Dear Guests: It is rewarding to get so much feedback on this fascinating subject. And some of them are very intellectual and thorough. We will try to post most of them on this page, yet we don't have room for non-related subjects. My favorites are 29 to 33. They make you think! I specially enjoyed 31 and I will have to study 33 for a while. Thanks,
- Debate inputs are printed according to size. Scroll down to get to the real good stuff! Bottom
- Inputs are posted as they came; they are not modified at all. Posting them here does not mean we agree or disagree with them.
- Comments are numbered so that they can be referred by month and number.
- As it was found appropriate, answers or clarification follows Guest comments by GIFTT
- This is the November page. Have fun!
1-Big t, Napier, New Zealand
good stuff guys2-Rouf HARBEG , Montreal, Quebec, Canada
I love this site!!3-Gschim Moeller, Germany
Me likey astrophysics.4-Cody prentice, Charlotte, NC, USA
nice to see that someone out there thinks the same way5-Roman Korenev, Kiev Ukraine
Thanks to guys like you Internet became what it is. Thanks for useful and interesting information!6-Jus Lee, USA?
I was glad to find your site. It contained several points that I have been researching on my own. Thanks7-Ferdinand Valk, Huizen The Netherlands
A fascinating and potentially viable conception. I would like to comment further upon more detailed consideration. I will do so later in the forum.8-DERBELI FETHI, UTA TUNISIA
I'm an ingineer ,I'm interrested to compare the scientific discover and my religion revealations GIFTT: Please share your idea's, we will post them here.9-Kevin Frane, Umass Amherst USA
Quite interesting. I shall have to return in the future.10-Anthony Nicklen, Lancing, West Sussex UK.
I like the notion of the theory and have toyed with similar in my undergrad years. I'd like to follow these discussions as I think we need more solid argument in this fluid space-time universe.11-Richard C. Allen, USA.
I would like to get more info on the exact details of your theory. I have developed a Theory which, although it is differant, has some interesting simularities.
GIFTT: The whole details of the theory is posted on the site, if you go to the challenges page and click on "Nuclear force" you will see some formulas that relates (First approximation) the relationship between the mass and size of universe with the nuclear force.12-Tony Beasley, Mason, MI, USA.
It's very interesting to me that you propose that time itself has mass. So would it then mean that the force of gravity, being energy, would also have mass? ....anyway, the page was great and presents some well- researched theories. I'm down with it, man.13-Nia, Virginia, USA
THERE IS AN ISSUE CONCERNING THE LIGHT BARRIER ... That I would like to discuss with someone. I think that it may lend some credence to your theory. However, before I disclose it, I would like to at least correspond with a "Person" at the other end.
GIFTT: As a matter of fact, if you would model space-time to have equivalent mass and act as gas , then light which propagates in it may have a speed barrier, just like sound that has a speed barrier in the Atmosphere. Maxwell's equations only suggests that light (EM waves) have a constant speed of C. .
Please send your thoughts and we will post them on this site for other's to see.
My name is Frank Ghassemi, please contact me through info@giftt.com14-Rrichard Nelson Carter Jr. Dallas, Twxas, USA.
i am simply interested in learning about space time matter. I was not aware of this theory until I found this site by non-objectively typing in Space time matter. its nice to know that my personal theory is shared by others. I hope to someday discover the answer to the riddle or at least harness the knowledge of space time matter and its nature so that I may learn to manipulate the substance from which it exists so that we as a race may travel through out space and time with out the obvious consequences which hinder us now.15-SWATI RAMANATHAN, Bangalore, India
GIFTT:You are asking a very difficult question. The machinery of gravitation is not known at this time. If it is proven that the liquid space time i.e. the fabric of space-time having mass and acting as liquid has something to do with gravity, then there may be a link to quantum mechanics. As you see from the explanations of Nuclear force calculations on the site page of "challenges", the quantum mechanical particle of gluons may not exist at all.
Please share your thoughts with us on how this theory may link to quantum mechanics?16-David Kelly, Chicago, IL, USA.
I like this theory... and I believe that "solid matter" are little bubbles in the sea of space time. When they decay... they pop (or form smaller bubbles and enegry what passes through the space around it).
GIFTT:Thank you for your kind and remarkable comments you are exactly to the point, Solid Matter, e.g. elactron is an entity that decays (or pops) or melts into space-time. inside the electron there is no space-time. Your are one of the few who understands this new paradigm of thinking about the universe.
Another angle to this theory is that the very gigantic gravity of the space-time effects the frequency of light as it travels through it. Einstein calculates this beautifully. Therefore the Red-Shift which is the clue for the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang Theory all become questionable.
Do not stop thinking!17-Eric Mihalovich, USA?
