/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15126743
>hear me out
no

>>15126743
This is basic general relativity. Look up the equivalence principle

What are the implications of this? Well it means we can simplify our model of the universe in at least one way.
Gravitational and kinetic time dilation are actually the same phenomenon.

As you know, time passes slower for objects in motion compared to a stationary observer.
For example, a clock on the ISS will run slower compared to one left stationary on the surface of Earth.
Time also passes more slowly for objects under the influence of relatively strong gravity.
A clock in Death Valley will run more slowly than one on Mt Everest due to the difference in gravity.

Again, space must flow faster as it gets closer to Earth due to being crowded into a smaller space (as with water down a drain).
So, in terms of movement through space, the Death Valley clock is actually moving faster than the the Mt Everest clock.
Therefore the difference in time is kinetic, not gravitational.

You can actually calculate the velocity of space as it flows past us by setting the equations for gravitational and kinetic velocity equal to each other and solving for velocity. What you get is that the velocity of space is the escape velocity at any given point.

>>15126821
No under general relativity, space is treated as something that bends, not flows.
Here is a good video that illustrates the model of space under general relativity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg

As you can see, it's entirely different.
Further, it treats gravitational and kinetic time dealation as two entirely separate phenomena.
I outlined here why that is not the case.
>>15126822

>>15126835
The bending of spacetime is what creates the flow. Literally everything you said about acceleration is just the equivalence principle

>>15126822
This is also just the equivalence principle. Einstein figured out gravitational time dilation using the centripetal force of a revolving wheel.

>>15126743
Gravity is Archimedes' thrust in the aether (matter causes a zone of lower aether pressure around it proportional to its mass).

>>15126855
>Literally everything you said about acceleration is just the equivalence principle.
I am using the equivalence principle and taking it a step further.
The equivalence principle is used to describe an object in *freefall* as indistinguishable from an object at rest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#The_Einstein_equivalence_principle

What if you applied the equivalence principle to an object sitting on Earth's surface? What would it be equivalent to?
It would be equivalent to an object accelerating away from Earth at 9.81 m/s^2. In other words, if you were in a locked room with no windows and feeling normal Earth gravity, you wouldn't know if you were on Earth's surface or being accelerated through Outer Space at 9.81m/s^2. But clearly an object sitting on Earth's surface isn't accelerating. Then how can it be equivalent to an object accelerating through Outer Space? Space itself must be accelerating past it. That is the crux of my theory.

If what I'm saying is already known and understood, then find a single published source which claims...
1. The force of gravity on an object is caused by the acceleration of space past the object.
2. Gravitational time dilation is a form of kinetic time dilation caused by differences in the relative velocities of *space* as it passes through objects.

>>15126743
>Gravity is not a force that causes acceleration. It's an acceleration that causes force.
and the causal link is where in this particular failed gravity description?
>Space does not bend, it flows toward matter like water toward a drain.
"Space" has no properties to do the pants-on-head retarded as shit you just said.

>As you are sitting in your chair (or wherever) you are accelerating at about 9.81m/s.
>To illustrate this, imagine sitting in a dragster that is accelerating forward at 9.81m/s. You'd be forced into the back of the seat.
..."How".

>>15127130
>"Space" has no properties to do the pants-on-head retarded as shit you just said.
Space is a fluid that flows. Call it retarded, call it whatever you want.
But flowing fluid is used as an analog to describe space around a black hole. The speed of light is essentially the speed of sound in space-fluid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_black_hole

>>15127163
>Call it retarded
You're on the nose. It literally is retardation. An unmoved, torpid, hysteresis. To say it "does this" is even more retarded though.

>Space is a fluid that flows.
Then you're just using another word for "Aether".

>a black hole.
Someone post the blackhole copypasta, you know the one about it being completely non-existent yet somehow fascinating to the mundane.

