Arp: Le Sage Gravity

[CraigS]

"The Observational Impetus For Le Sage Gravity"

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/the_observational_impetus_for_le_sa ge_gravity

Discussions on this thread, please !!

Cheers

[renormalised]

You know, Craig, this is going to be one of "those" threads. We'll never hear the end of it!!!!.

LeSage's theory was dead and buried before they invented fire!!!!:P

[CraigS]

Yep.

I'm always gettin' meself into trouble !!

But as you said ... the hair thing ...

Cheers

[renormalised]

You have a penchant for creating good, but ultimately controversial threads (but not of your own doing:):P)

It'd only keep the barber happy, Craig. We'd most likely still get some of the shavings:):P

[xelasnave]

Dam it just as I was starting to feel at ease with the standard model.
Well even if I support a push universe I see no reason why I cant complain that Arp has it mainly wrong..why not.. I will look for why he is wrong and not right...that should be interesting.
alex:):):)

[bojan]

Alex,
you should only go through our discussion 3 years ago to find out why he is wrong about pussitrons ;)

[xelasnave]

mmm he wants faster than light thingys ...I dont like that.

alex

[CraigS]

I reckon Mr. Pressure's gunna have words to say about all this !!

We might see the mighty 'Yellow Pen' again !!

The 'Pen is mightier than the CERN', you know Alex(P) !

Alex(P): Fyi - This comment is where Mr. Pressure's thread got deleted before. This could happen to this one, too, come to think of it !

Cheers

[renormalised]

A few???!!!!:):P

[CraigS]

This is going to be fun !
I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this one .. too far off my beaten track, I'm afraid ... I warn you all !!

:)

Cheers

[renormalised]

LeSage's leaves wilted a long time ago...it's got no flavour anymore:):P

[avandonk]

Gravity is just the small force exerted by the quantum entanglement of two particles on each other. It is really an infinitely extensible 'string' in higher dimensions whose tension decreases with length as it gets 'thinner' in one or more of the other dimensions.

Since all things were once in the same place they are forever linked by these strings.

A simple visual model is what you get in a fishing tackle box when you just throw any bits of line in. All objects in the box are then linked by mysterious forces.

I call this the spaghetti model. The mathematics should be quite simple once I understand it.

Bert

[CraigS]

G'Day Bert;
That is so cool !! Great to have you here.
Cheers
PS: I mean it. No cheekiness this time. Cheers.

[bojan]

Interesting thoughts.. exactly what I was thinking.

That is why I mentioned in one previous post (to Alex) that the gravity field is "attached" (from the beginning) to the mass(es) and interacting with other gravity fields (of other bodies)

[xelasnave]

[QUOTE=bojan;631112]Alex,
you should only go through our discussion 3 years ago to find out why he is wrong about pussitrons ;)[/QUOTE

Hi Bojan I lost my printouts of that thread in the boat sinking and can not recall why he was wrong....

My most recent thinking on the matter coupled with trying to take into account what little I have learn t reading accepted material on GR and the standard model leaves me with the following view.

GR deals with a field (gravity) and finally a field is made up of a flow of particles... i dont think GR specifies the name of the particles however I suspect this is where the graviton will fit...
However finally our field must have a particle flow and I think that is the suggestion of GR.... the flow of particles in a field is consistent with our description of pushing ... think of a magnetic filed and the travel of particles.

Anyways I have to go and help someone ...my mind is not on this to be honest.... but I will get on it as soon as etc.
alex:):):)

[renormalised]

Given that string theory says that all particles and even spacetime itself is composed of infinitesimally small, vibrating packets of energy called strings, you maybe closer to the truth than you think:)

[renormalised]

Yes and no....GR defines gravity as a warping of spacetime (so for want of a better word, a field). Gravitons are the QFT prediction for the force carries of gravity, that will fit into the Standard Model. The gravitons arise from the field itself, they don't flow through it or with it, like the particles in a colloidal solution.

The best way of thinking about gravitons is that they represent the "stress" put upon spacetime. The greater the stress, the more gravitons appear the greater the warping of spacetime.

