JohnSSM Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 I feel as if I deserve to ramble...Here is the thought equation I used to create my spacefoam model.If I wanted to create a bent line through space and attribute this bent line to the effects of an object in space, how could I physically do that If I made the rules?I have to displace what is being bent. I thought about oil displacing water because of their chemical inability to mix...or to share the same space...It wasn't long before I envisioned spacetime being displaced by matter because of their inability to mix on at least one dimensional perspective (the one we observe everyday)...After that, it was totally intuitive...once I got around trying to see if from the latex 2d grid which is why I wrote the blog about how important models are for understanding and how this one needed to be changed...just the model of the vision...Did eintstein have the same vision and then had to go about explaining how to do it with math which is what you guys have been telling me...dude...you must find math to explain it...and I agree...but in the end, I didn't need math to "see" it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Ps good luck drawing that image with rotational frame dragging due to the Earths rotation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 I cant imagine you not saying, "John, you kinda just explained the effects of GR geometry...Here, look at this graphic (assuming you knew where to find it) it does show what youre saying...good job, now go learn the math about why it happens"You did say at the beginning of one post "Your ideas of compression aren't that crazy if that helps" I wondered what you meant by "if that helps"...As if you thought I was dying for affirmation...Not a bad description of a wanna be theorist, but isn't it best to give affirmation when you can? Almost as if you wanted to deny me the knowledge of how truly close I was in describing GR in my own terms...without any math or really, any help from Einstein...I only started studying GR deeply AFTER I had my vision of gravity foam 20 years ago as a social sciences major...With just a high school education in physics with pre algebra...The mind is the tool fellas...not math...Im gonna let my head shrink a bunch now...lots...im still an ape I don't have to draws it...I can imagine it...pretty well too "Dragging" is a really good way to explain why spacetime relatively shrinks due to any motion...not just the rotation of objects, but any vectoral motion... dragging, lagging, like a cpu that cannot keep up with the info it is being force fed by the internal programs... Sorry for the tone fellas...Im just happy now!Someone's gonna shoot me down and that's ok...they should! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 If I just gave you the answer right away would you have learned as much as you did? Would you have started learning calculus ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 YES! If you said..."wow john, you just envisioned GR geometry without knowing any of the math, just think what the math would do for your own intuitive understanding"...Instead of "Go learn the math cuz youre lost without it and have no basis for what your seeing or saying" (even though it does really align well with GR)Had my ideas not described what GR describes, then telling me to go learn more so that I may understand it is totally justified. But when I get the same conclusions as GR without any real knowledge of GR (I think everyone agrees that I still don't understand the GR math geometrical solutions) then shouldn't you be asking me questions? It seems I got there on my own...wouldn't it be as interesting to you as how Einstein got there? and if not, why not? The math was somehow more conclusive even though we end up describing the same final effect? Moderators...I vote to add this topic back into Relativity. I need a broader audience to shoot me down... I posted this idea on a different forum about 6 years ago and got immediately banned for being "a wacko"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Ah but I did ask you questions. If you look at them they all encouraged you to define what types of compression Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Its true Mordred...first you tested my general knowledge on a couple subjects but then I lost your attention...I felt you pushing and pulling at me in a guiding sense of questions and statements...Now, are yall ready to actually consider my ideas about the compression of the gluon field or not? ha And id love to hear anything you have to say about "my experiment" post in this forum...Does GR predict areas of spacetime with increased time/length dilation, with no change in gravitational force besides direction, far away from any objects with any considerable mass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Gluons is the force carrier for the weak force. The weak force applies to radiation. Gluons is the force carrier for the weak force. The weak force applies to radiation. Not that I'm aware of on the last paragraph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Mordred...your'e tired again Noodles...gluons are the force carrier of the strong force...its a field strength tensor which means it tells quarks what colors they have to change in order to support the hadrons they are making up...I mostly focus on protons and neutrons...remember...3 quarks make a proton or neutron...those quarks are in constant change...the gluon is the particle said to give them the info about how to change so that protons or neutrons can stay In whatever atomic array they are in...kinda like a stoplight, dictating the traffic of the quark make up of hadrons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Oops lol wife was yapping at me Edited January 7, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 If you do a google search for "Empty space in not empty" it may help you understand the gluon field like I do...its a youtube video about 5 minutes long...is it full of poop? I don't know...but they have some interesting things to say about the gluon field... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Well there have been numerous attempts to unify the four forces. We can for every force except gravity. The three unified forces is the electroweak force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 If I can link the strong force with the gluon field (allready done) and then link the gluon field to gravity, there would be full unity at that point, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 If you can then yes. Good luck on that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) It kinda seems like EM and entropy go hand in hand, and Gravity and the strong force go hand in hand...almost like there are only 2 forces, each of which can act in 2 different ways...or maybe even 3 different ways... How was my luck with the geometry of spacetime? Edited January 8, 2015 by JohnSSM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 It's easy to think the strong force and gravity go hand in hand. After all the mass of particles other than neutrinos and leptons is due to the strong force. Mass being a resistance to inertia. However once you start looking into GUT theories although we can predict the properties of the graviton we have never been able to produce or measure the graviton. Hence the debate is gravity a force which requires a boson. Or is gravity a property of space time geometry. Hence the name of the field quantum geometrodynamics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) If 2 fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state, but bosons of equal energy can occupy the same spacetime, it really feels like we run into a situation where spacetime IS different for different particles...almost like spacetime is made up of all these fields, but not everything interacts with all these fields as they DO interact with each other...spacetime has walls for fermions which cannot be breached, but for some bosons, there are no walls...space-time offers different rules for different particles... GUT theories? I don't know GUT and google is not helping... Me personally, I think it's all spacetime geometry...and not only gravity...all of the four forces...But unless someone is actually gonna sit and read it all, acknowledge its possibilities and discuss them, and it will be a lot, I don't find any reason to write it here...its the tree falling in the forrest...and ive got it all written down elsewhere for myself.. Mordred, the description of my experiment to test spacefoam is in entry #89 Edited January 8, 2015 by JohnSSM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 In a sense yes. You have to be careful in that statement. It would be accurate to say different classes of particles have different rules due to their interactions. Not all particles interact with the strong force, bosons specifically have limited interactions compared to fermions. It would be good to look at the interactions of each boson. Then lookup what properties define a particle. This will help with understanding their unique differences. Then consider the difference between inertial mass and rest mass. I'll post a GUT article for you. However without understanding the lie algebra involved in the different groups much of it won't make sense. The best beginner textbook is Griffiths "Introductory to particle physics" that I've studied taught me a ton. I mentioned before geometry is used in particle physics the O(3.1) group is an example. That is mentioned in the Sean Carroll General relativity article I posted on this thread If you want to prove your theory you mentioned your going to need considerable study. Including particle physics and calculus and differential geometry. The lie algebra uses differtial geometry in its symmetry groups. http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0295 Here is a quantum geometrodynamic article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I wanna thank everyone who took the time to post on this subject. This biggest issue that bugged me about GR was that there was no physical description of what space time is. As opposed to what electric and magnetic fields physically are? What energy physically is? etc., etc. What things are is a question of metaphysics. Physics describes how things behave. With models, of course, so we can try and falsify them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) I was just going over the particle tables for a refresher...its how I remember it...the fermion lepton thing has always just annoyed me and and I refused to take it all in...but im taking it all in now... Mechanics are not metaphysical...When I ask why, im not looking for a reason, im looking for a mechanism... Edited January 8, 2015 by JohnSSM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 The mechanism are in the lie algebra reprentations. To describe it all would be an entire course. Here is a good lie algrebra text http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fphyweb.lbl.gov%2F~rncahn%2Fwww%2Fliealgebras%2Ftexall.pdf&rct=j&q=lie%20algebra%20representation&ei=bPCtVLiENdO2yATNzoLwBw&usg=AFQjCNHBYxv20i8oJmr5yNIKSgVwAANYgw&sig2=RmH0KMhZEUythhh0ECYp7g&bvm=bv.83134100,d.aWw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Mechanics are not metaphysical...When I ask why, im not looking for a reason, im looking for a mechanism... I'm not seeing the distinction. How is this different from any other classical model? What's the mechanism of E&M? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 Mordred...How do you think I came up with a model of spacetime that really turned out to be a huge success...Did i need any courses to figure what I figured? I didnt take any so...are we calling me lucky? The mechanism of em is charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 There is also different conservation rules involved. Conservation of Lepton number Conservation of charge Conservation of flavor Conservation of isospin Conservation of color Conservation of momentum Conservation of energy Mordred...How do you think I came up with a model of spacetime that really turned out to be a huge success...Did i need any courses to figure what I figured? I didnt take any so...are we calling me lucky? The mechanism of em is charge What you posted wasn't a new model it's an understanding of the current one with misconceptions. Key one being space as a fabric (latex) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 The best beginner textbook is Griffiths "Introductory to particle physics" that I've studied taught me a ton. What maths areas do you need to get a good grip on that book? The writing style seems user-friendly enough; Ive read a couple of pages of the intro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now