>The speed of light
We have proof light travels now? Why do you think it travels when you also simultaneously believe that space is just a fluid? "Movement" is just displacement of the medium at that point. How is that a speed? How can you reconcile it?

>>15127214
>Then you're just using another word for "Aether".
And Aether is the real answer to these questions.

>>15127214
>We have proof light travels now? Why do you think it travels when you also simultaneously believe that space is just a fluid? "Movement" is just displacement of the medium at that point. How is that a speed? How can you reconcile it?
Light is vibrations in space-fluid. If you believe waves travel in the ocean, the yes, light travels in space. The fluid is never displaced, just as waves don't displace water.

Force is just a place holder for the cause of displacement and deformation.
It is Neither observed nor measured directly.

>>15126743
Gravity doesn't only curve space but spacetime.
Reminds me of this
https://youtu.be/wrwgIjBUYVc?t=401

>>15127219
This guy gets it.

>>15127311
>Reminds me of this
That visualization is depicting pretty much exactly what I'm describing. The explanation is wrong though.
>Gravity doesn't only curve space but spacetime
Gravity doesn't exist, or rather it is an emergent effect caused by the fluid movement of space.
Neither space, time, or spacetime bends. Space moves towards and flows into matter.
In order for an object to move through space, it must trade some movement through time.
Objects moving through space at the speed of light traded all of their movement through time in exchange for maximal velocity through space. They have nothing left to give.
Gravitational time distortion is caused by space moving through an object (same as object moving through space). It is not caused by the bending of spacetime. Space flows, not bends.

>>15127119
>But clearly an object sitting on Earth's surface isn't accelerating. Then how can it be equivalent to an object accelerating through Outer Space? Space itself must be accelerating past it. That is the crux of my theory.
But it is. It is accelerating upward at 9.81 m/s^2 due to the normal force of earth. If it weren't, it would be at rest, which means it would be in gravitational free fall. The normal force accelerates the object out of free fall. You only think that it isn't accelerating because you are comparing it to your own accelerating reference frame.

Did this nigga just combine Newtonian and Einsteinian pyshics in the same frame of reference?

>>15128036
>But it is. It is accelerating upward at 9.81 m/s^2 due to the normal force of earth.
Accelerating with respect to what? We aren't in disagreement, at least we don't have to be.
I am suggesting that space (i.e. the coordinate grid) is accelerating downward past the object.
When the coordinate grid accelerates downward, past you, that means you are accelerating upwards.
Yes, you are propelled by the normal force. But the normal force only exists to oppose the acceleration of space interacting with your own inertia.

>>15128048
Yes. Newtonian physics have been used to accurately model the properties of black holes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_black_hole

Newton also believed that gravity was caused by empty space acting as a kind of fluid called "aether".
He was not far off from what I'm describing -
"Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?"

>>15128070
Yeah but you shouldn't use both to describe one phenomena because that is just confusing as hell.

>>15126743
I don’t care what this board says, this is my favorite intuitive explanation of “gravity is best thought of as the Earth accelerating upward into your feet”. What you’re saying is not anything GR doesn’t already say but I like the mental image.

>>15128085
Thank you, anon.
But I believe it, at the very least, simplifies GR by combining gravitational and kinetic time dilation as a single unified phenomenon.
It also suggests that gravity is an emergent property caused by the movement of space as opposed to an intrinsic fundamental property of matter.

>>15128092
GR already does this. GR is an extension of SR that incorporates accelerating reference frames into the logic that governs inertial frames, and in so doing explains how gravity is just a form of acceleration (i.e. movement) like any other form of acceleration. They are, in a word, “equivalent”.

>It also suggests that gravity is an emergent property caused by the movement of space
Replace the phrase “movement of space” with the phrase “curvature of spacetime” and that’s already what it says on the tin. It’s one of those widely-known pop-sci facts that, “ball on a rubber sheet” metaphors to the contrary, most of what we experience as gravity has more to do with relative time curvature than spatial curvature; i.e. the “flow of space”, which is to say the fact that time is moving faster at your head than your feet, which is equivalent to space “flowing toward your feet”.

