Have any of you guys ever asked the question:

 

"How big is the Universe?"

 

Of course you have and so did I, and after groumbling on the problem for a while, it became clear to me that ever since Copernicus, scientists have been looking at some aspects of physics from the wrong point of view. Successfully I might add, but some problems we have had huge difficulties actually understanding, such as, why the speed of light is constant to all observers and why quantum mechanics works the way it does. We just accept it as a given fact.

 

I think the problem is, that scientists have worked on reconciling time and motion of third party objects, and have considered "the observer" as a passive party to the action/reaction. Not so, the observer is directly linked to the action and will affect the outcome of any experiment. On a macro scale, the effect is negligable, but on a quantum scale it becomes the determining factor.

 

In my theory, I claim that the size of the observable Universe is a factor of the observers own mass, and I show with relative clarity and mathematical steps, why this is so, further I give a value for the actual size.

 

Then, I go on to show that space has mass/energy and give the excact value.

 

Finally I do the unthinkable and modify Newtons law!

 

I invite your reviews opinions, and consider myself lucky to live in a world where burning at the stake is not common practice

 

My paper can be downloaded from viXra.org

 

http://vixra.org/abs/0911.0050

 

Steven Sesselmann

On the preprint.

 

Your expression

 

[math]V_{e} = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}}- Hr[/math],

 

what frame does this refer to? Also, you know Hubble's constant is not a constant. So, do you mean [math]H_{o}[/math], i.e its value now, or are you allowing it to evolve with the dynamics of the universe?

 

Later on you mix up relativistic ideas and Newtonian gravity. You use the nonrelativistic notion of kinetic energy, yet set the speed of the particle to the speed of light. This is not how to think about [math]E=mc^{2}[/math].

 

"Sesselmann radius"- bad practice to name something after yourself. Other may do that.

 

You come up with an energy density of space-time. How does that compare with what we expect the cosmological constant to be based on observations?

 

Anyway, mixing Newtonian gravity and special relativity is not so easy. To be taken seriously you will need to improve your writing style and give clear references. Not to mention improve the work itself.

AJ

 

Thanks for your feedback..

 

On the preprint.

 

Your expression

 

[math]V_{e} = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}}- Hr[/math],

 

what frame does this refer to? Also, you know Hubble's constant is not a constant. So, do you mean [math]H_{o}[/math], i.e its value now, or are you allowing it to evolve with the dynamics of the universe?

 

In this theory, I am working everything from the observers point of reference and in the present moment. ie. escape velocity right now is equal to the expression above, with the present Hubble value and the observers rest mass m.

 

Later on you mix up relativistic ideas and Newtonian gravity. You use the nonrelativistic notion of kinetic energy, yet set the speed of the particle to the speed of light. This is not how to think about [math]E=mc^{2}[/math].

 

My understanding is that relativity is also an inverse square law, the problem with Newton's expression, is that it is not dynamic. It only works for near circular orbits, but can't be applied when two objects are separated from r to r infinity.

 

"Sesselmann radius"- bad practice to name something after yourself. Other may do that.

 

I agree, my intention is to refer to this radius as the MHR, and somehow my ego slipped up on the diagram page... gone in the next draft

 

You come up with an energy density of space-time. How does that compare with what we expect the cosmological constant to be based on observations?

 

Wiki suggests lambda to be 10e-29 g/cm^3, my theory suggests 1.118 e-26 kg/m^3.

 

Anyway, mixing Newtonian gravity and special relativity is not so easy. To be taken seriously you will need to improve your writing style and give clear references. Not to mention improve the work itself.

 

Thanks again, it is a work in progress, and constructive feedback like this will improve future work.

 

Steven

n this theory, I am working everything from the observers point of reference and in the present moment. ie. escape velocity right now is equal to the expression above, with the present Hubble value and the observers rest mass m.

 

 

So it is the speed (radial velocity) at which the gravitational mass recedes from an inertial observer who is in the influence of the gravitational mass.

 

My understanding is that relativity is also an inverse square law, the problem with Newton's expression, is that it is not dynamic. It only works for near circular orbits, but can't be applied when two objects are separated from r to r infinity.

 

In the weak field approximation General relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity. If that is what you mean?

