Jump to content

Source-Sink Theory


sstman
 Share

Recommended Posts

My apologies for posting this in another forum as a link to my website.  I understand the hesitancy to go there.  The attached PDF's also have embedded links - just ignore them if you do not want to view the referenced images and videos.

SST Introduction.pdf SST Part 1 - Matter.pdf SST Part 2 - Dark Matter.pdf SST Part 3 - Charge.pdf SST Part 4 - UFT.pdf SST Part 5 - Closed.pdf SST Part 6 - Shockwave.pdf SST Part 7 - Quantum.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not starting out well. Why do you think physics needs to be intuitive? You seem to use your own understanding/misunderstanding as the barometer for how difficult something should be to understand. Are you just confused about Relativity? Why not ask questions instead of making all this up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

From rule 2.7:

Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. 

You were told this before: post it here, nobody should have to click anything to participate in the discussion.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Phi for All: Why shouldn't it be intuitive?  Isn't that what Occam's Razor is all about?  Should we not be seeking a comprehensive understanding of the universe?  And by the way, I have a Bachelor's and a Master's degree in physics, so no, I am not confused about relativity.  If trying to put the pieces together is "making this all up", then so be it.  

Swansont: What I have attached represents a great deal of thought and experimentation, and includes equations and figures.  It is the support material.  But maybe this was the wrong place to try and present original thinking, backed up with math and experiments as your guidelines for this forum state.  My bad.

Edited by sstman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, sstman said:

Swansont: What I have attached represents a great deal of thought and experimentation, and includes equations and figures.  It is the support material.  But maybe this was the wrong place to try and present original thinking, backed up with math and experiments as your guidelines for this forum state.  My bad.

!

Moderator Note

Our rule is about making the discussion accessible to all while guarding against spammers. I’m at a loss as to how “original thinking” enters into it. You don’t get to choose to follow only some of the guidelines.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it swansont.  And I'm sure you deal with a lot of spammers.  I'm just somewhat at a loss as to how to present what I have.  For the sake of Bufofrog and anyone else who might be interested:  We need to ask the question what exactly is space?  It can't be nothing, because nothing can't propagate light waves.  And what does it mean for the universe to be expanding?  Is space being stretched, or are we getting more space?  I theorize that we are getting more space.  But here is where things get interesting: We could completely do away with the kilogram and use gravitational flux as a unit of mass.  Gravitational flux has units of m3/s2.  Now dimensional analysis is an accepted and useful way to understand a property.  So what else has units of m3/s2?   Well, if the volume of something is changing, then the rate of change is m3/s.  If the rate of change is changing, then that has units m3/s2.  Now suppose you have a sphere that is shrinking so that change in the rate of change is constant - m3/s2 is constant.  Then it turns out that the speed of the radius as it decreases goes as 1 over the square root of the radius.  But so does the speed of an object in free fall from infinity.  The idea then is that the reason for gravity is that space itself is being lost through matter.  An object in free fall from infinity is just riding in the surrounding space.  OK, great, but our universe is expanding.  Well, if space can leave the universe, then it should also be able to enter the universe.  That is where I believe dark matter comes into play.  And just as matter pulls everything closer, dark matter pushes everything away.  So what you end up with is a dark matter halo surrounding galaxies that pushes in toward the center of the galaxy.  That can provide the additional centripetal force.  This is the gist of the source-sink theroy: we live in a universe of sources and sinks.  The funny part is, the more I thought about this, the more other things fell into place, like charged particles.  I'll leave you with this for now, hopefully it is worth commenting on by you and others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sstman said:

Phi for All: Why shouldn't it be intuitive?  Isn't that what Occam's Razor is all about? 

Actually, no. Occam's Razor isn't about using the simplest explanation, it's about limiting the assumptions you make when forming one.

 

13 minutes ago, sstman said:

I get it swansont.  And I'm sure you deal with a lot of spammers.  I'm just somewhat at a loss as to how to present what I have.