You haven’t really demonstrated anything here except a nice way of conceptualizing spacetime curvature. But it IS a nice way of doing that, in a lot of respects. One place the metaphor struggles is the concept of orbits; the idea that everything in freefall follows a (potentially curved) geodesic is kind of muddied by the image of space flowing past it laterally. It’d be interesting to see, say, the orbit of the Earth around the sun rendered in the context of the “space flows into the sun” metaphor.

>>15128059
Accelerating with respect to the freely falling reference frame. The coordinates of that reference frame are indeed accelerating downward relative to the object, but the object is the one experiencing a real force

>>15128111
>GR is an extension of SR that incorporates accelerating reference frames into the logic that governs inertial frames
But I'm saying that the reference frames aren't just accelerating, they are actually moving with a real, calculatable velocity.
The acceleration is what causes the apparent force of gravity on an object. The velocity is what causes time dilation.
Movement through space costs movement through time. If you calculate it, in order to achieve gravitational time dilation, space would have to be moving past an object at the escape velocity for the location in the gravity field.

I think the difference here is that the ball/rubber sheet model is an analogy for helping understand gravity. I am telling you what is actually happening.
Space itself moves towards the center of gravity at escape velocity while accelerating at the acceleration of gravity (e.g. 9.81 m/s^2 on Earth).
This acceleration is caused by space behaving as an incompressible fluid, just as water gets accelerates as it approaches a drain or narrow waterfall.
There is no bending or curvature of spacetime, no geodesics. Geodesics and world lines explain movement, but not gravitational time dilation.

>>15128111
You sound like the science asylum guy

>>15128124
>The coordinates of that reference frame are indeed accelerating downward relative to the object,
Boom. So I'm right. For an object to experience the upward "normal" force, space must be accelerating downward.
Equal and opposite.

>>15126743
Gravity is the cumulative force of atomic forces, that's why at quantum levels it becomes indistinguishable from atomic forces

>>15127313

>>15127257
>The fluid is never displaced,
Then you have no "wave", just as you can't have a wave in water if you can't displace the water.

>just as waves don't displace water.
You're right in that they don't displace it. It in itself IS "the displacement". "Wave" is just another word for "coherent displacement" just as "light" is another word for "coherent displacement". Nothing is actually "traveling" in the conventional sense, just existing.

>>15128161
>I am telling you what is actually happening.
It’s equivalent to curvature. You’re hung up on the idea of “actually happening” but what you’re describing is equivalent to what Einstein described just phrased in another way.

If space “flows into” sources of high mass-energy, especially in an accelerating way (i.e. the space seems to be constantly increasing speed as it moves past you at 9.81m/s^2) that would be the same as saying space AND time are bent by a source of high mass-energy, so that “being at rest” means accelerating into that mass-energy at 9.81m/s^2, and staying stationary (in your current reference frame) is the same as moving away from the source of mass-energy through space at 9.81 m/s^2

Being “stationary” in a gravitational field is the same as accelerating away from that field’s center, while true rest, freefall, in a gravitational field is the same as sitting perfectly still in deep space while the field’s center rushes toward you. It’s as though space itself moves, over time, in the direction of strongest gravity. That is what General Relativity says.

>>15128708
>space AND time are bent
That's the difference. My explanation simplifies things. There is no reason to consider time except that objects moving faster through space move slower through time.
Spacetime isn't a thing. There's just space that moves around (toward matter) and that movement of space past us influences how we perceive time.
I am offering a simplified model compared to what GR offers. Simpler is better.
We can eliminate gravitational time dilation, which is really just kinetic. We can eliminate mediating particles like the graviton.