I found this all rather interesting, but being as i'm only a seventeen year old high school student, some of the concepts were a bit alien to me. given a little more time to digest this information, i believe i will eventually have a better grasp of it all, though.
GIFTT:It is fantastic that at a young age you are wondering and playing with Physics, especially Astronomy and space-time. Einstein and Newton were your age when they started. To help people like you we have just added a reference page to our site called" news,books,links". Out there you can find a ton of latest news, books and links about the general subject of the missing mass of universe as well as general topics like time, gravity, etc. Please don't stop thinking, you could potentially solve the mysteries of time, gravity and electric charge. At present we don't know what is time, what is the machinery of Gravitation and why some matter has charge and others don't.18-Michal Leah Eising, New York, NY, USA.
. if you changed the background color of this site to white, i'd be able to print some info from my printer. something is wrong with some very basic theories we accept today...i just feel it quite intuitively. but i plan to find out in the next 15 years or so of my life. i just hope to remember to make time to do so.
GIFTT: Date:This site has been designed so that the background defaults to white when you print it on Black and white printer. At any library you can print it free.
About your intuitive thinking that our present understanding of the universe has become obsolete, you are 100% right. We need a new model for universe that takes us another 100 years.
The liquid space-time model that we have proposed can explain easier to understand universe and can ignite new technologies for true space travel.
Please share your idea's with us, if you like. And we will post it on the debate page that starts in Nov.98.
Don't stop thinking !!19-Ed, Miniapollis MN,USA
I believe in the theory that space has mass but isn't the concept of time a manmade concept, dependent on the geographic location of the observer? wouldn't just space-mass be a more acurate term?And if thats the case what is the actual substance and how do we manipulate it to our advantage? one last thought "the big bang is a common occurance"
GIFTT: I agree 100% with you. "Big Bang" i.e. creation of matter from space-time is a common occurrence.
As for time which you suggest is a man made concept, it is also the most mysterious properties of nature. As long as the speed of light is limited to "c" , it takes time to get from point A to point B, and that's one of the reasons for having to have time associated with space.
A great book on the subject of time is The Arrow of Time. , I will post information on it in the section of recommended books.20-Laura Amy Neuhaus, Austin Texas, USA
I am a sophmore in high-school who has not yet taken a physics course, but astrophysics is extremely interesting to me, and i have read several books on the matter. However my curiosity is never satisfied. I cannot wait to take as many physics courses as I can, but until then I continue to read up on the issue, your site being one of the more intriguing places I have experienced. Anything you can send me such as information or articles about the missing mass of the universe and other related topics would be very much appreciated my an avid physics fan.
GIFTT:It is fantastic that at a young age you are wondering and playing with Physics, especially Astronomy and space-time. Einstein and Newton were your age when they started. To help people like you we have just added a reference page to our site called" news,books,links". Out there you can find a ton of latest news, books and links about the general subject of the missing mass of universe as well as general topics like time, gravity, etc. Please don't stop thinking, you could potentially solve the mysteries of time, gravity and electric charge. At present we don't know what is time, what is the machinery of Gravitation and why some matter has charge and others don't.21-Joao DeMacedo, USA.
I would like to know more about your space time mass theory. I would appreciate if you could E-Mail me a copy of your theory.
GIFTT:,Thank you for your interest in the space-time-mass theory. The whole theory is posted in the site. You may like to click on the "Challenge" and in the challenge page click on "unification" and "Nuclear force" to see some mathematics. We have not been able to calculate the density of space-time mathematically because the mass and size of Universe are not known. Another challenge is that since the gravity associated with space-time shifts the wavelength of light, the whole existing red shift data and the rate of expansion of cosmos as well as its estimated size have to be recalculated. Assigning mass to the fabric of space-time is a fundamental new theory and it creates a whole new paradigm about re-thinking of our present understanding of universe.22-Rachel, USA.
The example you used with Aristotle helped me understand the theory. But then again you are basing it on that everything in the universe is alike. Saying well it was the air pressure around the cups that held them together so its the dark matter or 0.0 energy around in the universe that holds it together. Which if you believe the small forces on earth are modled after universal forces is a likely theory. Then again having whole different pressure on galaxys & planets means we would have to rethink gravity. So not only is gravity pulling us down, this space-time-mass is pushing us down. now wouldn't that do wonders for our space travel!23-Name: Art Hambach, USA
Well done. It finally struck me in reading Ferris's "The Whole Shebang" that he was referring to space time as if it were a thing, an ontological being. It bends, it warps etc. You've expressed the idea most elegantly and it's one I'll have to spend some time with. Its not clear to me how a massive body that warps space-time relates to space time. It would seem that it is part of space time. If so, why the warpage? Wouldn't it be better expressed as a congealing of space time? I'll keep an eye on you.
