mistermack

Senior Members
  • Content count

    334
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

36 Good

About mistermack

  • Rank
    Atom

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Evolution

Recent Profile Visitors

2299 profile views
  1. Gravity. Please knock this down

    I'm not a mathematician, as I've said several times. I've shown how I arrived at what I've posted, hopefully without any ambiguity, so that people can challenge what I've said. I'm surprised that this idea wasn't ripped to shreds in the first hour, that's what I was expecting to happen. It's more than a week now. I'm not sure that my original reason for discarding it (whatever it was) was valid, but there must be plenty wrong with it, or it would have been proposed before.
  2. Gravity. Please knock this down

    Using online calculators, I’ve compared the time dilation at the Earth’s surface due to gravity with that due to the notional time dilation due to a speed relative to space of 11.186 km/sec. If they had been radically different, I think it would have positively refuted the idea. They come to 1.0000000006600 and 1.0000000006961 respectively. Given that the 11.186 km/sec figure for the Earth’s escape velocity is obviously not accurate to a large number of decimal places, it looks like gravitational time dilation is coming out the same as what the velocity-caused dilation would be. I can’t give my workings because I used an online calculator and figures that NASA give. But here are the links, if anyone wants to do their own check : http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224059993 and http://www.relativitycalculator.com/pdfs/NASA_Time_Dilation_Earth.pdf Is it too much of a coincidence, that the known time dilation at the Earth’s surface is coming out the same as what would be caused by the velocity of space flowing by us, if this proposal was correct?
  3. Gravity. Please knock this down

    I've thought of one difference this process would produce, compared to general relativity. Unfortunately, it would probably be impossible to measure. If this were actually happening, then the time dilation at the centre of the Earth would be LESS than at the surface, because there would be no flow of space due to gravity at that point. Using GR, the dilation would be greater as you descend because you are going deeper in the gravitational well. Although it would be complicated, as the pull would reduce, as the amount of matter above you increases. But clocks would still run slower at the centre. With this process, they would run faster than at the surface. When I was first chewing over this idea, it was the similarity between acceleration and gravity that was nagging at me. Why would they be so similar? When you open the throttle of a powerful bike, you immediately feel a new "gravity" pulling your body backwards. Yet there is one big problem staring at you, if you try to picture the two phenomena being the same. And that is the speed of light. I have a force of about 80kg pushing at my feet 24/7. I'm obviously not going anywhere, so how can this be due to acceleration? Ok, so introduce the idea of space accelerating past me into the Earth. Now I could be accelerating, relative to space. BUT, if I keep accelerating at 9.81 m/s², I worked it out that I would hit the speed of light in less than a year. (353 days and 20 hrs to nearest hour, if you're interested.) So in less than a year, I would have broken the speed of light, relative to the space passing me by. So how can you constantly accelerate, and yet not go any faster? And that's what's answered by the funneling of space into a smaller and smaller sphere. There HAS to be a constant acceleration, at any point in the gravitational well, as it decreases in volume.
  4. Gravity. Please knock this down

    Just found a pdf full version of the river model study with the illustrations, it can be viewed and downloaded here : https://ia801009.us.archive.org/6/items/arxiv-gr-qc0411060/gr-qc0411060.pdf
  5. Gravity. Please knock this down

    To put it into perspective, if space WAS accelerating towards the Earth at the same rate that gravity causes things to drop, then the speed that it's passing us by, on the surface, has to equal the escape velocity of the Earth, as it's the same thing in reverse. That means that we would be in a flow of space of about 11.186 km/s going vertically down. That compares to about 0.5 km/s rotation at the equator, and about 30 km/s around the Sun. Then the Sun goes round the Milky Way at 220 km/s . The nearest thing in the Universe to a special, or universal reference frame, is the cosmic microwave background, which permeates the entire Universe, and they recently got a fix on that. We are moving at 390 km/s relative to that. Also, the galaxies in our neighborhood are also moving at a speed of nearly 1,000 kilometers per second towards something called the Great Attractor which is an area of space with a lot of gravity. So the 11.186 km/s figure for this idea is pretty small in comparison to what we know is happening to us on a grand scale.
  6. Gravity. Please knock this down

    Yes, it seems to be all over the web at various locations, so it seems to still have some popularity. It's occurred to me that the hypothetical velocity for the flow of space at the Earth's surface would be equal to Earth's escape velocity of about 11.186 km/s, so you could use the the resulting time dilation that that would cause, and compare it to the figure for gravitational time dilation at the surface, to see if they were the same. If they were significantly different, I think that would be a problem for the notion. Not being very mathematical though, I would struggle with that.
  7. Gravity. Please knock this down