 

If you want to work in special relativity, including gravity then it is difficult. You will typically lose either the equivalence principle or you lose the "naturalness" of special relativity (I think you will need to include transformations that are not Lorentz transformations). Either way, the only natural remedy is to make space-time curved and you are then most of the way to general relativity. (You could have flat space-times with non-trivial torsion, classes of such theories are phenomenologically identical to general relativity)

 

 

So, I think you have tried to mix Newtonian gravity concepts with special relativistic ones. I would not trust this much. Taking the limit v -> c in Newtonian physics is not generally going to be useful. Even in relativistic theories one should be careful. Simply put the Lorentz group is non-compact. This means the parameter v=c is not included. Of course, the limit makes sense, but I would be careful interpreting it.

 

On a general point. You are not the first to consider a modified version of Newtonian gravity. Look up MOND. You should reference some papers on this.

 

Also, what understanding of general relativity do you have? If you understood nothing of what I have said, then you have some reading to do.

Edited January 11, 201016 yr by ajb

So it is the speed (radial velocity) at which the gravitational mass recedes from an inertial observer who is in the influence of the gravitational mass.

 

Do you realize what you just said?

Do you realize what you just said?

 

Yes.

 

Lets see what beejewel says.

 

I am not really sure exactly what this velocity is supposed to represent.

 

 

(You can always thing about a local inertial observer, which is what I had in mind and of course it is just the point of escaping the gravitational potential holding it)

Edited January 11, 201016 yr by ajb

IMHO there are interesing points in here.

Here are some points that IMO should improve your paper:

_read http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1644

_Until the Explorer paragraph, not bad at all.

_The Explorer paragraph must be deleted IMO, doing a very bad job. If you like it so much, just mention in the main text that maybe this gives an explanation to the Explorer discrepancy, and put the paragraph as an annex in the end. But I don't think it may help, quite the contrary.

_After the Explorer, things don't go very well. You are mixing Newton and Relativity (as AJB said)and it rises questions and reject at first sight (the opposite of love at first sight, not a good start). The result is so incredible that I should suggest to split your theory in 2 parts. Part 1 looks quite logic & believable, the 2nd part is hard and would destroy the whole project if kept in one block.

_Never admit you are not so good at maths. If you got help, mention your collaborator and that's all. (or offer him a pizza in exchange).

_Your references should be highly improved. At least three pages from printed documents from respectable institutions without any exception, mentioning papers from the eminent professors that will receive your paper. It is the first thing they will look at. No good references, no reading.

_references from the Web are for the next generation (maybe in 50 years from now)

_you forgot to thank your Mum & Dad & the entire Humanity.

_present yourself. No need for a long speech. Just "Physics Nobel Price 2020, oops:-))

_about the concept: quite good.

Friendly.

It is okay to imagine an object of a given mass m, being far away from any other gravitating object, and then go on to calculate the hypothetical escape velocity from this mass, using nothing but first principles.

 

Remember, the second escaping mass can be infinitely small.

 

 

It is okay to imagine an object of a given mass m, being far away from any other gravitating object, and then go on to calculate the hypothetical escape velocity from this mass, using nothing but first principles.

Remember, the second escaping mass can be infinitely small.

Yes, you can think about test masses. That is small masses that couple to gravity but do not create their own gravitational field. It is quite standard practice. The same idea applies with test charges in electrodynamics.

Over all, some of your work is trivial like calculating the Schwarzschild radius using Newtonian physics. It is very well known. I think you have tried to mix ideas. You have shown no knowledge of general relativity in the text.

To date general relativity is the best tested and most accepted theory of gravity. Any text on gravity and cosmology must say something about general relativity. This is especially true if one is thinking of working on a gravity theory that is not general relativity. The first question one will ask is "why not use general relativity?".

michel123456 is right, the first thing I do when I see a paper is look at the acknowledgements and references. These by themselves don't make a paper, but show that the author is "for real". A good introduction shows he/she knows his/her subject and where it sits in things.

Thus, you need to tell us why you don't like the idea of the Hubble horizon.

As you are trying to prove yourself to the world, good references are required. The exact number depends on many things. As michel123456 has said, referencing Wikipedia is no good. Use it, but remember it is not a scientific source.