GIFTT: Thank you for your kind remarks on the space-time-mass theory, Please keep in touch, also we are very interested in any idea's on how to measure the density of space-time. The bending of space-time around massive bodies can be visualized as seeing the bending the atmosphere around the planet earth. Or bending of the liquid waters of the oceans around the planet.24-Kieth Hardy, USA
I found your theory interesting. You may also wish to take a glance at a theory I have recently published to the web. Distance-time theory is a quantum theory of time and space that defines distance as equivalent to a period of time (D=cT). It took me 14 years to create and write this new theory. This new structure of time and space predicts that space has a finite speed c. In contrast, relativity theory defines space as infinitely fast. Also, elementary quantum theory principles are intrinsic to the structure of time and space in distance-time theory. Heisenberg's uncertaintity principle, the probabilistic position of a particle, and the collapse of a particle's probalistic position are all predicted by a distance-time manifold. These predictions are made mostly independent of traditional quantum theory. Come visit my web site. http://www.comcity.com/distance-time25-Rachel, USA.
I also have a theory about space travel... alright we can not travel at the speed of light through the galaxy because our mass would be stretched to infiniti, right... But even traveling in the speed of light we could not raceh our nearest star within one life time & mae it back to earth... So a scientist has made this theory to create a anit-gravitational bubble that a spaceship could travel in a known speed but the bubble would be traveling faster then the speed of light... kind of like a fly in a train. Well we've found anit-matter & I'm sure there's anit-gravity. But we haven't found it yet. So, this is my theory, what is stronger then gravity? Magnetic forces... ithey just balance each other out in the universe. If we could create a pos. or neg. charged bubble for the ship to travel in it would then unbalance the magnetic forces around it & we could travel through space faster then light with out the limitations of gravity because we are over powering it... I don't know it'd just my theory...26-Mark, USA
In 1986, I wrote a paper with a similar hypothesis and submitted it to Dr. Wdowiak of the University of Alabama in Birmingham. In this paper, I proposed a permeating structure that coexists with and could be considered to be the negative field of the fabric of space-time. I dubbed it theta hyper-plasma. Characteristics include transmission of quantuum effects at speeds greater than that of light. This property has been much in the news recently with the remote-effect experiments being done by which a particle seperated from one it had been with exhibits effects from stimuli caused to it's partnered particle at a distance. I further stated that it was possible that, having NEGATIVE MASS due to a field velocity greater than C, the theta hyper-plasma would REPEL mass. this effect would be, essentially, anti-gravity. I made this statement as a possible explaination for the uneven distribution of mass following the big bang. Hyper-plasma, acting at supra-light speeds, would have entered the universe ahead of matter and significantly affected the distribution of positive mass. The paper was lost, and although some features of my theory latter appeared in work of some of Wdowiak's colleagues, I never recieved credit.
27-Ray G. Held (Rayman), USA.
Why can't you just do this to measure the density of space time: Make a measuring device that works by comparing outside presure to inside presure. Take the device into space. Calibrate by opening a valve to equalize the inside pressure with the outside pressure. Have the opening of the device pointed to the front of the space craft. Send the space craft into space to a predetermined point at a predetermined speed (faster is better for more change). Look for changes in the outside pressure as compared to the inside pressure. Work the math. G-Force can be canceld out in the configuration of the device.
GIFTT: Your suggestion is very valid. The problem is making a device that measures the space-time pressure. You need material to stop space-time from flowing from one side to the other i.e. time as well as space will not go through it. As you know all matter that we know are just like a very very hollow lattice of atoms. And the atom itself is pretty much all empty space (the fabric of space-time fills it). Now how can you stop time from flowing? In our "Site" we are suggesting that the very nuclear force represents the pressure of Space-time. If we could indeed travel very fast to a distant Galaxy and measure a differentiation of the nuclear force, yes, you may measure the density of space-time. You also need to assume that the Universe is closed and have some idea of the size and mass of the Universe.28-Lord Mortu, USA
Interesting theory (sometimes exploited in SF :) ) My question is, how does your theory work with space expansion? It sems that your theory implies that the density of space is being lowered all the time, so is there a limit to the stretching of space in Hubble expansion, is there a "springing" force that will cause occillations of contractions and expansion of space? This are pretty much the questions that rise in my mind when I read your front page.
GIFTT:Your question is very valid and fundamental. Assigning mass to the space-time and assuming that it behaves like a liquid or gas indeed means that it's density should be reduced as the universe expands. However, one comes to new thinking and a new "paradigm" as soon as mass is assigned to the fabric of space-time:
1- Since the very massive space-time gravitational force interacts with photons of light and causes their frequency to shift, the red shift calculations and the rate of expansion and for that matter the size and age of Universe are all questionable.
