how gravity works

[Dadoalex]

Sealed Bulge

There was no space, and no matter, before the Big Bang. We are an extension.

I'm going to guess you can't show the math.

When the expansion started, it expanded from what to what?

 

[Dadoalex]

I gather black holes had devoured practically all the matter and much of the space leaving way too much counterspace, this huge imbalance annoying the Aether no end. Something had to give. Perhaps the last little black hole transformed into a proton, then another formed to keep it company and, pretty darn soon,.. KA BLAMO!

As valid as any other theory.

 

[Grumblenuts]

When the expansion started, it expanded from what to what?

As valid as any other theory.

Funny stuff, imo. Here's the best our Harvard eggheads have been able to cook up so far:

A new form of energy may have powered the Big Bang.

Although astronomers understand what the universe was like just a few seconds after the Big Bang, no one yet knows what happened at the instant of the Big Bang - or what came before. What powered the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff in the universe come from in the first place? What was the universe like just before the Big Bang?

So no one knows, but they're pretty darn confident about it involving "A new form of energy." Couldn't just be the Aether, nooooo!

The "inflationary universe."
The leading idea is called the "inflationary universe" model. The key assumption of this model is that just before the Big Bang, space was filled with an unstable form of energy, whose nature is not yet known.

Same. Wikipedia offers: "The hypothetical field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton." Well, isn't that so helpful! Seems an orgy of fallacious sins must be going in there.

At some instant, this energy was transformed into the fundamental particles from which arose all the matter we observe today. That instant marks what we call the Big Bang.

Okay, cool. So in one "instant" all of "this energy" magically turned into "particles." Great! Wait?

A remarkable consequence of this model is that, if even a pinpoint of space contained this primordial form of energy, then the pinpoint of space would expand extremely rapidly and would bring into existence more of the same kind of energy. In fact, all the matter in the universe could have arisen from a bit of primordial energy weighing no more than a pea.

Ah, so somehow all the energy required to produce all the matter and energy in the entire universe can be packed into a pea sized bit of space or less. But torqueing counterspace seemingly requires no space at all and why this obsession with particles? Anyways,..

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

When the expansion started, it expanded from what to what?

Diploma Dumbos Don't Know What Begging the Question Means? The Academized Believe It Means "Which Leads to a Question?" All Their Concepts Are Simple-Minded.

It expanded from a Black Hole in the Mother Universe. The substance that went through the hole at the square of what the speed of light is here changed into space, energy, matter, and light. "To what?" is misleading; it begs the question because there was no "what" until it got here.

 

[Dadoalex]

Funny stuff, imo. Here's the best our Harvard eggheads have been able to cook up so far:

So no one knows, but they're pretty darn confident about it involving "A new form of energy." Couldn't just be the Aether, nooooo!

Same. Wikipedia offers: "The hypothetical field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton." Well, isn't that so helpful! Seems an orgy of fallacious sins must be going in there.

Okay, cool. So in one "instant" all of "this energy" magically turned into "particles." Great! Wait?

Ah, so somehow all the energy required to produce all the matter and energy in the entire universe can be packed into a pea sized bit of space or less. But torqueing counterspace seemingly requires no space at all and why this obsession with particles? Anyways,..

Actually, I don't agree with any of those suppositions.
I think that at the moment of the Big Bang there was the singularity and space.
Think of space as the surface of a balloon.
At the moment of the Big Bang the balloon completely encircles the singularity like an unused paintball if you will.
There is nothing between the singularity and space.
Then the big bang.
All of what the singularity was burst out into space causing space to expand. (more on this)
A question here is whether the expansion was uniform in all directions or unbalanced in some way?
If the expansion was uniform it would tend to indicate the singularity was inert with an even distribution of whatever the singularity consisted of. But, if the singularity was inert what triggered the event? Was it something outside Space/Time? Something we might think of as God? No, not preaching, just running down a possibility.
If the distribution was not uniform it would seem to indicate that the singularity was turbulent and something akin to a thermonuclear explosion took place.

Back to expansion.
I think all of what the universe is embedded in the fabric of space and was carried with space as space expanded.
Remember there's nothing between space and the singularity so it logically follows there is nothing between the fabric of space and where the singularity was.
Picking one of those objects embedded in space we could, with the right equipment, see the effect of the object embedded in space affecting the curvature of the region around the object with these impact rippling across all of space/time.

I could go on and on but this is my "Big Bang Theory."

I have another theory I call the "Big Rupture."
This references the Multiverse theories.
I think the universe are all unique, varying in composition, energy, etc. They are also in constant motion.
When universes contact one another there is a rupture in the fabric of space.
The universe with lesser matter begins to suck matter/energy from the more dense universe in what may appear to be a giant "explosion." The process continues until the pressure in both space fabrics equalizes and the ruptures seal.
While the process results may resemble the Big Bang the difference is that there are "big bangs" going on all the time.
This process, in the multiverse, is creation itself.

Gee. What fun!

 

[Dadoalex]

Diploma Dumbos Don't Know What Begging the Question Means? The Academized Believe It Means "Which Leads to a Question?" All Their Concepts Are Simple-Minded.

It expanded from a Black Hole in the Mother Universe. The substance that went through the hole at the square of what the speed of light is here changed into space, energy, matter, and light. "To what?" is misleading; it begs the question because there was no "what" until it got here.

So what was "mother universe" before the big bang?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Extremely pregnant?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So what was "mother universe" before the big bang?