To be brutally honest, I don't think your work is of much value. Most papers that find their way here are based on misunderstanding either quantum or relativity theory. You paper falls into this group. You should have known that trying to insert Newtonian gravity into special relativity was likely to fail. Unless you have done something non-trivial and highly technical. I don't think you have.

People have tried before to think about gravity as a perturbation about a flat space-time (still post-Newtonian), treating it as an additional field. Feynman I think was one of the most influential. He was trying to formulate a quantum theory of gravity akin to quantum electrodynamics.

Also, MOND has fallen out of favour in recent years. However, the work is still out there.

Don't give up on the fusion. As an aside, my Father works in that field.

p.s.

I hate being too critical, don't want to put people off thinking. However, getting to grips with well-understood and accepted physics is a priority.

So it is the speed (radial velocity) at which the gravitational mass recedes from an inertial observer who is in the influence of the gravitational mass.

 

As I read it, it is an observer that crushes upon himself without even noticing it.

In the Newtonian limit, the escape velocity is the velocity (measured relative to the larger mass) required for the observer to have kinetic energy equal to the gravitational binding energy.

 

I think the same thing applies here. It is a speed as measured relative to what our observer is trying to escape.

 

Now, in a full general relativistic treatment the notion of escape velocity is I expect lost. However, for test particles on the Schwarzschild and Kerr metric (I expect it will work on space-times with enough Killing symmetries) you can write their motion in terms of classical mechanics with a "modified potential". So here I expect you can formulate an escape velocity. In general I doubt it.

You have all made some valuable comments and suggestions, some which I intend to use in my next draft.

 

Now, standing back and looking at my theory objectively, I see three inventive steps, which I believe are novel.

 

One is to remove all other reference points other than the observer itself, and to realize that the escape velocity from an observer at rest is purely a function of its mass.

 

Second, to realize that there would be an upper and a lower limit to the mass density of any observer, the upper limit being the SR radius, where EV=c, and the lower limit being the MHR, where EV = 0, then to realize that a mass with a density so low that EV= 0, is by definition "space".

 

Third, was to realize that gamma can be expressed in two ways, either...

 

 

[math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}[/math]

 

or

 

 

[math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{2Gm}{rc^{2}}}}[/math]

 

Essentially these two terms mean and do the same thing, they represent gamma, the first term is used in SR where the dynamics are velocity. The second term is the transformation of the first term from velocity to mass, using the EV as a bridge.

 

There is absolutely no need to introduce GR into this argument at all, it is elegant and completely self consistent on it's own.

 

...and best of all, it can make predictions that can be tested. By analysing the data from the Pioneer missions, I think it should be possible to show that the negative accelleration is not directed towards the sun, but that it is directed towards the observer. There might be a large enough paralax between the Sun and the Earth to show this.

 

Only a small shift in thinking, but a giant shift in understanding

 

Steven Sesselmann

One is to remove all other reference points other than the observer itself, and to realize that the escape velocity from an observer at rest is purely a function of its mass.

 

How is this different to simply picking the frame of the observer? Which mathematically all you are doing is specifying a particular set of coordinates.

 

Second, to realize that there would be an upper and a lower limit to the mass density of any observer, the upper limit being the SR radius, where EV=c, and the lower limit being the MHR, where EV = 0, then to realize that a mass with a density so low that EV= 0, is by definition "space".

 

Ok, so you can think of the Schwartzchild radius in terms of an escape velocity of the speed of light. The escape velocity of zero would correspond to no gravitational field, ok.

 

 

Third, was to realize that gamma can be expressed in two ways, either...

 

 

[math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}[/math]

 

or

 

 

[math]\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{2Gm}{rc^{2}}}}[/math]

 

 

 

Essentially these two terms mean and do the same thing, they represent gamma, the first term is used in SR where the dynamics are velocity. The second term is the transformation of the first term from velocity to mass, using the EV as a bridge.

 

These are not the same exactly. In the first expression [math]v[/math] is a free parameter [math]|v| < c[/math]. In the second you have a specified value.

 

What you have done is work out the required gamma factor for a Lorentz transformation to a co-moving frame of velocity equal to that of the Newtonian escape velocity of a massive body m.