2- Since matter is at present stage of Universe melting away into space-time form, then the expansion of space-time does not necessarily produce a density reduction. (If the melting of the Polar ice on the planet causes the oceans to rise (expand) the density of the water is not decreasing.
My feeling is the universe may indeed oscillate, because cycles seem to be designed in nature.29-Jean-Marc, USA.
Isn't there something that might have appeared in the Michelson and Morley experiment to explain or that goes in the direction of your theory ? There is a small but non negligeable effect in that experiment which has been discarded as a profound scientific result because the major goal of the experiment was reached . If you have any more info related to what I am talking about I would be interested.
GIFTT: This is a very critical and clever observation that needs a very long discussion. In summary Michelson-Morley experiment proved that "ether" is not filling the space. The fabric of space-time having equivalent mass is not the same as that. Also the experiment was Looking for dependence of the speed of light on the relative speed of the media. It was assumed that planet Earth is moving in the "ether" and "ether" is stationary. The folowwing two questions makes it necessary To make that experiment again:
1- The relative speed of the planet in reference to a fixed point in the Universe is much faster than the orbital sppeed of .. Earth moves with the solar system around the Galaxie and the Galaxie is moving at speeds comparable to ½ of the speed of light relative to some distant Galaxies. This means that a true Michelson interferometer experiment has to be done in the space with arms of at least ten kilometers to be sensitive enough to detect anything.
2- Einsteins relativity proposes that the speed of light is independent of the speed of source and detector and the frame of reference. i.e. if you are riding on a train at the spees of light and measure the speed of light of the headlights of a train that is moving at the opposite direction with the speed of light, still the spped of light is c and not 2c. I think this means that the speed of light is also independent of the relative speed of space-time in which it moves. This will result a -ve measurement in the Michelson experiment
30-Karlo & Carolyn, USA.
Hello your theory is very interesting. I but I have a question or two about this theory if as you say space-time had mass in other words stuff it would have a gravitational pull. Since this gravitational pull would be completely surrounding us with equal force. You would think that it would counter balance it's self and hold you still. Also if space-time was made of matter than sound should be able to travel through it and as far as we know it does not this puzzles me about your theory. Lastly if your "space-time-matter" was liquid like you would tend to draw the conclusion that you would be able to swim in it as you do water but this is not the case in order to move in space you have to push off of another object such as a shuttle. I am definitely not writing off your theory as I said before I think it is very interesting and I will give it more thought I would much appreciate your respone asap.
GIFTT: 1- You are right the universal pressure of space-time on a person or a rock or a car is such that it cancels itself. That's why objects do not move until you push them. Also you do not feel the pressure because it is effecting the nucleus of the atoms in your body, as you know the very atoms that make our bodies are mostly empty space (filled with space-time).
2- As for sound traveling through space-time, please think that space-time is another state of matter, just like energy that is another state of matter and has equivalent mass (E=mc2). Now would you argue that sound waves should travel through energy? like light waves or cosmic rays or radio waves? of course you can modulate radio waves and or light to carry sound. If we could modulate space-time, we could also use it to carry information including sound. Also the space-time density is extremely thin ( of the order of 10 to the power of -27 less than atmosphere) so even if sound waves of some kind travel through it, you need a detector that is 10 to the power of 27 times more sensitive than human ear.
3- As for swimming in the liquid of space-time, since the space-time density is very low, it can not holds a person or a space ship, but very large masses like Galaxies are indeed floating (or swimming in the liquid of space-time) just like clouds that float in the atmosphere
Do not stop thinking31-John B. Merryman Jr. Baltimore, Md, USA
Einstein realized that there must be a counter element to gravity, or the universe would collapse to a point, so he proposed the cosmological constant as an arbitrary repulsive factor.
After Hubble discovered that light from other galaxies is red shifted, the assumption became that the galaxies are flying apart, presumably from a point. Possibly Einstein's gravitational conclusion.
Logically there is some connection between this expansion and the gravitational source, yet there is insufficient gravity to reverse the process.
The Big Bang is proposed as an explosion of anti-matter and matter in which sufficient residual matter remains to create the universe.
It is also proposed that matter and anti-matter also flash into and out of existance at the micro-cosmic level. This is called vacuum energy, vacuum fluctuation, quantum energy, etc. It is considered to be a neutral process, with no residue.
Suppose though, that this virtual energy did leave residue, just as the Big Bang is presumed to, what would the effect be?
Suppose that it is only stable at the most minute level before the force of stored attraction causes it to collapse.