Also think about the possibilities of where this could lead. If space goes into matter, where does it go? To some "other place" one would assume.
But the universe is expanding, not contracting, so space must come back some how. Perhaps antimatter is the opposite, as in space comes out of it.
I think the boundary between our universe and the "other place" is porous. Space drains out of the universe through large clumps of matter (planets, stars etc..) and seeps back in through uniformly distributed antimatter particles.

What do you think?

>>15130233
Basically if more space is coming in through antimatter than is going out through matter, I think that could be causing the expansion of the universe.
That would eliminate the need for dark energy. If this excess of space puts pressure on galaxies from the outside, that could eliminate the need for dark matter as well.

Newton basically predicted this hundreds of years ago. Einstein actually led us astray with GR.

"Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?"

>>15126743
Nobody ever said gravity was a force, btw. Nobody called gravity a “force” for centuries, as far as I am aware.

>>15130252
If it makes no new predictions then it's only relevant to your intuitive understanding of things.

>>15128175
Well, yes. As that other poster and I have been telling you, your description is more or less equivalent to GR

>>15130325
>>15130358
Friend, I'm telling you. It's not about intuition or my way of understanding it.
This is what happens. Space flows into matter. Full stop. There is no other way to look at it.
Space moving cannot be equivalent to space bending. That's illogical. You're being very irrational right now.

>>15130472
>Space moving cannot be equivalent to space bending
Only because you don't yet understand the implications of the bending of time as well as space. Here is a simplified visualization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdC0QN6f3G4

I understand the desire to feel that you've discovered something unique and special, but these ideas have all been explored into the ground in the development of general relativity. You should try reading some textbooks like Hartle, Carroll, or (if you're feeling especially brave) Misner/Thorne/Wheeler

>>15130507
>Only because you don't yet understand the implications of the bending of time as well as space.
It's just.. why? Why should I try to understand something that makes no sense?
I don't care if GR has predictive power. It requires wild assumptions like dark matter and dark energy to actually make sense.
It's like when they invented the planet Vulcan just to make sense of perturbations in Mercury's orbit. It's madness, and you know it.
And the whole field is so opaque that you need to spend years and years being invested and indoctrinated into the current (broken) model to be taken seriously by anyone.
I just wanted to share something with the board and I thought it would be so cool if we could credit an actual discovery to this place.
I see now that I'm going to be gate-kept at every turn.

Thank you for the recommendations, I believe you are sincere.
But I can't afford to waste years of my life becoming literate in a severely flawed and unnecessarily complicated model of the universe.
I will go elsewhere with my theory. But remember me when I am vindicated.

>>15130472
Simply prove it by making better/new predictions or just admit you're just rephrasing something that already exists.

>>15130562
>I don't care if GR has predictive power
Why not just start a religion then? Don't call it science.

>>15130562
>I don't care if GR has predictive power
Bruh. Then why are you on /sci/ ? /x/ seems like the place for you.

> It requires wild assumptions like dark matter and dark energy to actually make sense.
Both of which were only observed a 100 years after GR was published.

>>15130606
>>15130613
GR is already a religion. You have to be a religious fanatic to believe in dark matter, dark energy, dark _____...
It's like if you told me the Sun came up every morning because it was being pulled by a god in a chariot.
And when I object, you say, "Uh, uh, uh. The Sun comes up every morning. That's predictive power. Therefore I must be correct."
And I say "What if the Earth is just rotating?"
And you say, "You are just rephrasing what I'm saying. The end result is the same. The Sun still comes up and goes down."
And I try to object again, but you go on about the pantheon of gods and how I need to educate myself before discussing the movement of celestial bodies.

>Both of which were only observed a 100 years after GR was published.
They have not been observed, only anomalies have been observed that should break the model of GR.

>>15130600
>Simply prove it by making better/new predictions or just admit you're just rephrasing something that already exists.
I already said that if space is draining out of the universe through matter, it only makes sense that it would be coming in through anti-matter.
We already know that anti-matter particles generate spontaneously in a vacuum. But they quickly get destroyed by matter.
Since matter destroys anti-matter, there must be a higher concentration of anti-matter in relatively more empty (of matter) inter-galactic space.
This higher concentration of anti-matter between galaxies, which is where space comes from causes the expansion of the universe as well as puts pressure on galaxies to stay together. It fills the role of dark matter and dark energy.