 

I don't see anything wrong in doing this. Though, It is not immediately what exactly the interpretation or relevance of this frame should be. It is by definition an inertial frame and thus it is not clear how gravity really fits into this. I mean, I am not sure exactly how would should interpret the mass m. I guess thinking of the Schwartzchild metric is ok, it is asymptomatically flat so as long as we are far enough away from m, we are probably ok. You could also try thinking about it as a local inertial frame, but then we lose gravity. Anyway, forgetting this...

 

 

You are now free to consider observables in this specified frame.

 

The modern view of physics is that we should look for things that do not depend on exactly how we present them. In the case of special relativity these are the Lorentz invariants. Only these invariants have any intrinsic meaning. Of course, specific frames maybe useful in calculating these, but they do not depend on the frame. Now, you can think about whatever you like in whatever frame you like. The problem is it may have no real meaning.

 

 

 

There is absolutely no need to introduce GR into this argument at all, it is elegant and completely self consistent on it's own.

 

I doubt it. Though it is possible to get answers in general relativity that are same as the Newtonian theory + special relativity. You can, for example get most of cosmology this way. However, mathematically it is not so well founded. You lose the notion of inertial observers (so important in special relativity) and have to deal with gravity propagating instantaneously.

 

Though, I could believe simple calculations based on the Schwarzschild metric would agree with Newtonian theory. In practice one would have to show this.

 

...and best of all, it can make predictions that can be tested. By analysing the data from the Pioneer missions, I think it should be possible to show that the negative accelleration is not directed towards the sun, but that it is directed towards the observer. There might be a large enough paralax between the Sun and the Earth to show this.

 

What observer?

 

I don't know what to make of the Pioneer anomaly. It seems to come in and out of favour. Not everyone thinks it is a real gravitational effect, and it has never been reproduced. But for sure, people with novel ideas about gravity always look at this.

 

Overall, I am slowly starting to see what you have done. I still question what it really means.

How is this different to simply picking the frame of the observer? Which mathematically all you are doing is specifying a particular set of coordinates.

 

Remember, when you calculate EV, the second mass term cancels out, this is significant, because it meand that you can define the EV for a lone object, simply by knowing G.

 

Ok, so you can think of the Schwartzchild radius in terms of an escape velocity of the speed of light. The escape velocity of zero would correspond to no gravitational field, ok.

 

A zero EV means that mass and space, are indistinguishable, ergo at the MHR, mass and space have the same density, which in turn implies that the observers space Domain must have the same mass as the observer itself.

 

These are not the same exactly. In the first expression [math]v[/math] is a free parameter [math]|v| < c[/math]. In the second you have a specified value.

 

same... , EV simply replaces the term v, thereby turning it mass dependent and not velocity dependent.

 

What you have done is work out the required gamma factor for a Lorentz transformation to a co-moving frame of velocity equal to that of the Newtonian escape velocity of a massive body m.

 

There is no difference between Newtonian EV and GR EV, it is a velocity based on first principles. The only requirement is an accurate value of G, which incidentally will differ slightly under my theory.

 

 

Overall, I am slowly starting to see what you have done. I still question what it really means.

 

What it means, is that the size of your World is a function of your mass, and that size of my World is a function of my mass. Sure, they overlap, and we share the events in the overlapping region (99.999....999% of it).

 

Stuff exists outside your MHR, but you will have no way of finding out, unless of course, you gain mass

 

The laws of the Universe seem to have put an upper and lower limit on an observers mass, which might be an indication that the grand total of all worlds, may be finite, but that is only speculation.

 

Anyone who managed to get their head around GR, should have no problem understanding this.

I do not understand the statement mass and space are indistinguishable.

 

The escape velocity is independent of the mass of the test particle our "observer". It depends only on the mass of the gravitating body. So, all we really need is the mass of this body. The escape velocity does not care if we are trying to launch a 1kg mass or a million kg mass. (The amount of energy is different of course)

 

In the Lorentz transformations all you have done is reparametrise them in terms of [math]\frac{m}{r}[/math]. Roughly, you replace the velocity parameter with the escape velocity related to some object. You then vary this ratio instead of the velocity.