The result would be a very low level of expanding radiation interspersed with contracting vortexes. That is what we see; background radiation to the level of 2.7 K interspersed with the gravitational storms that are galaxies. That these galaxies appear to be flying apart is because the definition of space between them is expanded residual vacuum energy.
Therefore the rate of expansion is countered at the local level by galactic processes and there is no need for sufficient gravity to collapse the entire universe.
So it is space that is expanding, not the universe. This effect would logically create a horizon line, limiting how far light waves could travel before they cease to register. By current estimates, the fartherest we can see seems to be about fourteen billion light years, which coincidently is the current best estimate for the age of the universe.
This is a simpler explanation for what is observed then the Big Bang Theory, but one may as well propose a flat earth as a stable universe!
What is this vacuum that fluctuates? It is time and space. Time and space are the objective context in which subjective matter and energy function.
In a Big Bang universe, time is one dimensional, as subjective reality moves from the singularity on to whatever conclusion. The cosmological constant, though, is a pervasive continuous process. What is happening is that the objective context is moving in the opposite direction from subjective reality.
Think in terms of a car factory in which the product is moving from point A to point B. The process does not move. It is both A and B. Now the future of this process does not lay in the cars that have come off the line, but in those yet to be built. The same is true for life. Our subjective future is in death, but the future of life itself lays in birth.
Einstein thought in terms of gravity curving space inward. Hawking describes one of the arrows of time as that of the expansion. One direction is subjective. All physical elements are contracted. The other is objective. The entirety is expanding.
Our subjective minds think and act directionally, but for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The passage of time then, is not so much a linear process as the inter-relationship between subjective and objective. This might help to explain quantum phenomena, in which particles at the edge of physical reality remain connected in time while separated in space.
The present exists as space, ie. the vacuum. It fluctuates, ie. it expands and contracts, creating not only matter and energy, but past and future. Reality then, is not a function of matter and energy, defining time and space. It is time and space, manifested as matter and energy. Reality as a function of matter and energy is logically reductionistic, it is wealth and power.
Reality as a function of time and space is wholistic, it is everything. Anything less is just that; less.
GIFTT: It is rewarding to see high caliber thinkers take the time and write. This writing is fascinating and triggers thinking. Thank you JBM Jr!
32-Roy & Judith Porter, USA
Gravity: Curvature of space-time or Curvature of Time??? For many years I have read about and pondered the mysteries of the universe, always looking to understand the unknowns. In so doing I have of course read books on relativity, quantum mechanics and grand unification to mention a few. One day while reading an article somewhere about a planets or stars mass's effect on time, I realized that maybe "Gravity" is not what we believe it to be. To begin, I was led to believe that a large mass actually causes time to flow at a slightly increased rate.(The idea of time slowing in a black whole is different in that time slows due to relativistic velocities. This is something more and should be overlooked at the moment because we will not be dealing with relativistic velocities here.) I had also read an article about an anomaly in the orbit of mercury due to it's close proximity to the sun. This anomaly, from what I can recall, was caused by the distortion of the flow of time near the sun. (Unfortunately, I have been unable to find that article again.) I also believe there are other similar articles about very small differences between clocks on moon mission rockets and earth based clocks contributed to the rockets being farther from the source of gravity (the earth). Unfortunately, my math skills are sadly lacking for such interests. However, what I am about to explain requires little math to understand in it's basic form. I will leave it up to those with the required mathematical abilities to prove or disprove, if so desired, what I am about to propose. (Forgive me if this turns out to be well know information or insanity…. It's just thoughts and imagination from someone with out any degrees in physics, only electronics.)Gravity is not a force that can be included in the Grand Unification theory. Gravity, in itself, is a result not of the curvature of space-time as so often stated, but actually as a result of the change in the rate at which time flows at different distances in space from a large mass. The "Gravity Well" illustration is misleading since space itself remains unchanged, only the rate that time passes changes, rippling out and diminishes in rate of change as distance from the mass increases.
Gravity is an effect caused only by the end of a mass nearest the gravity source to be moving at a different rate than the far end. But how is that possible??? First of all, speed is measured as distance per time interval.