>>15130652
Wow, you're a fucking idiot.

>>15130659
All you have left is personal attacks because you know you have nothing left to stand on.
GR is a sham hidden behind opaque and incomprehensible mathematics.
No one who has wasted years of their life trying to understand it wants to admit that it is completely wrong.

>>15130652
>Ra pulls the sun
You'd win in this scenario due to other effects like the ocean tides and the Coriolis force.

>there must be a higher concentration of anti-matter in relatively more empty (of matter) inter-galactic space.
Evidence? Virtual particles come in pairs and annihilate each other. Give me a source on what you're speaking of.

>>15130672
your logic has been okay so far, but you lost me and probably everyone else on your side when you decided gr was "incomprehensible mathematics"

its not incomprehensible simply because you dont understand it

your model is a take on the existing model of gr, and whether you realize it or not, you would not have the intuitions you currently do without the work of gr, and the explanations of those that understand it

einstein stood on the shoulders of newton when he made his model, despite the fact that his model contradicted newtons, you should understand that any new "breakthrough perspective" you could ever offer is built on the basics of gr, even if it does contradict some predictions of the model

>>15130734
>Evidence? Virtual particles come in pairs and annihilate each other. Give me a source on what you're speaking of.
I found this source on collecting naturally occurring antimatter.
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-content/Bickford_Phase_II.pdf

>Antiprotons are generated when the GCR flux interacts with the 5-7 gm/cm2 of material that it encounters as it travels through the interstellar medium. This creates a pervasive flux that has been well characterized by balloon and space based measurements. About 1 kg/sec enters the solar system but only a few grams reach the Earth’s magnetosphere each year. The influence of the Earth’s magnetic field may locally increase the flux
levels by a factor of 5 near the magnetic poles.

>>15130746
Yes, I am prepared to stand on the shoulders of giants.
I believe Einstein would have abandoned or heavily modified GR by now if he saw what was happening today.
I am taking pieces made by others and putting them together in a way that makes sense.
The pieces are there for all to see. But if no one else will do it, I will do it.

>>15130652
>You have to be a religious fanatic to believe in dark matter, dark energy, dark _____...
Phew, good thing those are all hypotheses and noone actually believes in them yet

>>15130760
>>15130652
It's looks like this repulsive-gravity idea is compatible with GR https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3810..
I'm trying to find experimental evidence in your ideas that would contradict GR or be out of it's scope but I'm not finding anything new.

>>15130831
Based on my theory, gravitational time dilation is caused by space moving past an object at escape velocity. You could test this by shooting an object at Earth from space at exactly escape velocity. Put a clock on it and measure if it experiences gravitational time dilation. According to GR it will. According to me, it won't.

Also, in doing some research I found this paper by Karl Pearson, who inspired Einstein to write SR and GR. It proposes a very similar idea to mine, though there some significant differences.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2369570.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi26r-qkM78AhVSl2oFHZ0LB1MQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2kVjE-V9Nj-jOgtn1ZDOGR

Sorry the link looks weird. It's legit, I promise.

>>15130852
Time dilation is the relative measured difference between two or more timekeeping devices, time itself is not a thing that is being, or can be, manipulated

>>15130872
No, I know this. I'm saying that gravitational time dilation isn't real. Movement through space costs movement through time. Objects moving quickly through space experience a slower passage of time because they are moving less quickly through the time dimension. I'm saying that "gravity" as we experience it here on Earth, is space itself moving downward past us, which costs movement through time. If you calculate the speed space would have to be moving to achieve gravitational time dilation, it comes out to be exactly the escape velocity at any given point.