Quote

Part 1 – Matter Space is not nothing. We know this because it propagates light waves. It can only have units of volume. The universe is expanding. This can only mean that either space is being stretched, or we are getting more space. An increasing rate of expansion would seem to favor the latter. This begs the question: from where is space originating? Space contains matter. For a given body such as the earth, the measure of the amount of matter it contains is its mass. Like length and time, mass is considered to be one of the fundamental units in physics, in that it is not derived from any other units. Matter attracts all other matter, causing it to accelerate.

Rather than require folks to download, perhaps some copy/paste and some LaTex can help. I think it's better for discussion to take in a concept in chunks anyway. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sstman said:

It can't be nothing, because nothing can't propagate light waves. 

Can you please provide your evidence for this assertion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

zapatos, it seems self-evident.

swansont, I will look into LaTex.

Phi for All, a google search for "occams razor" returns as the first result:

: a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, sstman said:

But here is where things get interesting: We could completely do away with the kilogram and use gravitational flux as a unit of mass.  Gravitational flux has units of m3/s2.  Now dimensional analysis is an accepted and useful way to understand a property. 

Yes dimensional analyis is a very hand tool.

I don't think that is the way Gauss' Law works, in particular your conclusion is drawn from an end result in which two quantities appear in the numerator and denominator of the defining fraction and therefore cancel.

I think you should start with this statement

11 hours ago, sstman said:

We need to ask the question what exactly is space?

Again, yes I agree it is an important and fundamental question so let us ask it

What are the dimensions of space ?

11 hours ago, sstman said:

Now suppose you have a sphere that is shrinking

Remember that gravitational flux is defined in terms of a gaussian surface and requires 'space' either side of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, sstman said:

zapatos, it seems self-evident.

swansont, I will look into LaTex.

Phi for All, a google search for "occams razor" returns as the first result:

: a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities

What you leave out, though, is that it can only be the simplest theory that accounts for the observations. Ockham's Razor does not require anyone to throw out a theory just because it is complicated, so long as the complications are necessary to account for observations. (This is why the important qualifier "first" is included in the definition you quote.) 

And there is the problem. If you want to advance a new, simpler, theory you need to show that it can account for the range of observed phenomena that existing theory can. 

Edited by exchemist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sstman said:

And just as matter pulls everything closer, dark matter pushes everything away.  So what you end up with is a dark matter halo surrounding galaxies that pushes in toward the center of the galaxy.

It looks like you have misinterpreted what the term dark matter halo means.  Your idea that a halo of dark matter is pushing toward the center of the galaxy assumes that the dark matter halo is denser around the outside of the galaxy.  That is not what is meant by halo in this case, in this case the density of dark matter increases as you move towards the center of the galaxy.  So if dark matter actually pushes things away that would mean that the dark matter would be pushing the galaxy apart, not pushing it together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BufoFrog: I am not referring to the existing theory on a dark matter halo inside the galaxy, which might hold it together from within.  Existing theory on dark matter is that it is just another form of normal matter, with gravity in the normal sense.  My idea is that it is actually a source of anti-gravity, and would have been pulled in over time after the galaxy had begun to form.  A push-pull relationship occurs.  The gravity from the galaxy pulls it in and holds it in place, but the anti-gravity from the halo pushes against the galaxy (and itself), keeping it from collapsing toward the center.  I hope that made sense, and thanks for reading, btw.

swansont, et. al:  Quoting Albert Einstein in his 1920 speech at the university of Leiden:

“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time …”

To be fair, he does go on to say that the idea of space being tracked through time must rejected.  Obviously I take issue with that.  

studiot: Not sure I follow.  Please check out part one of the documents I attached.  Swansont, are they still visible, or did you remove them?  I still see them.

exchemist: that is precisely what I have done - advanced a simpler theory that accounts for the observations.  Furthermore, any good theory should predict the results of experiments that have not been previously performed.  I have done that as well.  At the end of Part 1, I suggest a version of the Michelson-Morley experiment in a vertical plane to confirm or deny the theory.  in Part 4 - UFT I went a step further and did home experiments myself, and suggest an experiment using a torsion balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, sstman said:

BufoFrog: I am not referring to the existing theory on a dark matter halo inside the galaxy, which might hold it together from within.  Existing theory on dark matter is that it is just another form of normal matter, with gravity in the normal sense.  My idea is that it is actually a source of anti-gravity, and would have been pulled in over time after the galaxy had begun to form. 

