Idea on mavity

[Spook187]

I never said anything about dark energy or anything to do with the expansion speeding up?

Have a look at that pie chart again,mights aswell talk about something with such a high %.

 

[Radiation]

Have a look at that pie chart again,mights aswell talk about something with such a high %.

It's not surprising most of the universe contains dark energy and dark matter when you think about it, most of the universe is space which is far from empty.

 

[arctine]

It's not surprising most of the universe contains dark energy and dark matter when you think about it, most of the universe is space which is far from empty.

Space...which is far from empty?

I don't think you know what space means.

 

[Elixir]

It's not surprising most of the universe contains dark energy and dark matter when you think about it, most of the universe is space which is far from empty.

I'm happy that people take an interest in science, but please start learning at an appropriate level and build on that, because anything remotely scientific I have seen you post has been awful.

 

[Destination]

What exactly is resonating in your theory?
You've said it is resonance, but of what?

 

[Cosimo]

This is relevant to another thing the OP doesn't know anything about in another current thread.

Which other thread was worth an almost four year old corpse revival?

 

[PermaBanned]

They still can't seem to make up their mind whether mavity is space bending or gravitons.

Both. It acts as a wave where the graviton is the carrier particle. Kind of like how light acts as a wave where the photon is the carrier particle. Or electrons and charge... at least, that's my understanding of our best understanding of physics.

How about trying to learn as much of what we already know as you can than just plucking theories out of your (no offence intended, it's true of all of us) imperfect brain?

There's plenty of really well written books you should read; The Grand Design, Why Does E=mc2 (and why should we care), The Quantum Universe and How to Teach Quantum Physics to Your Dog just for starters.

 

[Vespasian777]

I just had this thought the other day, it could also help explain dark matter and the webs they've simulated in space.

You know how when sound is put into a metal plate and its resonance makes any sand move to certain regions? Perhaps a similar thing is happening in space, matter may be the areas where the vacuums resonance meets/enters, so wherever matter is it attracts other matter around it and on a large scale forms web like structures in space which we call dark matter, its also the reason no one has found dark matter, i think particles are nothing more than boundary areas of tiny dimensional loops which could actually contain a huge area inside so the force travels in and out.

Show me the maths.

 

[BetaNumeric]

Well the vacuum as they now call it does contain a lot of activity, strange things like particles popping in and out of existence, electromagnetism, stuff like that. It seems to me they're coming back around to some of the ideas on the aether.

The notion of vacuum energy is not a return to the aether. The aether, as viewed in the mid 1800s, had fluid like properties, which is not the properties of the quantum vacuum.

They still can't seem to make up their mind whether mavity is space bending or gravitons, i think theres plenty of room for alternate theories about the true state of the universe, no doubt the theories we have give an idea and allow calculations to work, it doesn't mean you are getting a true picture of what the universe is really like though.

You'll be hard pressed to find a physicist who thinks we've got the true picture of how things work. However, there's very little "Is it space-bending or is it gravitons?" conflict in theoretical physics. General relativity says space-time is smooth and curved but it's an 'effective theory', in that it's the long distance, low energy approximation of something more fundamental (quantum mavity). GR has spin 2 wave propagation in it, which is how you derive gravitational waves but it's not able to be converted into a quantum model in the same way you can convert electromagnetism, which is the effective theory for quantum electrodynamics, into quantum electrodynamics.

It's a bit like the "Is it a particle or a wave?" thing. Some people think this is some major point of contention or some huge unsolved problem in physics. It isn't. Subatomic objects have no every day equivalent and thus trying to pigeon hole them into such labels is a mistake. Likewise with entanglement. Someone on this forum said in some thread about quantum information (which was awash with nonsense but I didn't bother to reply) that perhaps holography would finally help us to solve or understand entanglement, as if it's some unsolved issue. No, it's just counter intuitive. It's not a problem which needs to be resolved, it's just something people find at odds with every day experience. Once you see it in the context of the formal mathematical framework (lots of Hilbert space stuff) then entanglement is actually not only not a problem, it's expected.

these theories, need at elast some maths and the ability to predict results acuratly to be recognised though.

Can your theory predict anything?

If not it's pretty much worthless.