[CraigS]

How does M theory account for Gravity ? (I should know given my Avatar ..).

Ie: Don't we have to revert to higher dimensions to explain it ?

Cheers

[renormalised]

According to M/String Theory, gravity appears weak in our brane because most of its energy is leaking off into the higher dimensional spaces. It all depends on how the string that defines gravity is attached to the brane on which it resides. If it's a closed loop, i.e. attached at both ends to the brane, then gravity cannot leak off unless it breaks away from the brane. If it is open ended, i.e. only attached at one end of the string, then it is free to break off and leak into the higher dimensional space. You have to remember, these are just "thought pictures" to help us visualise what maybe happening. If gravity couldn't leak away from our brane, then it would appear with all its strength and the universe within the brane would collapse in on itself. The fact that the universe is here suggests that gravity leaks off into the other dimensions, so it's an open ended attachment.

These should help out....

http://superstringtheory.com/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

[sjastro]

Curved space-time still exists if Gμν = 0. The gravitational field extends out from the central mass into empty space as per Newtonian theory.



Compensating? The greateat advantage of BBT over any of the SS theories is that the conservation of mass is not violated.

The Tμν term represents the gravitational field extending into space where matter is present such as the gravitational field of a star in a nebula.
In BBT the Tμν term has matter uniformly distributed at fixed positions in space. While m is constant, density decreases with time due to metric expansion. The field equations when extended for BBT relate to density and pressure not mass.

Steven

[CraigS]

Which is why it appears to us, to be weaker than the other fundamental forces? (Ie: because it leaks into other dimensions, huh ?)

[CraigS]

Doesn't the extra mass to compensate for the decrease in density result in the addition of DM ?

[renormalised]

Correct.

[renormalised]

Dm???

[sjastro]

In BBT matter is conserved so the total mass in the Universe is constant at any time t.

The "form" of which matter takes can change. For example in the very early history of the Universe radiation was the dominant form.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Dark Matter. Sorry.
(I've probably got my wires crossed on this one).

cheers

[renormalised]

Ah...

As Steven has said, the amount of matter, in BBT, stays the same, only its "name" has been changed, so to speak. So, there's M = 1, all the time, no matter what stage the universe is at. But early on, it was radiation/energy, now it's matter in all its forms. It's still = 1, although it gets thinner and less dense as space expands.


With SS, there is a constant violation of the conservation or matter/energy, because new matter/energy has to be created in order to replace the old stuff which is whisked away by metric expansion. If this is happening proportionally to the expansion, then the matter/energy density of the universe remains the same. However, that would mean that the matter/energy density would be such that there'd be an increasing amount of matter being formed....to the point that it would become infinite, despite the fact it supposedly had a finite density, so the universe would collapse in on itself.

So, in SS, whilst expansion = 1, matter/energy density = 1, mass of matter tends to infinity over an arbitrarily long period of time, therefore violating their original premise, which then equals collapse.

[renormalised]

What it would also mean is that the expansion would slow down as more matter was being formed, so the creation of new matter would have to decrease proportionally to the decrease in the expansion rate. It's a rather contrived piece of theory.

[CraigS]

Ok. Understood.

So in BBT, how does Dark Matter fit in if M =1 ?
(Is this just another form of matter ?)
Cheers

[renormalised]

Yes.

[CraigS]

Ok got it.
Thanks.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Thanks for that Carl.

You have identified for me the difference between a push system and the GR view ..in my view it is the movement of particles (colloidal) that would create the pressure of gravity in a push system..in GR the movement of particles (gravitons) appears to me only to convey a message as to the intensity of the field...or the way space is bent...the graviton does nothing to create the force is what you are saying...so the force of gravity still is hidden from mechanical understanding.

I do think describing gravity as bent space time is rather odd.

To me GR appears as geometry that defines a grid made from three axis representing our way of seeing linear concepts with the addition of another axis or input that includes time as a component in understanding our space time "grid"... I still do not understand why the bending or manipulation of this grid makes gravity...the ball on the blanket does nothing for me by the way.