Oh, ok I see.  If dark matter is anti-gravity, why would it be pulled in by the gravity of the galaxy?  It seems to me if I had a hand full of material that exhibited anti-gravity and I released it that it would shoot away from earth and not be attracted to earth.

56 minutes ago, sstman said:

The gravity from the galaxy pulls it in and holds it in place, but the anti-gravity from the halo pushes against the galaxy (and itself), keeping it from collapsing toward the center.  I hope that made sense, and thanks for reading, btw

There is no need for a counter force of gravity to keep the galaxy from collapsing in on itself, just as there is no need for a counter force in the solar system to keep it from collapsing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, sstman said:

studiot: Not sure I follow.  Please check out part one of the documents I attached.  Swansont, are they still visible, or did you remove them?  I still see them.

What don't you understand about my question?

I only asked one simple one, the rest was some background which should be easily accessible to someone with

18 hours ago, sstman said:

a Bachelor's and a Master's degree in physics,

 

So to repeat my simple question

5 hours ago, studiot said:

What are the dimensions of space ?

You are the one who introduced 'dimensions', although you actually offered units.

 

17 hours ago, sstman said:

Gravitational flux has units of m3/s2

 

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bufofrog: What I meant is that the external halo is prevented from collapsing in, not the galaxy.  The galaxy itself is prevented from collapsing by the rotation.  The  problem is that stars on the edge of galaxies are rotating faster than the calculated mass of the galaxy would seem to allow.  A halo of antigravity material outside the galaxy solves that problem.  Also, if I had a handful of antigravity material, whether of not it shot away from the earth, hovered in place, or fell more slowly than normal depends on the extent of the antigravity.  The idea is that it is still being affected by the gravity of the earth.

Sorry studiot, I guess I did not read your question carefully.  The dimensions of space must be that of volume - m3.  If I wanted to know how much space is in the universe, I would need to know the volume of the universe.  Gravitational flux is obtained by integrating the gravitational field (units m/s2, same as acceleration), over a surface that encloses the mass of interest.  A surface has units of m2.  The integral has the units of their product: m/s2 x m2 = m3/s2.  I hope that answers your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, sstman said:

A halo of antigravity material outside the galaxy solves that problem.

Can you provide som insight in a process allowing that halo to form? From your attached PDF (emphasis mine):

Quote

Whereas normal matter draws everything closer, dark matter pushes everything away. Because of this dark matter does not clump and form atoms the way normal matter does. This is the reason it is dark - it exists primarily in particle form. Furthermore, interactions between normal and dark matter violate the second half of Newton’s third law – the forces are equal but they are not opposite. Normal matter pulls dark matter closer, but dark matter pushes normal matter away.

(https://www.scienceforums.net/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=23186)

How do you reach an equilibrium instead of a runaway effect? 

Edited by Ghideon
clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sstman said:

What I meant is that the external halo is prevented from collapsing in, not the galaxy.

I still do not see why a material that has anti-gravity characteristics would be drawn to a galaxy.  It should be repelled by a mass and therefore should be no where near a large concentration of normal mass.

2 hours ago, sstman said:

The  problem is that stars on the edge of galaxies are rotating faster than the calculated mass of the galaxy would seem to allow.  A halo of antigravity material outside the galaxy solves that problem.