Bingo. Anyone can come up with 2 or 3 paragraphs of superficially science sounding mumbo jumbo but what matters is forming coherent, workable models from the ideas. For example, it might sound very appealing to think of space as some kind of fluid medium (ie the aether) because it allows you to think of light like waves in water but the fact is you can't really construct workable models from such concepts. On the other hand if you think of things as being built from strings then you can explain black hole entropy, not just conceptually but you can construct a model which predicts precisely what general relativity says about their entropy.

What do you mean by predict and why would it be worthless? They can already predict how things act and react under mavity, however i want to get a true picture of the way the universe is and could be, theres nothing worthless about that.

If you can't show your interpretation leads to correct conclusions then your picture is worthless. For example "God did it" can be given as an answer to anything seen in Nature but no rational scientist would accept that and stop thinking any further, yet it's obviously something some people are willing to accept.

I read lots, i believe while maths is fine for making calculations its often poor at giving a real idea of the way things are, not the best way to true understanding imo, take electronics for instance, back when i started reading up on it and trying to learn how things work it was never explained in a good enough way, you get confused on the complexity of a circuit and the components without really getting a good idea of whats going on, at least at first but when i understood its as simple as shaping signals, timing on/off etc, its easier to understand whats actually going on and why things work.

Sorry but given your comments in other threads I've seen you talk about maths and physics in I don't think you're anywhere close to getting a good understanding of even the concepts involved, never mind the formal model construction and understanding.

What precisely do you read? Pop science books? I read tons of those before I went to university and none of them helped me with any actual work. Sure, I could say "Oh I've heard of that concept" but if someone then asked me "So how does it lead to prediction X" I couldn't tell them. If they asked me "So you've heard of X? Use it to predict what Y does." then I couldn't do it. Only by looking at the details of the models, learning the mathematical derivations, getting a working understanding and experience with them was I able to actually do anything of any real use.

You mention circuits. Can you model electron flow through a P-N transistor? I doubt it, though its a core principle in building any computer chip and uses quantum mechanics. How about something easier? Can you model current flow in a generator if you know the layout of the magnets and their motion? Unlikely but all it needs is electromagnetism.

Believe me, I wish coming up with new ideas to explain things was as simple as you seem to think it is, but it isn't.

It's not surprising most of the universe contains dark energy and dark matter when you think about it, most of the universe is space which is far from empty.

It isn't surprising to find out there's plenty in the universe we don't yet understand but the precise amounts and their properties is not obvious. Why should the cosmological constant be what it is? Why is it so close to flat? Why doesn't it agree with vacuum energy calculations from quantum field theory? Why is dark matter mostly cold? What impact on the CMB did it have? How important was it to stellar evolution? What signatures might we expect to see if dark matter is just neutrinos? What might we see if it's supersymmetric particles? If so why is the lightest SUSY particle neutral?

All of these are questions which you could spew out an answer to off the top of your head immediately but you wouldn't really be answering them and likely your answers wouldn't have any way to be tested. That's the important thing, the ability to be developed and tested. I moderate a science forum and there's plenty of people there with their pet theories, almost all of which is just opinion and utterly lacking in detail. One criteria I explain a good idea needs is that someone else can start working on it without needing your help. If Einstein had died 10 minutes after mailing his 1915 paper on General Relativity other people could still have worked on it because he laid out the mathematical framework. Most crank ideas about physics rely on the views of the crank in question. Even if someone wanted to work on their ideas they can't because it's little more than "I say it works like this!". Your ideas lack any of the required structure and, to be frank, your grasp of physics and maths, both formally and conceptually, leaves a lot to be desired, even for a lay person.

I'm happy that people take an interest in science, but please start learning at an appropriate level and build on that, because anything remotely scientific I have seen you post has been awful.

Give that man a biscuit!

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Which other thread was worth an almost four year old corpse revival?

The 0.999r = 1 thread. The OP of this thread knows nothing about maths as well as, apparently, mavity.

 

[kwerk]

I just had this thought the other day, it could also help explain dark matter and the webs they've simulated in space.

You know how when sound is put into a metal plate and its resonance makes any sand move to certain regions? Perhaps a similar thing is happening in space, matter may be the areas where the vacuums resonance meets/enters, so wherever matter is it attracts other matter around it and on a large scale forms web like structures in space which we call dark matter, its also the reason no one has found dark matter, i think particles are nothing more than boundary areas of tiny dimensional loops which could actually contain a huge area inside so the force travels in and out.