I have read what Arp had to say and it is not very much really... he seems more concerned with fitting the idea of a Le Sage universe with the current bb model... by worrying about the problems associated with creation or not of mass, the mass predicted by bb...he considered it relevant to fit Le Sages view into a bb framework and in this regard misses the main issues ...but such pursuit takes away from considering the fundamentals of the kinetics that could be involved.

I dont know very much about string theory but I do feel the extensions of logic it seems to require, in respect of explaining gravity as a weak force and the reason for such weakness,( via "leaking" of energy to another dimension) to be much greater than the visualization of a system of particles that transmit energy kinetically.

alex:):):)

[renormalised]

All the gravitons do is convey the gravitational force between the particles (mass) and the spacetime field, in a QFT sense. In GR, gravity is a change in the geometry of space and that is achieved by plopping mass into spacetime. They're two different ways of explaining the same effect. GR = change in geometry... QFT = exchange of gravitons produced by mass in a spacetime/gravitational field.

Another way to think of the production of gravitons is like boiling water. When it's not boiling, i.e, spacetime is flat and gravity is zero, there is no mass and therefore no gravitons. However, there is still a gravitational field...it just has a non zero quantum value. When you heat it up (progressively add mass to the system), you start to produce gravitons and the geometry of spacetime starts to bend. Add enough mass (heat it to boiling point) and you produce a black hole (lots of gravitons....extreme warping of spacetime).

The big misconception that people then have is what about gravitational waves, surely that's gravitons moving from the source to the observer??!!!. No...all a wave is doing is conveying information (in this case a disturbance in the gravitational field produced by some event) which in this instance is energy. It actually has no physical existence to speak of. The particles themselves, the gravitons, don't move very much at all. All they do is convey the energy of the wave through spacetime to the next particle alongside of them. What movement they do experience amounts to the amplitude of the gravitational wave that was generated, about their position of rest within the field.

[CraigS]

Sounds suspiciously the same as the "Density Wave Theory" way of describing the spiral arm shape in a galaxy ?

Interesting conversation.

Cheers

[renormalised]

All waves are essentially changes in density or are the cause of the change. They are movements of energy... whether that be sound, light, gravity or whatever.

[xelasnave]

Carl that was an excellent summation and gives me confidence that I understand the current science better than I gave myself credit for but you sure helped me consolidate a few things:thumbsup:.

So another curly question :D...how many gravitons do you think we may find in a void a couple of billion light years in diameter a long way from any mass?...remember even hydrogen atoms are light years apart in this place...?

If none what happens if we introduce mass? will God have to fly in some gravitons for the occasion:shrug:;)..or would Bojans fundamental point of gravity and mass being a set come into play?

In any event the current science gives us no mechanism as to the physical force that is gravity as I see it and if you can help me here I will be eternally grateful:).

AND a question I have asked on other occasions:).
GR has no problem to create the expectation of a black hole but it would seem if GR is correct it says nothing can escape once past the event horizon whereas field theory I think demands particles must be able to come and go:shrug:...what do you think about what I see as an anomaly between GR and QFT on this point.

Needless to say a push universe would not have such a concern:lol::lol::lol:

alex :):):)

[xelasnave]

Really the major problem is for me how to "see" energy... again I need a physical reality to hold onto... could energy simply be particles so very small we consider them as nothing? That fits a push approach but imaging energy close up eludes me.

It would be easy to work the mass to energy thing if energy was simply very small particles and mass simply sticking all those energy particles into a larger more noticeable parcel:D.

AND no I have not been drinking or smoking or any other vice one likes to attribute thoughts from outside the box:rolleyes:.


alex:):):)

[CraigS]

Some things can escape black holes.
GR & QFT haven't been united (?)
Do 'pushwhateverrons' have mass ?

Cheers

[sjastro]

If there is a void there are no gravitons. Gravitons are theoretical particles of interaction. No interaction between masses equals no gravitons.



The mechanism is straightforward. Like other bosons such photons and gluons, gravitons are created by local gauge transformations so that the Lagrangian is invariant under the symmetry rotation.
I'm surprised you are unaware of this.:P



Gravitons have no mass. So there is no problem of escaping, no anomalies.

Hopes this makes thing much clearer.
Oh by the way gravitons haven't been observed and mess up the mathematics.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

Craig asked...
Do 'pushwhateverrons' have mass ?

Yes and no is the safest answer I can offer;).
I never liked the concept that any particle can exist without mass nevertheless current science has elected to do it another way:D..fair enough...but I tend to think whatever particle would do the Le Sage job probably will have small mass and travel very fast ..being really small will allow a small interaction (but sufficient) with matter and allow our little particle a high top speed... they will triumph because of sheer numbers...think of a neutrino as a possible and good candidate to be a "pushwhateverron"..billions of them pass thru us with little effect ...however maybe the little effect is the push we need to power LeSages universe ... could an imbalance in neutrino flow result in gravity I wonder...

If we entertain the HB we must consider its field.
A field of HBs could provide the sort of push field Le Sage suggests for gravity...
How many HB in a void I wonder..one could think the HB field must be present irrespective of matter being present or not as I doubt a void is empty of bosens (not only HBs) .

I often wonder what could be the particle Le Sage called corpuscles or something:shrug:...or pushtrons whatever... but all the nuetrinoes out there may do the job..nuetrinoes seem to be accepted as valid science.
Even the EMS may do the job (although a few changes in the current science may be needed to get that up:lol::lol::lol:

Anyways 'pushwhateverrons' are very small:)..may or may not have mass:)..presumably incapable of observation:D ... so like many things it will only be the math that will give us the valid answers:rolleyes::eyepop:.

So all we need is data and formulas to use such otherwise we may have to go with what we have with GR:lol::lol::lol:

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

Craig asked...
Do 'pushwhateverrons' have mass ?

Yes and no is the safest answer I can offer;).
I never liked the concept that any particle can exist without mass nevertheless current science has elected to do it another way:D..fair enough...but I tend to think whatever particle would do the Le Sage job probably will have small mass and travel very fast ..being really small will allow a small interaction (but sufficient) with matter and allow our little particle a high top speed... they will triumph because of sheer numbers...think of a neutrino as a possible and good candidate to be a "pushwhateverron"..billions of them pass thru us with little effect ...however maybe the little effect is the push we need to power LeSages universe ... could an imbalance in neutrino flow result in gravity I wonder...

If we entertain the HB we must consider its field.
A field of HBs could provide the sort of push field Le Sage suggests for gravity...
How many HB in a void I wonder..one could think the HB field must be present irrespective of matter being present or not as I doubt a void is empty of bosens (not only HBs) .

I often wonder what could be the particle Le Sage called corpuscles or something:shrug:...or pushtrons whatever... but all the nuetrinoes out there may do the job..nuetrinoes seem to be accepted as valid science.
Even the EMS may do the job (although a few changes in the current science may be needed to get that up:lol::lol::lol:

Anyways 'pushwhateverrons' are very small:)..may or may not have mass:)..presumably incapable of observation:D ... so like many things it will only be the math that will give us the valid answers:rolleyes::eyepop:.

So all we need is data and formulas to use such otherwise we may have to go with what we have with GR:lol::lol::lol:

alex:):):)

[CraigS]

Thanks. Steven's reply takes precedence over mine.

Steven:

i) how does this Hawking Radiation propagate (the mechanism) ? and;
ii) information can escape a BH .. so how ? The same as (i) above ?

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Thank you Steven for you reply.

you said........
The mechanism is straightforward. Like other bosons such photons and gluons, gravitons are created by local gauge transformations so that the Lagrangian is invariant under the symmetry rotation.
I'm surprised you are unaware of this.:P

Aware but not handy in application...are we not simply talking of the mechanics the standard model uses as opposed to what I was after (I guess ) being...what is the force in action our graviton conveys.

You also said........

Gravitons have no mass. So there is no problem of escaping, no anomalies.

I thought a photon was without mass and yet they do not escape our black hole so saying a graviton is mass less does not solve the anomaly in my view.... so I must still be missing something:shrug:.

Hopes this makes thing much clearer.
Oh by the way gravitons haven't been observed and mess up the mathematics.

