reaching the speed of light, as an illustration of the impossibility of it actually happening.
i.e. the impossibility that a rock could sit on the Moon for a few billion years, being constantly accelerated in the normal fashion.
I'm not claiming that that could happen, I'm claiming the opposite. It would take infinite energy to accelerate something to the speed of light anyway, so I thought that it would be obvious, even to you, that it couldn't happen.
If you sit and look at the rock on the Moon, even for just one billion years, then even you would conclude that it's not accelerating.
In the scenario I'm suggesting, it CAN'T be accelerating linearly, even if it's being pushed by what's under it at a constant force. That's because the flow of space past it would have to be steady, not increasing, because the mass of the Moon is steady, not increasing.
So you can't have an accelerating rock, that isn't going any faster.

My proposal gives a way in which the rock CAN be accelerating, relative to the space that it's in. By the space being funnelled past it, and being forced to accelerate all of the way.

As far as inertial frames being privileged goes, you didn't think it through. General Relativity doesn't cater for moving or accelerating space at all.
This is not two solid objects accelerating relative to each other. The claim is that it's one solid object, the rock, accelerating relative to the space that it's in because of the force exerted by the Moon.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post by Hermit » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:46 am

normal wrote:
Brian Peacock wrote:I like normal's hat.
Thanks, I like it too :tup:
Love it. Currently looking for a beany like that, but animated.

I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59278
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:47 am

mistermack wrote:pErvin, I can't believe the crap that you are coming out with.
Settle petal.

I'll address your points after a session of Broadchurch.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59278
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:51 pm

mistermack wrote:pErvin, I can't believe the crap that you are coming out with.

You've completely missed the point. I posted about reaching the speed of light, as an illustration of the impossibility of it actually happening.
i.e. the impossibility that a rock could sit on the Moon for a few billion years, being constantly accelerated in the normal fashion.
I'm not claiming that that could happen, I'm claiming the opposite. It would take infinite energy to accelerate something to the speed of light anyway, so I thought that it would be obvious, even to you, that it couldn't happen.
It's established fact, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. You didn't need to invent a weird arse "theory" to make that point.
If you sit and look at the rock on the Moon, even for just one billion years, then even you would conclude that it's not accelerating.
In the scenario I'm suggesting, it CAN'T be accelerating linearly, even if it's being pushed by what's under it at a constant force. That's because the flow of space past it would have to be steady, not increasing, because the mass of the Moon is steady, not increasing.
So you can't have an accelerating rock, that isn't going any faster.
It's not accelerating. It's subject to two equal and opposite forces. Hence no acceleration.
My proposal gives a way in which the rock CAN be accelerating, relative to the space that it's in. By the space being funnelled past it, and being forced to accelerate all of the way.

As far as inertial frames being privileged goes, you didn't think it through.
No I'm afraid you didn't think it through. As I said, the accelerating frame of reference is PRIVILEGED, unlike the case for intertial frames. So the bit I highlighted in your response above is nonsensical. It can't be accelerating relative to a frame that is accelerating. It's not accelerating at all.
This is not two solid objects accelerating relative to each other. The claim is that it's one solid object, the rock, accelerating relative to the space that it's in because of the force exerted by the Moon.
You are still not understanding the concept of relativity and how it applies to inertial frames vs accelerating frames.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59278
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post by pErvinalia » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:35 pm

mistermack wrote:
What I would like to establish, but can't, is whether the acceleration of the flow would be inversely proportional to the change in radius of a sphere squared.