 

This appears to be independent of the mass of the observer. Which to me makes sense. The Lorentz transformations are a geometric thing, mass should not really enter. (Apart from the classification of representation, but this is another story.) Your "[math]m[/math]" seems to me to be a "fictitious mass". Simply a way or rewriting the Lorentz transformations.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Let us analyse some of work in a little more detail

 

Let [math]M[/math] be some large mass and let [math]m[/math] be some test mass. We want to examine the escape velocity of [math]m[/math] from [math]M[/math]. You suppose it is of the form

 

[math]v_{e}(r,H) = \sqrt{\frac{2 G M}{r}} -H r [/math]

 

Note that we have [math]M[/math] and not [math]m[/math]. This has to be the case as we want to get back to the classical Newtonian result if [math]H=0[/math].

 

Let us fix [math]H[/math]. Then let us consider the radius at which the escape velocity is zero. As you calculate correctly

 

[math]r_{0}(H) = \left( \frac{2 GM}{H^{2}} \right)^{\frac{1}{3}}[/math].

 

This defines a spherical shell around [math]M[/math] at which the escape velocity is zero.

 

 

If [math]H \rightarrow 0[/math] this radius becomes infinite. This is what we expect. Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity is infinite in range.

 

Now, if [math]H \neq 0[/math] this radius is finite. Thus it looks a little like a finite range theory of gravity.

 

 

Anyway, according to your work a body has two "thin shells" around it. One is almost the Schwarzchild radius, which will lie inside most bodies and is defined by the escape velocity being equal to the speed of light. The second is this radius of zero escape velocity.

 

The boundary of these shells defines a region of (positive) finite escape velocity (as measured relative [math]M[/math]).

 

Answer me this. What is the escape velocity outside of these shells?

Edited January 12, 201016 yr by ajb
Consecutive posts merged.

ajb, okay that's great, you have understood the concept..., it's almost too simple, isn't it. You ask two questions as folows;

 

I do not understand the statement mass and space are indistinguishable.

 

Matter, or what I referred to as mass, can be very dense or very rarefied, right? A body ie. an observer at rest is normally at some density which is a function of mass/volume Take this body and stretch it in all directions, against it's own force of gravity, in such a way that it is uniformly rarefied. The you will find that as the radius approaches the MHR;

 

a) You have expended an amont of energy equal to [math]mc^{2}[/math]

 

b) That every particle the original body was made from, is now at rest with respect to every other particle in the Universe, ie you have matched equilibrium.

 

Answer me this. What is the escape velocity outside of these shells?

 

By definition, the MHR is a limit, because the observer of mass m, only has an energy domain of [math]2mc^{2}[/math]. hence the name Domain theory. The observers domain is limited in space and limited in energy, both of which are a function of its rest mass.

 

I speculate, that it is due to the electro magnetic forces, opposing those of gravity, that we the observers (at rest), are hovering excactly in the middle of its energy domain. Were it not for the electromagnetic force, all matter would collapse on its own SR radii

 

Experience shows that this does normally not happen, unless the mass reaches some upper limit (Chandrasekhar).

 

Steven

It looks to me that outside the shells the escape velocity is negative. I have no idea what that means. It makes me question the assumption you make on the form of the escape velocity. I can see why you think in the presence of a Hubble expansion you get the additional linear term. However, I am not sure it is quite that simple.

 

Can you derive this escape velocity by considering the kinetic and potential energy?

 

You mix concepts from Newtonian physics and special relativity without much thought. This makes me distrust your "theory".

 

You modify the Newtonian gravitational potential by replacing the mass with the relativistic mass in the "escape velocity frame". Newtonian physics does not respect the transformations found in special relativity.

 

Later you use the Newtonian concept of kinetic energy, yet you set v =c. This classically would correspond to the kinetic energy of a massive particle travelling at the speed of light. Newton would not have disagreed with this, but Einstein would have! There is no interpretation of such a limit in special relativity. Really, you have used the incorrect notion of the energy of a particle.

 

I think your "theory" is full of basic holes. Mostly they come from trying to apply Newtonian ideas to special relativity.