Don't listen to everyone else. It makes sense to me.

 

[kwerk]

Just kidding.

Here's a good article that somewhat follows what you're talking about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?_r=4&scp=2&sq=mavity&st=cse

I like that idea the best.

 

[ThePirateHulk]

This is my fav pie chart

THis is mine

 

[SillyHeatsink]

while maths is fine for making calculations its often poor at giving a real idea of the way things are

I stopped taking the OP seriously after this. Trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls? It's all funny stuff though, made me giggle.

 

[Squark]

Isn't that a hypothesis rather than a theory?

 

[Mr Krugga]

 

[Radiation]

Space...which is far from empty?

I don't think you know what space means.

Im really surprised no one bothered to answer this for me, in case you didn't realise space is filled with energy and particles, the stuff we know like electromagnetism and matter (radiation, neutrinos etc) and the stuff most don't know about like virtual particles that pop in and out of existence, even at the smallest levels space is something, think of it like a fabric or background noise, i like to think of it as the aether.

What exactly is resonating in your theory?
You've said it is resonance, but of what?

That would be the fabric of space itself.

Show me the maths.

Like i've said this is an idea or theory, the maths might look much the same, for example an electron passing by a magnetic field might workout similar a photon passing by a black hole, both have similar effects of curving their path but they're quite different in reality.

Bingo. Anyone can come up with 2 or 3 paragraphs of superficially science sounding mumbo jumbo but what matters is forming coherent, workable models from the ideas. For example, it might sound very appealing to think of space as some kind of fluid medium (ie the aether) because it allows you to think of light like waves in water but the fact is you can't really construct workable models from such concepts. On the other hand if you think of things as being built from strings then you can explain black hole entropy, not just conceptually but you can construct a model which predicts precisely what general relativity says about their entropy.

If you can't show your interpretation leads to correct conclusions then your picture is worthless. For example "God did it" can be given as an answer to anything seen in Nature but no rational scientist would accept that and stop thinking any further, yet it's obviously something some people are willing to accept.

No because it is based on available information and thought, things have a likelihood of possibility, my idea is arguably a lot more likely than saying god did it, most understanding comes first from ideas and thought leading to experimentation and mathematical models, like i said maths is useful if you want to use the information but understanding things on a human level is just as valuable, you should never try to stop freethinking, we still don't know the true nature of reality, we know how a lot of stuff acts but that doesn't always tell us what it really is or how it relates.

What precisely do you read? Pop science books? I read tons of those before I went to university and none of them helped me with any actual work. Sure, I could say "Oh I've heard of that concept" but if someone then asked me "So how does it lead to prediction X" I couldn't tell them. If they asked me "So you've heard of X? Use it to predict what Y does." then I couldn't do it. Only by looking at the details of the models, learning the mathematical derivations, getting a working understanding and experience with them was I able to actually do anything of any real use.

You mention circuits. Can you model electron flow through a P-N transistor? I doubt it, though its a core principle in building any computer chip and uses quantum mechanics. How about something easier? Can you model current flow in a generator if you know the layout of the magnets and their motion? Unlikely but all it needs is electromagnetism.

Why does that matter to me though?

Im not necessarily trying to make or do something with this information, im simply trying to come up with a theory that explains or helps us understand why things work the way they do, not detailed maths to make a computer work, that's great for others to do if they wish but most theories start as thoughts based on previous knowledge, if i know a result from an equation said some previous basic theory was true, i can take that knowing what i may come up with is deeper or a different way of understanding.

 

[mehuk]

That liquid video makes me ill.

I dont get what they are trying to achieve though, I mean how does that link to space?

 

[hola_adios]

OP, you postulate a hypothesis, back it up with a mathematical model, propose a series of experiments which will provide validation of your model, that is the way to make science.

But first of all you must understand current models ...

 

[Mr Krugga]

Like i've said this is an idea or theory, the maths might look much the same, for example an electron passing by a magnetic field might workout similar a photon passing by a black hole, both have similar effects of curving their path but they're quite different in reality.

This is neither theory nor hypothesis (at least not in the scientific sense).

It's pretty much nothing, you just made stuff up based on assumptions without any scientific base.

I appreciate your imagination though.