If you picture a sphere of water, around a draining pipe in the ocean, then obviously, the water nearest the pipe moves fastest, and as you go outwards, it's slower and slower. So the water would be accelerating inwards.
Does the acceleration follow the inverse square law?
I think it would, as the change in volume of the sphere is related to the cube of the radius, so you're dividing radius cubed by the radius, giving r2.
But I'm shit at maths, so that's a guess.
This is another point where you are getting confused. You are mistakenly equating increase in velocity (i.e. acceleration) with increase in acceleration. Your example above can be modeled with a steady rate of acceleration. There's no need to invoke an increasing rate of acceleration.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post by mistermack » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:54 am

pErvin wrote: It's not accelerating. It's subject to two equal and opposite forces. Hence no acceleration.
You really do need to learn at least some basics of GR, otherwise your attempts to comment are just a waste of time.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59278
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:37 pm

:blah: Man, you are the one proposing a whackjob theory. It's a bit rich you telling someone to learn some physics. Address my critiques, or be dismissed as the flake you are in every other sphere.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post by mistermack » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:51 pm

To be dismissed by someone who doesn't even start to get GR is not a problem.

I did ask for this to be dismissed, don't forget.

But I was looking to have it dismissed by someone who understands the subject, and for the right scientific reasons. You don't qualify on any score, so dismiss all you like. It's of no interest to me.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post by Forty Two » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:52 pm

mistermack wrote:
Forty Two wrote: you're speculating
Hallaluja !! The penny has finally dropped. Did you think I'd had this published ?
Forty Two wrote: I'm not sure why the limit of your speculation is drawn at where does the new space from?
The idea is "if so and so, then so and so". I'm not claiming to be a scientist, but they do a lot of that sort of thing.
Forty Two wrote: While we're at it, nobody knows, and nobody in the field of physics thinks, that matter sucks space to begin with.
Not so. This has been passed by peer review, and been published about black holes in the American Journal of Physics. http://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.2830526

It doesn't mean it's accepted theory, but it does mean that the maths has been done, and matches the proposition.
That papers doesn't say that matter sucks space. I think that's a fault line in your theory.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59278
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:54 pm

mistermack wrote:To be dismissed by someone who doesn't even start to get GR is not a problem.

I did ask for this to be dismissed, don't forget.

But I was looking to have it dismissed by someone who understands the subject, and for the right scientific reasons. You don't qualify on any score, so dismiss all you like. It's of no interest to me.
:lol: Guy with whackjob theory can't answer critiques. In other news, water is wet...
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post by mistermack » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:57 pm

Forty Two wrote: That papers doesn't say that matter sucks space. I think that's a fault line in your theory.
No, they wouldn't use that terminology. But what they are modelling is space flowing into the black hole like a river. It is called the river model. That's basically what I was putting forward too.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post by Forty Two » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:58 pm

mistermack wrote:
Forty Two wrote: Well, if matter sucks in space, then there would be a tendency for matter to come together.
There is. It's called gravity. However, gravity is incredibly weak at particle level, so it wouldn't cause matter to collapse except under extreme gravity.
If matter sucks in space, then there would be a tendency, apart from gravity, for matter to come together, because the space between matter would be disappearing as it sucked into matter.
mistermack wrote:
Forty Two wrote: Also, you need to account for where the space goes.
I mentioned that in the OP.
On what basis do you aver that it is "going" anywhere?

mistermack wrote:
Forty Two wrote: And, the expanding space is part of the problem with your theory. How can you explain an expanding space, when matter sucks in space? We should at least be in a universe where the rate of expansion is slowing, if not contracting.
Why? If the process has been happening since the Universe started, then you would just need more space being made, than being absorbed.
Maybe antimatter emits it? :biggrin:
Does it? Where is the antimatter, what does it emit, and at what rate?

If your theory is to make sense, then it must account for these things.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post by Forty Two » Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:00 pm

mistermack wrote:
Forty Two wrote: That papers doesn't say that matter sucks space. I think that's a fault line in your theory.
No, they wouldn't use that terminology. But what they are modelling is space flowing into the black hole like a river. It is called the river model. That's basically what I was putting forward too.
Well, then your model doesn't include matter sucking in space, which is different than you described. Things flowing into black holes is not just a different way of putting it. It's a different concept altogether. So, to correct your theory, you are eliminating the bit about matter sucking in space.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37941
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: My own version of gravity. Tear this to bits.

Post by Brian Peacock » Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:35 pm

Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests