Arp: Le Sage Gravity

[CraigS]

"The Observational Impetus For Le Sage Gravity"

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/th...e_sage_gravity

Discussions on this thread, please !!

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

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!!!!

[CraigS]

Yep.

I'm always gettin' meself into trouble !!

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

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

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

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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

A few???!!!!

[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 (Carl)]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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)

Originally Posted by 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

[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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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

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 (Carl)]

GR deals with a field (gravity) and finally a field is made up of a flow of particles.

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

In addition, I eventually realized that an important part of the variable mass solution was that it took place in perfectly at, Euclidean space. This pointed directly at the revelation that the Riemannian, geometric terms on the left hand side of the famous Gμν = Tμν equation were zero. If Gμν = 0 then the curved space-time had nothing to do with real cosmic physics.

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

The Gμν terms in the conventional solution usually represent forbiddingly complicated terms. But their existence appears to be required only for the purpose of compensating for the variable m in the Tμν side of the equation which was assumed constant in the Big Bang solution.

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