    I don't think anyone is disputing that if this process was happening, there would have to be acceleration. If you think it's not relative to the inverse square of the radius, the best refutation would be a mathematical calculation. I'm not going to do it, but if you are mathematically adept, then that's the best way to approach it. As I said, I may be able to persuade a friendly mathematician to dash it off. But it's pointless me giving my opinion without it, because I'm just guessing. Edit : Just to add a link to the full text of the river model study that I linked the summary of earlier : https://archive.org/stream/arxiv-gr-qc0411060/gr-qc0411060_djvu.txt
  8. Gravity. Please knock this down

    I don't think anyone is disputing that if this process was happening, there would have to be acceleration. If you think it's not relative to the inverse square of the radius, the best refutation would be a mathematical calculation. I'm not going to do it, but if you are mathematically adept, then that's the best way to approach it. As I said, I may be able to persuade a friendly mathematician to dash it off. But it's pointless me giving my opinion without it, because I'm just guessing.
  9. Gravity. Please knock this down

    Well, acceleration IS change in velocity. So your statement actually reads that acceleration IS proportional to the inverse square. I would think it would be an easy calculation for a habitual mathematician to do, so I'll see if I can persuade one to do it for me.
  10. Gravity. Please knock this down

    I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion. I would say that it's related to the difference in volume of the sphere, divided by the difference in the radius, which means it's proportional to the inverse square.
  11. Gravity. Please knock this down

    I have to issue a health warning here, and that is that anything that I write is just a reflection of my own level of education in physics, and therefore should not be taken as gospel, or theory, or anything other than my own understanding of the subject, with all it's flaws. So if I answer your points, you need to bear in mind that I'm just giving you an opinion, it's what I think I know. And it may well be wrong. What causes the objects to accelerate? The point is that once you are off the cliff, you are not accelerating relative to the space that you inhabit. You are just floating free in that space. It's the space itself that is accelerating, relative to the Earth, for the reasons I gave earlier. There would have to be a transfer of energy, from potential energy of the initial state, to kinetic energy because of the relative motion of the two bodies. I'm not confident I could go into fine detail on that. I'm afraid I don't really understand the rest of the question.
  12. Gravity. Please knock this down

    There wouldn't be any observable difference to objects falling normally under gravity. That's the point really. All observed phenomena would be the same. It's just a different cause, or a different way of looking at the cause. I'm still looking for a reason why it couldn't be valid. I'm sure it's out there. In your example, the object dropped from higher would be accelerated from it's initial position, so it would arrive moving at speed v relative to the cliff edge object. At that point, they would both be accelerating at 9.81 mps², but the first would fall past the second, and leave it behind, as at that point, it has velocity v, whereas the second has velocity 0. (relative to the cliff) This is exactly the same as you would expect under Newtonian Physics. The idea of space flowing into a massive body has been worked on, and published, having passed peer review by the American Journal of Physics. ( thanks Strange for the link) http://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.2830526 It was applied only to black holes, but I can't see any reason why it can't be applied to less massive bodies like the Earth or Sun. If space can flow towards a source of gravity, it will have no way of "knowing" what is causing the gravity. If space can disappear into black holes continuously for billions of years, then it doesn't seem impossible that it could do the same into the Earth on a smaller scale. The concept seems to offer a simpler view of gravitational time dilation. Instead of two types of time dilation, there is just one, motion through space. And it seems to offer an explanation why the effects of gravity, and acceleration, appear identical and interchangeable. Maybe it's because they ARE the same thing. Having said that, I'm still looking for ways to prove that it's not valid. That's still the object of the exercise.
  13. Could you slow time using a tuning fork?

    Thanks for all of the comments. I've learned more than I expected from this thread, and as far as I'm concerned, the answer is no. You may be able to slow time with a tuning fork, but only by an incredibly small fraction, that would never be measurable.
  14. Gravity. Please knock this down

    If you picture a funnel, which you keep filled with water, the water at the wide end moves down slowly, but much faster at the narrow end. If you picture a sphere as lots of funnels, bound together, then you have a picture of what I proposed might be happening.
  15. Gravity. Please knock this down

    Yes, if you read back through, I'm proposing that space is not only flowing inwards, but also accelerating all of the way, relative to the massive body that is causing the effect. (Earth, in our case) So if you step off a cliff, then you free fall at 9.81 mps², because the space you occupy is doing exactly that. If you don't step off the cliff, then you are being accelerated at 9.81 mps² upwards, relative to the space that you occupy, and the force for that to happen is supplied by the Earth that you are standing on. The speed of the flow past you would have no effect at all, that you could feel. But it would explain why your clock runs slower than a clock in remote space.