Well, since the distance does not change how can two ends be going at different speeds?? I propose there is a minute change in the rate that time flows as one nears a mass. Imagine circles like a bullseye with the gravity source mass at the center. Now imagine a long rod pointed toward the bullseye from the side and both are moving in the same direction of 1 meter/second. (Remember that EVERYTHING is moving [Expanding] in the universe.) Now expand those rings out to touch the nearest end of that rod. If that first ring that touches the end near the bullseye is actually a slight time warp (caused by the presence of that mass), which causes a second of time to take just a little shorter to pass relative to the far end, say the equivalent of .999999 seconds, then the nearest end would be going 1 meter /.999999 sec, a mere .000001 seconds quicker to travel 1 meter toward the gravity "well", pulling the rest of the rod with it, causing other parts to pass into the circles increasing this effect along the rod as more and more circles are crossed. Well, this is all fine and good as long as all the contributing information is correct. If the information in the second paragraph is faulty then this is just science fiction. If, in fact, masses do change the rate of time then maybe we all misunderstood "curvature of space-time by placing too little emphasis on the second word…..Time. Part Two: Looking for the light…or is that time?? Thought….time to dream and imagine. Think about light. What is it??? Is it a wave or a particle..A photon or packet??? I really couldn't guess at that one.. But one day while looking at black charred wood that I thought was burnt, I thought I had an answer. It wasn't burned but was sunburned…. Fire, What is fire… It will do the same to wood, but much much faster and more thorough. Time, what is time??? Ever seen rotted wood, it looks almost burnt…But not by heat or light but by life. Slow chemical reaction based life. What is life???? How can all these make wood look similarly black??? I haven't the answer. But I though and thought and began to imagine light as small packets of time. Heat, as we know is molecules moving or vibrating rapidly. But what is movement??? Movement is of course distance per time period…Well then, if instead of increasing the distance a molecule moves in a measure of time, why not decrease the measure of time with the same distance. Since it seems that molecules don't seem to change the distance then maybe the time was changed……Waa Laa… You have the same effect.. and if you touch those molecules then that fading time warp will jump to you fingers and cause the molecules in you fingertips to move the same distance but in a shorter period of time. OUCH!!! Now go ahead and try to touch that fire!!! Even before you get close enough to touch it you feel the time warps jumping out as an orange glow, hitting everything around causing more molecules to travel the same distance but taking less time to do it. And stay out of the sun!!! Those little time devils come crashing down to earth hitting everything, causing your skin to look older sooner than you want. If you get way too much then evolution will quicken it's pace and mutate you genes to form skin cancer.
Although this is just some thoughts I had, they seemed almost logical. The hardest part is thinking of , for instance, one second being shorter relative to another second measured in a different area. It's the same when dealing with relativistic speeds and time dilation. It can really get confusion but life is so basic without the imagination to try to find out why…
I will leave you with two original thoughts:
He who has all the answers has stopped asking questions.
He who knows it all has stopped Learning.
33-William C. McKee, USA. space itself has mass?
I saw your theory at the url of: http://www.giftt.com/
As I understand it, you are telling us that otherwise empty space has mass, and that this notion would explain the "missing mass" of the universe. Sure! Hey, why not? It's just an odd enough notion that it might be true.
Still, your "New Ether Theory", I hope that you like the coined name here, must pass muster with Special and General Relativity. It is obviously not enough of a proof, to wave your hand at some general pressure law, that is said to apply to stars. It is not at all obvious that this equation is valid, nor termwise defined. In engineering and science ALL possible valid formulas, must at the least be subject to dimensional analysis. Should they fail that mimimum test, it wouldn't matter if they were given to us by an angel from Heaven -- there is just no rational way that they could be true. Even Einstein, played by those rules. True, for his departure into geometric arguments, he expressed time in units of length. But this was allowed, only under the assumption that light always travels at the same speed through a vacuum. If it didn't, then all of his careful arguments would go puff! into smoke. And one other thing, there are also stars that operate under completely different rules than our sun, such as white dwarfs and neutron stars. It would be interesting to see what your formula, might do with those challenges. Our sun will likely become a white dwarf someday.
But while the above dimensional analysis is able to prove that some things can not be true, it certainly can't always do this. In the example of your formula, we have this constant term. Where did it come from? Considering whatever its origin, is it even valid?
This situation can happen to anyone. From Einstein's book "The Meaning of Relativity", his formula (124) is said to have come from his second formula in (123), which was a=(2/(k*sigma))^0.5 Well maybe yes, and maybe no, depending upon how sigma was defined previously. All the same, the claim is that the radius of the universe is given by his formula (124), which is { a=M*k/(4*pi^2) } In this formula, M is merely the mass of the universe. Quite obviously, this radius "a" is a static radius, if "k" is a constant. And I think that Einstein is treating it in this way. We must bear in mind that Einstein is employing the well developed German mathemaics of Riemann, to talk about this curvature and radius. He does so, by way of his geometric treatment of time -- that to him, time has an expression of conventional length (in his case centimeters).