 

Newtonian gravity does not fit well with special relativity. The reason can be easily stated as "Newtonian gravity is based on instantaneous action at a distance, special relativity does not allow such action ".

 

More technically, but related is the equivalence principle. If we insist on keeping it we lose the notion of inertial observers, which is central to special relativity. So, Einstein knew pretty early on that trying to include gravity in special relativity would lead to a more general theory of relativity.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I speculate, that it is due to the electro magnetic forces, opposing those of gravity, that we the observers (at rest), are hovering excactly in the middle of its energy domain. Were it not for the electromagnetic force, all matter would collapse on its own SR radii

 

Experience shows that this does normally not happen, unless the mass reaches some upper limit (Chandrasekhar).

 

You touch upon some interesting things here.

 

I am taking about general relativity here.

 

We generically know that electrostatic repulsion can support matter and stop the collapse. Past that the Fermi pressure can halt the collapse. This is a quantum mechanical effect. It comes from the fact that two fermions cannot occupy the same state. If that cannot do it, then nothing known will and a black hole will presumably form.

 

It is interesting to note the theorems of Penrose and Hawking. They give under some reasonable conditions theorems about the collapse of bodies and the formation of singularities. However, the exact conditions for collapse and formulation of singularities are not known in a general sense, though singularities seem unavoidable. To a large extent this is an open problem in classical relativity. Can one identify exact conditions for the formation of horizons and singularities?

Edited January 12, 201016 yr by ajb
Consecutive posts merged.

Have any of you guys ever asked the question:

 

"How big is the Universe?"

 

Of course you have and so did I, and after groumbling on the problem for a while, it became clear to me that ever since Copernicus, scientists have been looking at some aspects of physics from the wrong point of view. Successfully I might add, but some problems we have had huge difficulties actually understanding, such as, why the speed of light is constant to all observers and why quantum mechanics works the way it does. We just accept it as a given fact.

 

I think the problem is, that scientists have worked on reconciling time and motion of third party objects, and have considered "the observer" as a passive party to the action/reaction. Not so, the observer is directly linked to the action and will affect the outcome of any experiment. On a macro scale, the effect is negligable, but on a quantum scale it becomes the determining factor.

 

In my theory, I claim that the size of the observable Universe is a factor of the observers own mass, and I show with relative clarity and mathematical steps, why this is so, further I give a value for the actual size.

 

Then, I go on to show that space has mass/energy and give the excact value.

 

Finally I do the unthinkable and modify Newtons law!

 

I invite your reviews opinions, and consider myself lucky to live in a world where burning at the stake is not common practice

 

My paper can be downloaded from viXra.org

 

http://vixra.org/abs/0911.0050

 

Steven Sesselmann

 

In your paper your write,

A theory proposing that the domain of an observers Universe stretches from the observers hypothetical Schwarzschild radius near its centre of gravity, to a point on the distant horizon

 

Now, let's place one observer at one end of the observable universe and one at the max point away to the other side.

 

Each observer satisfies your Schwarzschild radius.

Yet, this radius for each will extend into the non-observable universe, if there exists such a thing.

 

Further, your observer's mass will be unbalanced with your sphere of logic for the limit on the size of the universe since much of the sphere will contain empty space with no mass.

 

How do you deal with this?

I have a theory about LSD

It looks strange that the observable universe depends on the mass of the observer. So, after eating a sandwich, the astronomer can observe a larger universe? Or is this the mass of his telescope? If the astronomer ties himself to a column of the building, will he see better? What is the mass of the observer? Or is this the mass of the entire planet?

It looks to me that outside the shells the escape velocity is negative.

 

I suppose it is possible that a mass appears repulsive outside of its MHR, I don't see that as a problem for the theory, as the region is forbidden from an energy point of view.

 

Can you derive this escape velocity by considering the kinetic and potential energy?

 

Yes, let a mass m free fall from infinity, towards M, and at every point of the way it will have a velocity equal to EV, ergo the equivalence principle holds.

 

You mix concepts from Newtonian physics and special relativity without much thought. This makes me distrust your "theory".

 

Who told you I havent thought about this , if you look carefully, I am not really using Newtonian concepts at all, the SR radius happens to be a GR solution, even though Newtons law gives the same result for an EV equal to c.

