- Thank you received: 0
Quantized redshift anomaly
18 years 9 months ago #14778
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Here we are, let's put both views, infalling and outflowing - together
On one hand we have -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
It is this same source of energy (in the Hyperdimensional Physics Model) that, according to our analysis, must now be primarily responsible for the radiated energies of stars ... including the Sun itself. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
And on the other hand we have
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Given the excellent match between observations and in-fall models, and the implausibility of alternative mechanisms discussed previously, the only compelling origin of the X-ray halo of NGC 5746 is thus that it is due to hot, probably shock heated, gas cooling radiatively as it descends into the galaxy's potential<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
These quotes represent the two views in or out. The observation of matter falling in or matter flowing out is important. If matter is falling in then the big bang theory is true. If matter is flowing outward then the big bang theory is not true.
Astronomers "usually" finds matter flowing outward.
And that means observations usually show the big bang theory is not true.
Note: Notice that they are always bringing up "because there are no plausible alternative producers" as the basis of their argument. They don't know that the matter is flowing in or out, all they know is there is a lot of it, and they say since there is no plausible alternative producer of this outflowing matter, it must be coming from outside, falling inwards.
On one hand we have -
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
It is this same source of energy (in the Hyperdimensional Physics Model) that, according to our analysis, must now be primarily responsible for the radiated energies of stars ... including the Sun itself. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
And on the other hand we have
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Given the excellent match between observations and in-fall models, and the implausibility of alternative mechanisms discussed previously, the only compelling origin of the X-ray halo of NGC 5746 is thus that it is due to hot, probably shock heated, gas cooling radiatively as it descends into the galaxy's potential<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
These quotes represent the two views in or out. The observation of matter falling in or matter flowing out is important. If matter is falling in then the big bang theory is true. If matter is flowing outward then the big bang theory is not true.
Astronomers "usually" finds matter flowing outward.
And that means observations usually show the big bang theory is not true.
Note: Notice that they are always bringing up "because there are no plausible alternative producers" as the basis of their argument. They don't know that the matter is flowing in or out, all they know is there is a lot of it, and they say since there is no plausible alternative producer of this outflowing matter, it must be coming from outside, falling inwards.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 9 months ago #14783
by nemesis
Replied by nemesis on topic Reply from
If 2/3 of the sun's energy comes from some source other than fusion, the solar neutrino "problem" is solved. It sounds like you are saying this is some kind of zero-point energy. TVF's MM proposes graviton absorption, and Paul LaViolette has a model called "subquantum kinetics" which involves photon blueshifting in some way in large mass concentrations.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 9 months ago #14784
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
I started out saying that the source is the ZPE, but later I found out that the ZPE is usually applied to electromagnetics. And that specificity isn't exactly what I had in mind. I was thinking of a more general something, something that isn't a particular something. And the ZPE is something. One way to put it is that I am talking about the source of the ZPE. I think this is true of all the myriad hyperdimensional models. Dirac's Sea talks about particles that exist as twins or pairs, but not both in this same space. I like to think f it as "INSIDE" because that is the best I can think of. Sometimes I think of it as PURE ENERGY but they are the same to me.
I don't know what gravity is. Particle theory describes the atom, but not gravity. Maybe gravity is not inside the atom, but outside in the space between atoms? If we include the INSIDE in our thinking, then gravity obviously involves the INSIDE. There may very well be gravitons, but I don't think they are a substance. They would have to be some kind of a relationship like gluons. Gravity is a relationship between masses. The graviton would be what makes gravity work. If that is so, then the graviton is not a noun. It is doing something so it is a verb or a gravitoning.
I don't know what gravity is. Particle theory describes the atom, but not gravity. Maybe gravity is not inside the atom, but outside in the space between atoms? If we include the INSIDE in our thinking, then gravity obviously involves the INSIDE. There may very well be gravitons, but I don't think they are a substance. They would have to be some kind of a relationship like gluons. Gravity is a relationship between masses. The graviton would be what makes gravity work. If that is so, then the graviton is not a noun. It is doing something so it is a verb or a gravitoning.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 9 months ago #14785
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />I don't know what gravity is.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But you sound like someone who would like to know. A fairly complete understanding of the origin and nature of gravity and inertia is now available. For the gravity story, including its history, see the book <i>Pushing Gravity</i>. For modern gravity and inertia, see our "Gravity" CD.
Short story: The apple falls because a graviton wind blows down toward Earth's surface. It tries to blow in all directions at once, but the Earth blocks a small part of the wind coming up from below the apple, resulting in a downward force.
It doesn't take long to get used to this new way of thinking, and to see that it explains everything we know about gravity in a highly intuitive way. -|Tom|-
<br />I don't know what gravity is.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But you sound like someone who would like to know. A fairly complete understanding of the origin and nature of gravity and inertia is now available. For the gravity story, including its history, see the book <i>Pushing Gravity</i>. For modern gravity and inertia, see our "Gravity" CD.
Short story: The apple falls because a graviton wind blows down toward Earth's surface. It tries to blow in all directions at once, but the Earth blocks a small part of the wind coming up from below the apple, resulting in a downward force.
It doesn't take long to get used to this new way of thinking, and to see that it explains everything we know about gravity in a highly intuitive way. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 9 months ago #16953
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
I may not know what gravity is, but everyone knows what it does. I don't know what the various theories of particle physics are and how they are trying to unify them with gravity. I speculated before that gravity exists between atoms, meaning that it exists after the atom is formed meaning there is no unification of the forces in an atom and gravity.