Well again thinking in terms or Occams Razor, it would make more sense to posit a normal mass that simply does not interact with light (much like a neutrino) instead of invoking a material with properties never seen and having it form a halo which would be a counter intuitive thing to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, sstman said:

 We need to ask the question what exactly is space?  It can't be nothing, because nothing can't propagate light waves.  

defining Space by itself is simply that which exists between you and me, between the planets and the Sun, between the Sun and Alpha Centauri. But space doesn't exist by itself. It exists in unison with time. Bother evolved [as we know them] from t+10-45 second....one cannot exist without the other...they are interchangeable in effect. On that point alone your hypothetical collapses. That's why we have spcetime as the multi dimensional framework in which we locate all events, and as we know [and which validates the point I'm making] intervals of space and time when considered apart, are variable depending depending on the observer in different frames of references.

22 hours ago, sstman said:

 OK, great, but our universe is expanding.  Well, if space can leave the universe, then it should also be able to enter the universe.  That is where I believe dark matter comes into play. 

 Nothing is leaving the universe. The universe is all there is, is all the evidence shows. The universe/space/time is what we exist in. DM is simply a part of that universe/space/time.

22 hours ago, sstman said:

 And just as matter pulls everything closer, dark matter pushes everything away.  So what you end up with is a dark matter halo surrounding galaxies that pushes in toward the center of the galaxy. 

Yet the evidence shows DM is spread throughout the universe. And I'm not sure if the following supports your claim...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

300px-1e0657_scale.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First let me say thanks for all the comments/criticisms.  This is exactly what I was hoping for - to clarify things seem clear to me but may not be.  It would help if I could embed an image, but that might have to be downloaded.  So here is the idea:

          <---*          <---#

The asterisk on the left is normal matter, and the arrow on it is the force from the dark matter (antigravity).  The pound sign on the right is dark matter, and the arrow on it is the force from the normal matter.  As I state in the pdf, this violates the second half of Newton's 3rd law: the forces are equal but not opposite.  Now, if there is a whole lot more normal matter, then the affect on it is much less than the affect on the dark matter.  So the dark matter gets pulled in.  This is just like if I jump up in the air, then technically I am moving the earth a wee bit in the opposite direction, but of course the motion of the earth is negligible.  The same idea applies to a galaxy.  The dark matter, which exists almost exclusively in particle form (since by nature it disperses and won't form atoms), is pulled in from all directions.  But it is repelled by other dark matter, until an equilibrium is formed - the pull from the galaxy keeps the halo from dispersing.   Testing cutting and pasting an image:

image.png.796d21c3d781e6fd9afb56c285d738a8.png

 

Joy!  that looks like it worked to me anyway.  Let me know if you see a circle without having to download anything.  If so, then I can include the original text of the pdf's and use images for equations.  That should make swansont happy.

beecee, I get what you are saying, but even Einstein believed that space had physical properties.  See the quote I posted by Einstein earlier.  Or look at it another way: any wave we know of needs a medium - something to wave.  Physics struggled with this along time ago, and the Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to find our speed relative to the medium that waves (the ether), but failed spectacularly.  Special relativity solved that by asserting that motion relative to a static ether cannot be detected.  But that does not mean that it does not exits.  All I am saying is that we need to rethink the idea that "empty" space is nothing.  I'm certainly not alone, though I am taking a different approach.  The following is from the wikipedia article on the quantum vacuum state Quantum vacuum state - Wikipedia:

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space".  According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, sstman said:

Special relativity solved that by asserting that motion relative to a static ether cannot be detected.  But that does not mean that it does not exits.  All I am saying is that we need to rethink the idea that "empty" space is nothing.  I'm certainly not alone, though I am taking a different approach. 

This suggests you are saying the vacuum is the medium.

29 minutes ago, sstman said:

The following is from the wikipedia article on the quantum vacuum state Quantum vacuum state - Wikipedia:

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space".  According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.

The medium for EM waves is...EM waves?

How is it the EM waves travel at c, independent of motion through this alleged medium?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, sstman said:

beecee, I get what you are saying, but even Einstein believed that space had physical properties.  See the quote I posted by Einstein earlier.  Or look at it another way: any wave we know of needs a medium - something to wave. 