 

EV is a velocity applicable to an infinetessimally small point on r, and is therefore not a dynamic number, so no need for GR.

 

Later you use the Newtonian concept of kinetic energy, yet you set v =c. This classically would correspond to the kinetic energy of a massive particle travelling at the speed of light. Newton would not have disagreed with this, but Einstein would have!

 

You are still not looking at this from the observers point of view, so I need to clarify this.. If the observer was to implode on its own SR radius, there would be nothing left other than photons with a total energy of [math]mc^{2}[/math], these photons would travel outwards and upon reaching the MHR would be 100% redshifted. So it is important to understand that the observer can not collapse beyond its own SR radius. Therefore nothing will ever reach the speed of light, and no black hole will ever form, because no matter can ever slip through, it is an absolute limit.

 

The force law on page 8 of my theory has resulted from a different thinking to that of Newton, it just happens to look similar. By rights, the force measurements from the Cavendish experiment should be entered into the new force equation to calculate a new value for G, allthough I doubt that it would result in a change, due to the number of significant figures we have in G.

 

Steven

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Now, let's place one observer at one end of the observable universe and one at the max point away to the other side. Each observer satisfies your Schwarzschild radius. Yet, this radius for each will extend into the non-observable universe, if there exists such a thing. Further, your observer's mass will be unbalanced with your sphere of logic for the limit on the size of the universe since much of the sphere will contain empty space with no mass. How do you deal with this?

 

As we all know the real Universe is randomly scattered with observers of all sizes, and most are much heavier than our average astronomer. each of these bodies would observe a far more distant horizon than we can observe.

 

It may have been less confusing if I had referred to the Universe at large, being all and everything, and called the finite Domain for the observers "World".

 

I don't see a problem in a heavy body being able to observe a more distant horizon. When you think of it, the redshifted photons from far away regions will appear more blueshifted to a body of heavier mass.

 

 

Steven

Edited January 13, 201016 yr by beejewel
Consecutive posts merged.

It looks strange that the observable universe depends on the mass of the observer.

 

Indeed, this seems to be at odds with special relativity.

 

The casual structure is defined in terms of the Minkowski metric. It is a pure geometric thing. By inertial observer one is thinking about a point in space-time equipped with "special" coordinates. Nothing to do with the mass of a physical observer.

It looks strange that the observable universe depends on the mass of the observer. So, after eating a sandwich, the astronomer can observe a larger universe? Or is this the mass of his telescope? If the astronomer ties himself to a column of the building, will he see better? What is the mass of the observer? Or is this the mass of the entire planet?

 

Good question, and I can assure you that I struggled with this one too.

 

Yes, assuming an observer free falling in emty space, somehow obtains and eats a sandwich (which he didn't previously have with him), his world would gain size. Not so important that he actually eats it

 

Tying yourself to a building or standing in a gravitational field equates to the same thing, and yes, it would make a difference, but not as much as you might think. You should think of it in terms of gravitational blue shift, the opposite of gravitational redshift. Photons approaching an observer standing in a weak gravitational field will become slightly more blue shifted than photons arriving on the free falling, sandwich eating experimenter. The difference in accelleration is a small fraction of c.

 

Steven

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Indeed, this seems to be at odds with special relativity. The casual structure is defined in terms of the Minkowski metric. It is a pure geometric thing. By inertial observer one is thinking about a point in space-time equipped with "special" coordinates. Nothing to do with the mass of a physical observer.

 

Please delete and forget the word inertial on page 3 of my paper, it will be gone in the next draft

 

Steven

I suppose it is possible that a mass appears repulsive outside of its MHR, I don't see that as a problem for the theory, as the region is forbidden from an energy point of view.

 

Forbidden for what? Can I not consider another observer/particle or whatever lying outside the MHR of a specified observer?

 

The repulsion may not be a problem, but it looks a little strange.

 

 

Who told you I havent thought about this , if you look carefully, I am not really using Newtonian concepts at all, the SR radius happens to be a GR solution, even though Newtons law gives the same result for an EV equal to c.

 

From page 7

 

The above equation has served us well, but it is not strictly accurate, as the energy

required to separate any two masses, must also possess some mass at the rate of E/c2.