Coincidentally push itronswhaters have not been observed either so that must be handy if one wishes to capitalize upon presenting a new "theory".
Steven I thank you for trying to make things clearer I really appreciate what you and all the others here do to help me learn a little physics... I read but without a teacher it is hard to be honest...and being an old man does not help... again thank you sincerely.


alex:):):)

[sjastro]

Particle/antiparticle pairs that are predicted in QFT and experimentally verified by the Casimir experiment.

If these pairs are formed near the event horizon of a black hole, conservation of energy is still preserved as the particle/antiparticle pair are created and destroyed very rapidly. However if one the particles (the one with negative energy or energy less than the ground state) is pulled into the event horizon energy is no longer conserved as the other particle escapes.
The black hole emits Hawking radiation to preserve the conservation of energy. The black hole emits radiation with energy that is equal to the mass of the particle that passes through the horizon.

It's hard to explain the information trail with Hawking radiation.
Hopefully this will help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Thank you. I'll have to ponder on that for a while & do some more reading. You worded that very carefully, I noticed.

"If these pairs are formed near the event horizon"

I wonder how near "near" can get and;
the radiation emitted by the black hole is also a mystery to me.
More reading to do. Thanks muchly. Cool.

Cheers

[sjastro]

In GR photons travel along what are known as null geodesics or the shortest pathway that can be taken in a gravitational field.

For black holes, this null geodesic wraps itself around the black hole inside the horizon. The photon isn't held there due to gravity but is constrained by the extreme space time curvature.

Gravitons being massless and not being photons are not constrained by gravity or null geodesics.

If it was a paradox would occur. How could the force of gravity exist between a black hole and an object if a graviton cannot be emitted.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

Craig,

The particle/antiparticle pairs pop into and out of existence very rapidly.
They pop in to existence as a vacuum contains energy. They pop out of existence since being a particle/antiparticle pair they annihilate each other.
Since the particle/antiparticle creation followed by annihilation is for all intents and purposes instantaneous, a black hole only has time of snaring the antiparticle or the one with the lesser KE. Once that happens the other particle can no longer be annihilated as it has lost it's antiparticle partner. It may also have sufficent KE of moving away from the event horizon.
When this happens energy is no longer conserved. The black hole gives back the energy in the form of Hawking radiation.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

Thank you Steven my understanding grows and I have you to thank.

alex:):):)

[CraigS]

Ok. So coming back to GR, SS and BBT, summarising my understanding. GR field equations underpin all SS, QSS and Arp theories:

i) SS (& QSS Narlikar et al) includes metric expansion of space. Redshift explains this expansion and maintains as a constant (=1). This results in a lessening of matter density. This can then result in implosion of the universe, if extrapolated to infinity over an arbitrarily long period of time, and thus requires mass to be added over time, and throughout space.

Primarily, matter is continually created within stars.

Explanations of this recur every so often via iterations of the theory.

ii) BBT conserves mass: m is constant (=1), density decreases with time due to metric expansion. The field equations when extended for BBT relate to density and pressure not mass. Redshift explains the metric expansion.

iii) Arp doesn't accept Redshift as evidence of metric expansion. He still sees quantisation in Redshift measurements. BBT explains this apparent quantisation as a statistical abberation, due to the way the data is analysed (Fourier A?), and thus Redshift is seen as evidence for metric expansion.
So Arp's universe is static space (?).

iv) LeSage explained gravity as "the result of tiny particles (corpuscles) moving at high speed in all directions, throughout the universe. The intensity of the flux of particles is assumed to be the same in all directions." (The flux created is isotropic). The force imparted which we see as gravity, results from elastic and inelastic collisions between the tiny particles and ordinary matter. (Like Alex(P)'s "Push" mechanism).