Actually, I never said anything about space being nothing...in fact I believe nothing [as mostly defined] to be impossible to exist. I said that it has an undeniable connection with time. Spacetime is the evidenced supported framework derived from GR. 

Plus of course the Einstein quote you supplied where he said, "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time"

Perhaps he meant spacetime in the first sentence? Afterall in was actually his teacher that first recognised the space and time connection, Minkowski.

He said, "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality"

In essence then to me, there seems an  irrefutable connection between space, time gravity, mass/energy...note the following....

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html

 

Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?

No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation. Dr. Sten Odenwald

 

In summing, I'm only a rank ameteur who has though read a fair bit from reputable books and learnt from reputable people on forums such as this, and to me the theory of SR/GR and gravitation, seems a beautiful evidenced backed summation of cosmology today. certainly it does not tell us everything, and just as certainly, one day we will probably have an even more encompassing model that exceeds GR. But to do that it must first describe and predict all that GR observationaly describes and predicts.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, sstman said:

 

Sorry studiot, I guess I did not read your question carefully.  The dimensions of space must be that of volume - m3.  If I wanted to know how much space is in the universe, I would need to know the volume of the universe.  Gravitational flux is obtained by integrating the gravitational field (units m/s2, same as acceleration), over a surface that encloses the mass of interest.  A surface has units of m2.  The integral has the units of their product: m/s2 x m2 = m3/s2.  I hope that answers your question.

Thank you for that clear answer. I agree that the dimensions (in metric) of volume are m3. So you are very reasonably equating space with volume. One of our doctoral members is fond of doing this.

Please forgive me for wanting to start with some basics which we can all agree on, before proceeding to your more exotic assertions.
 

I asked for two reasons.

Firstly you enjoined me to read your introductory pdf. There you state your priciple that somehow swops or interchanges volume and mass as your breakthrough insight.
Is this also the basis for you suggesting ?

On 5/16/2021 at 1:04 AM, sstman said:

We could completely do away with the kilogram and use gravitational flux as a unit of mass. 

 

I commented that gravitational flux is an example of Gauss' Flux Law and you seem to agree with that.
Only it is not necessary to integrate over a closed surface. That is only when you can equate the total to a finite value.
The total field (integral) passing through a given surface, closed or not, will always give you the flux, if you can evaluate it.

However I did comment that for the field lines (flux) to pass through that surface there must be additional space on both sides of it.
A surface is two dimensional and has units m2. We are dealing with three dimensional space with units of m3, as already noted.

Now I also said

On 5/16/2021 at 12:37 PM, studiot said:

I don't think that is the way Gauss' Law works, in particular your conclusion is drawn from an end result in which two quantities appear in the numerator and denominator of the defining fraction and therefore cancel.


So I think we agree on the definition of flux, ΦG as


ΦG=Sg.dA


But wait,


g=Forcemass=massaccelerationmass=acceleration


So we have a mass over mass cancelling situation

Please note that there are lots of different symbols and anmes about for some of these terms so I have used the Wikipedia symbols that are available to everyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equations_in_gravitation

 

 

13 hours ago, sstman said:

It would help if I could embed an image, but that might have to be downloaded. 

 

You download images by drag and drop (not recommended) or clicking on the 'choose files' as indicated in the image below.
This will download images (jpg is best, I use greyscale where possible to save size) to thumbnails at the bottom of your input text.
Click in the text to place the cursor  where you want to place the image and then click on the thumbnail.

The other outlined thing are the symbols for superscript and subscript in the toolbar at the top.

These are really useful as you can create near scientific notation with these plus a couple of characters by using charmap.exe (part of Windows) to find the hidden characters availble from your font sets.

Much easier than Latex, (you need to use MathML here) .
Tex can be accessed by going to an online editor to assemble your maths and then copy pasting from there.

https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php?latex

or

http://www.sciweavers.org/free-online-latex-equation-editor

help1.jpg.f792397d9a751209ae31bc51ac0a3117.jpg

 

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.