We can correct for this, by using Einstein’s special relativity mass gain factor, or gamma,

showing the factor for how mass increases with relative velocity.

 

 

You suggest replacing mass with the "relativistic mass".

 

We can properly draw the conclusion that an object falling from infinity, under the force of

gravity, will at every point of the way, reach a velocity equal to escape velocity. Therefore

and according to special relativity the falling mass must also experience a relativistic mass

gain.

 

Sounds like you are mixing Newtonian gravity and special relativity to me.

 

 

You are still not looking at this from the observers point of view, so I need to clarify this..

 

Do we have a choice here? I do not see how to transform to any other frame. Your theory is not going to be Einsteinian or Galilean relativistic.

 

If the observer was to implode on its own SR radius, there would be nothing left other than photons with a total energy of [math]mc^{2}[/math],

 

It is not really understood what happens under such collapses. According to general relativity a singularity (infinite density) would be formed. I certainly can believe there to be plenty of photons "buzzing about" behind the horizon.

 

these photons would travel outwards and upon reaching the MHR would be 100% redshifted.

 

In your theory photons are effected by gravity? But we only seem to have mass and not energy-momentum as a coupling.

 

In the Newtonian theory you can consider the escape velocity to be the speed of light. You do indeed "predict" the Schwartzchild radius in a sense. However, in a Newtonian theory as light is massless it does not couple to gravity. Thus, a "Newtonian black hole" would not really be black. Light could escape it. A Newtonian black hole would require that massive particles in order to escape have a velocity faster than the speed of light.

 

So it is important to understand that the observer can not collapse beyond its own SR radius. Therefore nothing will ever reach the speed of light, and no black hole will ever form, because no matter can ever slip through, it is an absolute limit.

 

You have a theorem that states black holes cannot form?

 

.

 

The force law on page 8 of my theory has resulted from a different thinking to that of Newton, it just happens to look similar. By rights, the force measurements from the Cavendish experiment should be entered into the new force equation to calculate a new value for G, allthough I doubt that it would result in a change, due to the number of significant figures we have in

 

You have modified the potential (what happens to the Poisson equation for example?), but really you are still in a Newtonian framework for gravity.

 

You are free to think like this. I still feel very uneasy about your mixing of concepts.

Edited January 13, 201016 yr by ajb

Can I not consider another observer/particle or whatever lying outside the MHR of a specified observer?

 

You can concider it, but it lies outside of your observable Universe, so you can not know weather it conciders you, or in other words, no message can travel between you and anything outside your MHR.

 

Regarding the reference to Newton on page 7, I am showing why Newtonian mechanics does not work, and why the energy required to separate two bodies from r to r = infinity, requires more work than what Newton suggested.

 

The term Force (F) may be a Newtonian concept, but it is a measurable unit and without measuring force we would have no value for G, in which case Einstein could not have completed his theory either.

 

I show on page 8, that integrating my new force law, from r to infinity, results in a completely different statement for [math]U_{p}[/math], than that of Newton.

 

Regarding Black Holes, current theory is wrong, the complicated equations predict that an object collapses to a singularity and somehow retains it's mass. Sorry, but I do not believe this to be the case. The SR radius is a limit, beyond which the observer can not interact, gravitationally or otherwise. An object collapsing on its SR radius must give it's energy back to the observers domain, it can't simply run away with it. There is a limit to how much energy space can carry away in a certain time. I believe in two scenarios.

 

a) the rotating vortex of incoming matter creates two diametrically opposing jets that eject the matter and energy, such as in a Quasar

 

b) the spherically imploding matter simply bounces and starts ringing like a bell, becoming a pulsar. I do not believe that pulsars are beams that sweep across the sky, I believe they are imploding stars, that are unable to shed enough energy through normal photons, so they implode a bit, then bounce back a bit, then implode again and continue in this way, loosing a small amount of energy as a gravity wave with each bounce.

 

So once again, black holes can not and do not exist in my theory, the balance of mass and space in the observers Universe is a function of the observers mass, and if you are the observer, nothing that happens out there in space can change your mass. All it can do is transform itself from matter to space or from space to matter according to lambda.

 

 

Steven