Problems with the theory include: "excessive heating, frictional drag, shielding, and gravitational aberration. The recognition of these problems, in conjunction with a general shift away from mechanical based theories, resulted in a progressive loss of interest in Le Sage’s theory. Ultimately in the twentieth century, Le Sage’s theory was eclipsed by Einstein’s theory of general relativity".

v) Plasma: "The Le Sage mechanism also has been identified as a significant factor in the behavior of dusty plasma. A.M. Ignatov showed that an attractive force arises between two dust grains suspended in an isotropic collisionless plasma due to inelastic collisions between ions of the plasma and the grains of dust. This attractive force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between dust grains, and can counterbalance the Coulomb repulsion between dust grains".

vi) Quantum field theory proposes virtual particles which lead to the Casimir effect, which has been experimentally demonstrated. (There exists other evidence and confirmed predictions of QFT).

vii) String theory (via Bert) proposes that: "Gravity is just the small force exerted by the quantum entanglement of two particles on each other. It is really an infinitely extensible 'string' in higher dimensions whose tension decreases with length as it gets 'thinner' in one or more of the other dimensions. Since all things were once in the same place they are forever linked by these strings.".

viii) M-Theory unifies different String Theories, GR and QFT and proposes that gravity is created by strings escaping a two dimensional 'brane' (to which our observable universe is bound), into a higher dimension. As a result, gravity appears to us, to be smaller than the other fundamental forces: electro-weak, electro-strong and electromagnetism. This may not be the case, in reality. Someday this may find an explanation in M-Theory.

(Quotes from Wiki included for clarity. The discussions in this thread about Black Hole theory were an 'aside' and mainly 'thought' exercises).

Is this Ok so far?

Cheers

[avandonk]

Quantum entanglement has disturbed me ever since I first came across it in QM lectures in the late sixties. Einstein also found it most perplexing as there is experimental evidence for instant action at a distance faster than light. There is no violation of the speed of light as no information can be transmitted.

The only mechanism that can explain this connectedness is some sort of linkage in higher dimensions. The so called 'strings' also have this strange property. What to us is an infinitely small vibrating string with the higher dimensions some how hidden could or must have connections to other places in space time via these higher dimensions. This could also go some way to explaining virtual particles appearing out of nowhere.

When the first diffraction patterns were produced by Bucky balls passing one at a time through two slits, you really have to sit up and take notice.

On a related note photosynthesis seems to rely on quantum effects.

see here

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2010/05/10/untangling-quantum-entanglement/


The article describes far more clearly how our knowledge of biological systems is turning up real surprises.

I have thought for many years that all brains must rely on quantum type 'calculations' at the molecular level. Just think how fast you can retrieve a memory or come up with a solution to a problem 'out of nowhere'.

Biology has had a few billion years of trial and error development to blindly explore the universe.

We as humans have just mastered the foothills. We now live in a time when the mountains are appearing out of the mists of our ignorance.

It is up to all you young ones to climb these mountains as us oldies have at least managed to make base camp.


Bert

[CraigS]

Entanglement:
I have read a bit on quantum entanglement. Absolutely fascinating stuff. The fact that they can design 'simpl(ish)' experiments in the lab, (light interference stuff, mostly), and predict the results from quantum theory is really exciting.

Nature:
I've also been fascinated by our connection with nature. People mostly try to forget that humans are a product of hugely complex processes aided by the passage of vast amounts of time and that somehow, there's nature on one hand and then, there's those yuckky humans on the other. Whatever we create either in the mind, or of our environment, is a direct result of that environment. Some would explain this last statement as an 'anomaly'.
Its not for me, though.

Age:
We're all oldies of some sort, Bert.
Its a relative thing, (so I'm reminded of this every day, by my family). You are not alone !!

Cheers & Rgds.
PS: There is no violation of the speed of light as no information can be transmitted. Is it left up to the observer to infer what information was transferred ? Is quantum computing using qubits related to this, or am I off track (again) ? (I'm just interested. Perhaps yet another thread topic ?)

[bojan]

This word ("old") and its derivatives are not appropriate.. it is even rude :D..

It is much better to use term "mature" (like a good cheese.. or good wine which becomes good only after maturing process..
That's what we are ;)

[CraigS]

It seems that the duration of the maturing process is shrinking in time thesedays, as well. Nowadays wisdom isn't limited to "mature" age. Some of the wisest people I've ever known have been well younger than myself and some "more mature" types I've met, seem to lack any form of wisdom, (which also doesn't mean that all "matures" lack wisdom, either).