From the units of eq. (124), it is clear that "k" must be in units of length*mass^-1. From page 89, eq. (105), we see that he defines "k". I will interpet into modern expressions:
Newton's gravity constant G=k*c^2/(8*pi)
From this, we may write k=8*pi*G/c^2
Putting this altogether we may now write: a=M*k/(4*pi^2)=[M/(4*pi^2)]*[8*pi*G/c^2]=2*M*G/(pi*c^2)
Now COULD this formula be right. It first has to pass the units test. So lets show how to do this. From a good handbook or table, G, pi, and c are to three places, with their MKS units:
G=6.67E-11 N*m^2*kg^-2
=6.67E-11 (kg*m*s^-2)*m^2*kg^-2=6.67E-11 m^3*kg^-1*s^-2
pi=3.14 ...
c=3.00E8 m*s^-1
The units of a=(2*M*G)/(pi*c^2) are: kg*[m^3*kg^-1*s^-2]/[m*s^-1]^2
=[m^3*s^-2]/[m^2*s^-2]=[m^3*s^-2]*[m^-2*s^2]=m Well, it clearly has the correct unit -- length.
There we have it. Unless, Newton's gravitational constant changes with time, we are talking about a static radius. Now "G" could change with time, but this is not the simplest assumption. Also, if it did so, then all kinds of other things associated with conservation of momemtum and conservation of energy, would need to be explained. As I have made from a private computer computation, if the moon has been consistently affected by the deceleration of the earth, for the past 4.86 billion years -- then "G" has not much altered in that time period. One could say not at all. The oldest rocks of the earth are 4.5 billion years old. It would take the process of thermal cooling of the crust, about 360 million additional years, to form the first rocks and land mass. [The moom is assumed to be the resultant of a massive impact of the earth 4.86 billion years ago.] The pre-earth, could be any amount older still. Our sun might not be 5 billion years old. The lack of neutrinos from the sun (we only see 1/3 rd of what we would expect) could come from: the neutrinos having mass and periodically switching their identities by a quantum process; our not having sufficient understanding of nuclear chemistry; the sun's interior going through an interior inversion process (mixing); or simply the fact that it is a lot older than thought (or understood -- since our star's matter might have been in a previous star's existance).
Getting back to the static radius of the universe "a" from Einstein's formula. Well, I am not ready to wade into all that Riemannian geometry to find out where formula (124) picked up that factor of pi^2, but I do think that old Einstein may have made a little goof here. Why? Well, we know about what "M" the mass of the universe MIGHT be. Part of your own speculations, Mr. Jobs, has been devoted to this question. Also according to Ernest J. Sternglass, whose recent book is "Before the Big Bang", we know reasonably the mass of the universe from certain constans of the universe, in formula relation. On page 211 of his book, after some hand waving, the mass of the universe is
M=1.736E85 electron masses=the universe's mass
The mass of an electron is m=9.1091E-31 kg, thus
M=(1.736E85)*
m=1.581E55 kg
but by current estimates, this mass is too large by about 100 times. It would be interesting to hear your thinking about finding way too much "messing mass". Actually I think that it is merely that he made a power of ten error, but had basically a sound idea. At a guess, I would say that he ment to written:
Mass of Universe=(1.736E83)*(the mass of the electron)=1.581E53 kg
I believe that he ment this number instead. In fact I think that I can show this in a moment. But, what would be my point in having the above estimate for "M". Well, I will need it shortly to show something important about the Einstein formula (124).
Let us proceed to solve for the radius "a" of the universe:
a=(2*G*M)/(pi*c^2)
=(2*6.67E-11*1.581E53)/(3.14*(3E8)^2)
=(2.11E43)/(2.83E17)
=7.46E25 meters
Now the interesting part.
How many meters are in a light year?
x=(3E8 m/s)*(365.25 day/yr)*(24 hr/day)*(3600 sec/hr)
(m*s^-1)*(day*yr^-1)*(hr*day^-1)*(s*hr^-1)
=m/yr [Einstein would be happy about geometric units.]
x=9.47E15 meters/light year
a=(7.46E25 m)/(9.47E15 m/ly)=7.88E9 ly=7.88 billion ly
Ah ha! I think that you can all see what I'm getting at here. According to Einstein's formula (124) the radius of the universe, is much less than the Hubble law observed farthest objects in our universe, at about 12 billion light years. As even Einstein very much supports the Hubble Law, in the pages that follow in his book -- this was an obvious error.
What Einstein should have written, was the following formula:
r=(2*G*M)/c^2
[The formula for Schwarschild's radius of a "Black Hole"]
With all the exotic talk about black holes, it is difficult to believe that we are actually IN one -- but this would indeed best fit the facts. With Schwarschild's formula, all you need is a certain amount of mass, within the radius of a ball, and you can then have a black hole (even if ours doesn't have a singularity, at this moment). Actually with universe size black holes, that drag ALL of known space with them -- perhaps singularities, are never actually formed. In fact, I can use that conjecture for yet again another estimate of the universe's mass.