Don't Be a Slave to Quantum Quack Authority. Put All Their Make-Believe Phrases in Scare Quotes, Too.

Why is that relevant? The "Big Bang" drained only a tiny part of its substance, just like our "Black Holes" do, draining it back to the Mother Universe.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

I'm a string theorist. When two universe's collide, or two hydrogen atom's fuse, they lose some of their density. The denser a material is for a given volume, the more it weighs. Density of the space medium is different then conventional density. The denser the space medium is the stronger it is as a vacuum. but when density leaves the atomic nucleus in fusion, it creates a wave which has heat and activates space's luminiferous quality. Waves in the space medium cause the medium to heat up,

 

[Grumblenuts]

What has zero mass and therefore zero density?

 

[trevorjohnson83]

What has zero mass and therefore zero density?

GR people's brains.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What has zero mass and therefore zero density?

The Lords of Science Need to Be Neutered

A neutrino. Far more important than these no-practical-value theoretics, as a kind of GPS Geiger Counter, it can map all the earth's mineral wealth all the way to the core, creating untold prosperity for all of mankind. But we are channeled into leisure-class snob science, because the smug and sheltered rulers already have prosperity and fear resource development because it creates class mobility.

 

[Grumblenuts]

GR people's brains.

Um, Newton would most likely say space. However, regarding Newton's inverse square law, GR people would say:

In today's language, the law states that every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force acting along the line intersecting the two points.

.. which is utterly stupid on at least two accounts. One being that mass only attracts the Aether which induces the anti-field effect we call gravity. Second, only a GR/QM egghead ("atomist") would speak of "point masses." Real people are stuck dealing with things like "the center of gravity" and "the vector sum." Which brings us to.. Third, who died and said there are only "two points" or masses to consider? For example, say three exist forming an equilateral triangle. Then each will effectively be "attracted" toward the midpoint of the remaining two. That said, what we experience as a pulling force is really the Aether pushing us toward Earth's center of mass and vice versa.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Lords of Science Need to Be Neutered

A neutrino. Far more important than these no-practical-value theoretics, as a kind of GPS Geiger Counter, it can map all the earth's mineral wealth all the way to the core, creating untold prosperity for all of mankind. But we are channeled into leisure-class snob science, because the smug and sheltered rulers already have prosperity and fear resource development because it creates class mobility.

Yep, yet another of them little Aether sparks they've gone ahead and named,.. after dubbing it "A particle!" of course. Class mobility? Fear, fear, fear! Personally, I'm all for placing reasoned limits upon income and wealth accumulation. Flying billionaires up to space and back should not be a thing. Up only? Better.

 

[james bond]

General relativity makes one basic assumption: gravitational force on a mass is indistinguishable from the force of inertial resistance when a mass is being pushed.

The math behind that simple assumption leads to warped geometries. The math does not explain anything, it just describes the behavior. That is all that can be known at this point.

It's the equivalence principle. From wiki:

"In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference."

Furthermore, it encompasses the idea that gravity is just a fictitious force. Gravity would be the same to other fictitious forces such as centrifugal force. One would not be able to tell which is which.

The geometry isn't wrong.

Some interesting examples here -- 1.5: The Equivalence Principle (Part 1)

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Um, Newton would most likely say space. However, regarding Newton's inverse square law, GR people would say:

.. which is utterly stupid on at least two accounts. One being that mass only attracts the Aether which induces the anti-field effect we call gravity. Second, only a GR/QM egghead ("atomist") would speak of "point masses." Real people are stuck dealing with things like "the center of gravity" and "the vector sum." Which brings us to.. Third, who died and said there are only "two points" or masses to consider? For example, say three exist forming an equilateral triangle. Then each will effectively be "attracted" toward the midpoint of the remaining two. That said, what we experience as a pulling force is really the Aether pushing us toward Earth's center of mass and vice versa.

Dr. Nuts,
I'm afraid I don't follow. You say the aether pushes us down creating gravity?

 

[Dadoalex]

Don't Be a Slave to Quantum Quack Authority. Put All Their Make-Believe Phrases in Scare Quotes, Too.

Why is that relevant? The "Big Bang" drained only a tiny part of its substance, just like our "Black Holes" do, draining it back to the Mother Universe.

Not a religious thread.
Show the math or just admit it's a religious belief.

There may be a "superverse" above our existence. The thing you're calling "mother."
But, that would clearly indicate a layered multiverse in which our existence would be the "mother" of the layer above and so on or to quote Qui Gon "there's always a bigger fish."
We keep breaking matter down into smaller and smaller pieces. Could those pieces be "miniverses" and what would the physics of a miniverse look like to us?
Is it possible we are the muon that some scientist in a maxi-mega-verse is trying to crack open to see what's inside.

Your "motherverse" is valid but couching it as a matter of faith rather than science destroys the concept.

 

[Grumblenuts]

In effect.

I'm afraid I don't follow. You say the aether pushes us down creating gravity?

Not exactly. I said exactly what you quoted me saying. It's a net effect of the Aether. Le Sage theory provides the basic idea. But keep in mind that the Aether is a field, so can easily pass through all atoms and molecules.. It's not a bunch of "particles" or masses.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

So can I find one sucker out there that agrees with the picture in the OP is the correct view of the sheet experiment? C'mon there's always someone who thinks space is made of a sponge?

 

[trevorjohnson83]