Which is very cool.

Cheers

[avandonk]

I am sitting with my legs crossed on my chair in front of a computer communicating with people of similar interests I would never have met in a lifetime of travel even a few decades ago. We used to call these places Universities, now they are just factories to produce 'financial wizards' that enrich themselves and their employers at our cost.

Whatever the euphemism is for old it will eventually become derogatory
So it does not matter to me what words are used to describe me. Any opinion is better than none.

My only fear is that my mind will deteriorate due to diseases such as Alzheimer's. It used to be live fast die young and leave a good looking corpse. What is the good of dying with an aged well abused body when the mind left decades earlier. There are far worse things than dying.

Anyway must get back on those thingies on the end of my legs and do something constructive.

Bert

[bojan]

Well,
In my case, when something like this starts to happen, I have Dr Nitschke's contacts written down somewhere on a piece of paper.. .. forgot where I put it.. darn!

[xelasnave]

Most interesting Craig and Bert.

I am going to rant so dont read past this point if I tick you off;). If you were going to buy a book this may save you the expense:lol::lol::lol:

I am stating my view on Le Sage GR and QFT because I am that bored and am not here to grid my axe... I have no book on sale or T shirts etc... I dont know how the universe works but simply enjoy speculating upon same.

I see little point in pushing the LeSage idea onto folk who are beyond acceptance or entertainment of such an approach ... we all enjoy different realities and convince ourselves that our personal reality is the only one that can be correct... we enlist various supports and having done so we can then reject all alternate views to our own...that is why folk are different.

The problems with a push system as suggested by Le Sage may be over estimated because finally at some level the force of gravity must come from something acting on something...things can not operate without a mechanical explanation unless one is to include magic as the prime operative.... the actual force is missing from GR and LeSage appeals because at least it offers something as to the actual force.

Bending space needs explanation and we should not be happy with a statement that gravity is simply a geometric property of space.
AND although a mechanical explanation may seem old hat one must ask if not mechanical what is driving the universe...magic or mechanics.

GR and field theories need to fit within the basic premise that there is no magic only mechanical explanation.

This should not be seen to be at odds with anything as no camp (GR QFT or LeSAge) needs the exclusive right to comment upon how things (gravity) works. I feel answers will come from an overview on many seemingly conflicting views...

I am happy to think that it is the push of the LeSage universe that bends Dr A's space time in complete accordance with the best GR or QFT can measure or predict...

We may not understand gravity but to run off in the direction strings lead us is extremely speculative.

I get bagged because I am supposedly unscientific (which I reject) and I suggest there is little scientific about string speculation...it is math extrapolation at this point unsupported by experiment or observation... such approach is not science ....and to demand a hypothesis be called a theory because the math fits is wrong. AND I am not having a go at anyone involved in math its power is not in dispute but like any weapon or tool one must use it correctly.


I visualize space time as a geometric grid whose axis bend in the direction of the dominate flow of particles making up a gravity field... the particles in this case push itronwhatevers being both messenger and force carriers (gravitons are theoretical messengers not the conveyor of force ...(and time is a measure of the flow rate I suppose:)) so I dont see any fundamental conflict between push and GR as one explains the other... from my light reading on these matters it is clear to me that everyone wants to be right and so ideas become exclusive and sides are taken so finally one argument wins at the loss of the opponent. ANY merit in the losers argument is scorned and forgotten forever. Would it be right to throw out BBT because at the moment there are a few things that dont fit??? no all say well its the best we have got lets go with it until it works or dies...why then throw out a mechanical explanation of gravity as outlined by LeSage because you have not worked out the detail. We can entertain all sorts of particles we can not see in the standard model but to even talk of a pushtronwhatever draws condemnation because it is un observable... well throw out dark matter, string theory and HBs if you cant speculate upon possibilities.

While GR fails to recognize that things dont happen as if by magic there can be no forward progress or in other words GR and QM must work out their differences to build a model inclusive of truths understood by each side.

For me Le Sages push concept is the answer and my determination is to finally fit all the current science into a push universe:D ..not because I seek fame or fortune but because finally that is where I believe truth resides:).