So to test my hypothesis, you'd have to shoot an object at Earth, at escape velocity, and see if it experiences the expected gravitational time dilation. My theory says it won't because the object is no longer moving relative to the movement of space.

>>15130887
Space is not a thing that moves, space isn't made of anything, spacetime is just a coordinate system and nowhere in GR/SR papers is it said that spacetime is made of anything, this is just another popsci misconception that has been repeated by retards who can't taje two seconds to read what GR/SR is actually about.

>>15130887
>Objects moving quickly through space experience a slower passage of time
You understand that this is only true relative to another observer and not the object itself right?

>>15130652
>GR is already a religion. You have to be a religious fanatic to believe in dark matter, dark energy, dark _____...
>It's like if you told me the Sun came up every morning because it was being pulled by a god in a chariot.
>And when I object, you say, "Uh, uh, uh. The Sun comes up every morning. That's predictive power. Therefore I must be correct."
>And I say "What if the Earth is just rotating?"
>And you say, "You are just rephrasing what I'm saying. The end result is the same. The Sun still comes up and goes down."
>And I try to object again, but you go on about the pantheon of gods and how I need to educate myself before discussing the movement of celestial bodies.
Incredibly based analogy.

On the other hand, you also need to know what is correctly predicted by it and how, so you need some degree of understanding of what's going on in GR.

>>15130997
>so you need some degree of understanding of what's going on in GR.
the theory doesn't predict observed cosmological expansion, galactic rotation curves, the motion of galaxies in galaxy clusters or the microwave background radiation, all of which have been observed and are known to exist. GR is a zero sum game constructed around energy conservation and energy conservation is just a presumption. The universe we live in doesn't have a temperature scale that starts from 0ºK, the 2.7ºK background radiation is our baseline temperature. A whole universe filled with free energy is unlike with the Jewish energy conservation cheapskate predicted
>no free energy for you goy, it all got to be conserved, i can't tell you why, but i'm jewish and i say so and thats good enough for me

>>15131053
But GR violates conservation of energy, that's why it's a joke.

>>15130904
If there is no such thing as space-time, what is it that bends? Admit that space is a fluid material, you fucking idiots. Space-time is fluid.

>>15131695
>If there is no such thing as space-time, what is it that bends
(You)r relative vector in space and time retard, gravity affects the path you take, aka "bending" your path in space, and relativistic velocity differences will affect your relative measurement of time, that's why it's called relativity, you're just comparing the relative measurements between things.

>>15126743
all I see is words and no math
hence no prove
hence I'm not convinced

>>15131768
>comparing objects creates forces
>when I put a ruler near my cock the universe "bends" to "force" it into its "blackhole"
the universe is a kinky slut
do people really believe this shit?

>>15131773
What the fuck are you rambling about you schizo retard

>>15131089
Wrong. GR doesn't violate classical conservation of energy, an expanding universe does which is just one scenario that GR can describe. Also it's hard to defined what energy conservation actually means at the scale of the entire universe.

>>15131806
dE = 0

>>15131927
Now prove it.

>>15131933
GR doesn't conserve energy so there's nothing to prove.

>>15130887
>So to test my hypothesis, you'd have to shoot an object at Earth, at escape velocity, and see if it experiences the expected gravitational time dilation
Relative to what? Proper time always flows at 1 second per second

>>15130908
>>15131972
It could be relative to anything, but let's say relative to an object sitting on Earth's surface.
According to GR, both a stationary object on Earth's surface and an object free-falling at escape velocity, would experience some gravitational time dilation.
But if I'm right, the object falling at escape velocity toward Earth will experience no gravitational time dilation during it's journey.
You could test this buy putting clocks on both objects and calculating the expected time difference using GR and my model to see which is right.

>>15131770
>all I see is words and no math
Because the math is self-evident.

>>15131972
Relativists don't believe in proper time. This is why relativity theory is ridiculous on its face.

>>15132826
You don't know what that means