One must admit that such an observation is important. For one, it is inconsistant with the big bang interpretation insofar as the big bang embraces particle theory. And there may be a clue as to what gravity is made of - how does it operate - if it operataes inbetween particles.
And then this came in, well, ok, I was listening in to the Lion's Den.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Einstein gravity as an emergent phenomenon?
Carlos Barcelo and Matt Visser & Stefano Liberati
E-mail: carlos@hbar.wustl.eduE-mail:
visser@kiwi.wustl.edu
E-mail: liberati@physics.umd.edu
Homepage: www.physics.wustl.edu/˜carlos
Homepage: www.physics.wustl.edu/˜visser
Homepage: www2.physics.umd.edu/˜liberati
Abstract
“In this essay we marshal evidence suggesting that Einstein gravity may be an emergent phenomenon, one that is not “fundamental” but rather is an almost automatic low-energy long-distance consequence of a wide class of theories. Specifically, the emergence of a curved spacetime “effctive Lorentzian geometry” is a common generic result of linearizing a classical scalar ?eld theory around some non-trivial background. This explains why so many different “analog models” of general relativity have recently been developed based on condensed matter physics; there is something more fundamental going on. Upon quantizing the linearized fuctuations around this background geometry, the one-loop effective action is guaranteed to contain a term proportional to the Einstein–Hilbert action of general relativity, suggesting that while classical physics is responsible for generating an “effective geometry”, quantum physics can be argued to induce an “effective dynamics”. This physical picture suggests that Einstein gravity is an emergent low-energy long-distance phenomenon that is
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So what does this mean? Look at the key words -
"emergence"
"not fundamental"
"effective dynamics."
"insensitive to the details of the high-energy short-distance physics."
I think they are saying that gravity is an emergent property of the relationship between masses. And as pointed out by Paul Marmet also, it comes AFTER the masses have formed.
I wonder exactly which masses are affected by gravity? Because we can easily group all atoms together. IF we do that, then aren't we talking about electron fields? Matter, then, made of atoms which are made of electron fields, as a group is affected by gravity. Setting sub-atomic matter aside for now, it appears that gravity is some sot of attraction between electron fields. In other words it is electromagnetic?
Light, the photon, is affected by gravity. Or so Eddington said. But what about the EMF of a galaxy? How is a photon of light affected by
magnetic fields? Maybe Eddington's photons were bent around a star not because of gravity, but because of the electromagnetic fields which ALSO exist in and around a galaxy?
One must admit that such an observation is important. For one, it is inconsistant with the big bang interpretation insofar as the big bang embraces particle theory. And there may be a clue as to what gravity is made of - how does it operate - if it operataes inbetween particles.
And then this came in, well, ok, I was listening in to the Lion's Den.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Einstein gravity as an emergent phenomenon?
Carlos Barcelo and Matt Visser & Stefano Liberati
E-mail: carlos@hbar.wustl.eduE-mail:
visser@kiwi.wustl.edu
E-mail: liberati@physics.umd.edu
Homepage: www.physics.wustl.edu/˜carlos
Homepage: www.physics.wustl.edu/˜visser
Homepage: www2.physics.umd.edu/˜liberati
Abstract
“In this essay we marshal evidence suggesting that Einstein gravity may be an emergent phenomenon, one that is not “fundamental” but rather is an almost automatic low-energy long-distance consequence of a wide class of theories. Specifically, the emergence of a curved spacetime “effctive Lorentzian geometry” is a common generic result of linearizing a classical scalar ?eld theory around some non-trivial background. This explains why so many different “analog models” of general relativity have recently been developed based on condensed matter physics; there is something more fundamental going on. Upon quantizing the linearized fuctuations around this background geometry, the one-loop effective action is guaranteed to contain a term proportional to the Einstein–Hilbert action of general relativity, suggesting that while classical physics is responsible for generating an “effective geometry”, quantum physics can be argued to induce an “effective dynamics”. This physical picture suggests that Einstein gravity is an emergent low-energy long-distance phenomenon that is
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
So what does this mean? Look at the key words -
"emergence"
"not fundamental"
"effective dynamics."
"insensitive to the details of the high-energy short-distance physics."
I think they are saying that gravity is an emergent property of the relationship between masses. And as pointed out by Paul Marmet also, it comes AFTER the masses have formed.
I wonder exactly which masses are affected by gravity? Because we can easily group all atoms together. IF we do that, then aren't we talking about electron fields? Matter, then, made of atoms which are made of electron fields, as a group is affected by gravity. Setting sub-atomic matter aside for now, it appears that gravity is some sot of attraction between electron fields. In other words it is electromagnetic?
Light, the photon, is affected by gravity. Or so Eddington said. But what about the EMF of a galaxy? How is a photon of light affected by
magnetic fields? Maybe Eddington's photons were bent around a star not because of gravity, but because of the electromagnetic fields which ALSO exist in and around a galaxy?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 9 months ago #14792
by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Short story: The apple falls because a graviton wind blows down toward Earth's surface. It tries to blow in all directions at once, but the Earth blocks a small part of the wind coming up from below the apple, resulting in a downward force.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I tried and tried to think of this happening. But what if one took a wire, say, and suspended it horizontally. IT would have so much downward push. But what happens if the wire is suspended vertically, would some of it be shielded from the graviton flow and therefore be lighter?
tommy
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I tried and tried to think of this happening. But what if one took a wire, say, and suspended it horizontally. IT would have so much downward push. But what happens if the wire is suspended vertically, would some of it be shielded from the graviton flow and therefore be lighter?
tommy
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.386 seconds