So many are driven by fame and fortune and the desire to be recognized..Craigs comments asking why should you guys (at that point he was grouping Alex EU Mr Pressure and myself) wish to present your ideas and push them onto others... and I had asked this question of myself many times...why would one bother really...why do you care because no one else cares and most think you are an uninformed crack pot...well asking why is what everything is about ...to ask why is the best thing a human can do in my view.... and in airing views I think one is asking others what do yo0u think about this or that...and in my case although I enjoy the social interaction of net chat could not care what anyone things about me or my view... many folk have a desire to air their thoughts... thats all I do dont read me if it ticks you off.

It seems to me that many folk are trying to be the next Dr A because he is the top gun I suspect...but it is not about being top gun for me and any talk of Dr A is because he is one of my heroes..I could never be or would want the curse of being a top gun... . and I want him to always sit on the pedestal I placed him upon in my world....same for Newton and Leonardo...but at the time DrA presented GR it was Newton that was top gun... although DrA out gunned him Newton's work is still most relevant in our navigation of regional space.

Presenting push is not about being the next best and can not be because Le Sage is the only one who can rightfully claim the credit for contemplating the push universe.(unless you go back to the Greeks who first contemplated an aether) it is only about understanding everything available.

A LeSage push universe would eliminate problems perplexing science at the moment:

Dark matter would not be required to explain the problem of star velocities at the edge of galaxies.

Dark energy would not be required as push is the force of expansion.

Also I submit that the corona of the Sun could be understood if one factored in an external force that reacts with the Suns out pour of energy to provide this unexplained region of higher than expected heat.

The barrier between us and outspace, the heliosphere would be seen as a point where once passed the pressure of space increases rather than diminishes resulting in space craft getting stuck and appearing to slow and not perform in accordance with our expectations driven by our current determination that attraction is the relevant force of gravity.

OK I hope you are happy now Craig;) you have got me to run around and do my thing:P if any of you find it entertaining then all is good:thumbsup:..for those who are grinding their teeth I say this..why worry about it read something else... I am just a bored old man with net access and not even enough substance to claim the title of virtual.


alex:):):)

[avandonk]

A simple way of visiualising this is an infinite pair of scissors being closed. The point of intersection of the scissors is travelling faster than light. Yet the information for this is localised at the ends of the scissors.

All quantum computing is that the qbits go through or are at all possible states simultaneously. The difficult part is reading the 'result' without disturbing the system.

The Bucky ball diffraction experiment is an analogue as the sixty carbon atoms went through both slits as wave functions and then interfered with themselves to produce the diffraction pattern.

In other words nothing is REAL until it is observed.

We are all just wave functions collapsing to reality when TDT points the camera at us!

Bert

[xelasnave]

Alzheimer's is my big fear Bert.
I can not remember more than a few symbols from the periodic scale and once I knew them all ...I was a kid obsessed with chemistry so to forget such basics is a worry.
All the stuff I read I retain a mere snippet and all the new words I learn each day are forgotten the next.

Like you I thought I would die young now I worry that the show may run much longer than I can endure or afford.

The reason I got the boat is so one day I can sail off and hopefully the elements can do what I could not.

Reading what you said above I found very uplifting and I thank you for it.

alex:):):)

[CraigS]

Thanks, Bert. I'll have a think (& a readup) on those topics today.
I do get the 'gist' of those points and the comment about REALity. Heisenberg, huh ?

If we were all blind to nature we'd live in fairy-land, too huh ?
Susskind reckons we live in hologram projected from somewhere further out. That seems to be where the information view/theory gets us. I think that may be along the same lines as your scissors analogy ?
Hmm .. I'll have to think more.

Cheers & Rds.

[CraigS]

That's Ok, Alex. I understand more of where you're coming from, now.
I feel that you have misunderstood and misrepresented mainstream's supporting evidences, and others may not let you get away with that, here.

Its ok to go forward with beliefs. Mine have no more value other than that which the reader associates with them. I value them lowly in this Forum, - which is pretty cool !

We are all disembodied minds in this place, which is kind of bizarre.
Does that make us all crackpots ?

Cheers