If the reader will please go to the following url
http://www.physics.gmu.edu/classinfo/astr103/CourseNotes/cml_orgn.htm
(Or any similar site that goes through the standard Cosmology eras.)
The eras (or epochs) are given in seven "days" First there is the zero time instant of the "Big Bang", which is a mistery moment.
The first day is the Planck era, a time from zero to < 10E(-43)s
The second day, the Quark era < 10E(-23) s
The third day, the Hadron era < 10E(-4) s
The forth day, the Lepton era 10E(-4) s to 1 s
The fifth day, the Radiation era 1 s to 10E(6) y The sixth day, the Matter era > 10E(6) y
The seventh day, the Present era 15 to 20 times 10E(9) y
Actually to avoid confusion, I should mention that the author above uses 10E(6) as I would 1E6, both meaning 1 million. It is a problem with e-mail that most usually we can not write super scripts and sub-scripts, as we might like to do.
But if we expand the description of the Radiation era, we also note that it is a time when the density of the universe goes from 1E5 g/cm^3 to 1E-22 g/cm^3. There are 1 million cm^3 to a m^3. So the highest density of this era can be expressed as (1E5 g/cm^3)*(1E6) d=1E11 g/m^3. There are 1000 g/kg. So that we can now write
d=1E9 kg/m^3
[This is the average density of the most massive white dwarf stars.]
Imagine the universe at the Radiation era stage. Everything is coming out of the "singularity" and suddenly forming conventional matter at this point. The whole universe is all at once conventional matter. But it is conventional matter with a whole lot of kinetic energy. In fact I assume that all this matter came from another "universe" with much the same energy rules, and that the energy that the matter has coming out , at this radius, is about the same as it had going in the other universe's "singularity", at again the same radius. It is just like in the Hindu theology, universe creation cycles, with the "Word of God", "Wisdom", "The Son of God" -- completeling the plans, of the "Father who rests from Creation". Well if we examine the fabric of Creation, in fine enough detail, certain signatures might suggest themselves. The alternative view to me seems a bit bland. The awareness of the blandness, would well be the Buddist eternal wheel -- or Hell. The concept of an active Creator (whose habit it to make all sorts of universes, from a place of higher existance), is boundlessly more exciting. Particularily if it is His wish that we would learn of this.
In a sense we could think of the Radiation era, rather as a huge star of white dwarf density, that is being forced by previously gained kinetic energy to "explode" outward. Potentially our rules of physics could be applied to this object, or any particle on its surface. Lets put a particle on this surface and do a little physics with it.
Let rho=the density of whitedwarf stuff=d=1E8 kg/m^3
Let M=the yet to be computed mass of the universe.
Let R=the yet to be computed Schwarschild radius of our white hole universe. Obviously we expect R >> 12 ly.
Let G=Newton's constant=6.67E-11 N*m^2*kg^-2
Let c=speed of light=3E8 m/s Let E=the kinetic energy of a Cosmic ray proton=51 Joules!
[I note that one such cosmic ray of this VAST ENERGY was seen.] [Conjecture that this was a primal Creation cosmic ray.]
Let Ms=mass of our sun=1.987E30 kg
Let pi=3.14159 ...
r0=the radius of the white hole event (here one minute, gone the next).
Let m=the rest mass of a proton=1.67E-27 kg
Bearing in mind the mirror universe we can reasonably write down the escape energy for the proton with the following equation: |
E=-G*M*m*[1/r(at a distance) -1/r0]
E=G*M*m*[1/r0]
We can write: r0=G*M*m*[1/E] < 1 >.
For the universe to be of matter, at white dwarf density:
rho=M/((4/3)*pi*r0^3).
Or we can write: r0=[M/((4/3)*pi*rho)]^(1/3) < 2 >.
We can now put < 1 > and < 2 > together to form:
[M/((4/3)*pi*rho)]^(1/3)=G*M*m*[1/E] < 3 >.
M/((4/3)*pi*rho)=G^3*M^3*m^3*[1/E^3]
M=[E^3/((4/3)*pi*G^3*m^3)]^(1/2)*[rho]^(-1/2)
Notice that a good bit of the above is independent of our guess of rho. It is thus a simple matter to write: M=4.80E57*[rho]^(-1/2)
M=1.52E53 kg (the evident mass of the universe)
[Recall the mass of the universe of Dr. Sternglass -- THE SAME.]
M/Ms=7.65E22 solar masses (about right with other estimates).
We finish up with an estimate of the Schwarschild radius of our white hole universe.
r=[2*G/c^2]*M
r=[2*G/c^2]*[4.80E57]*[rho]^(-1/2)
r=7.11E30*[rho]^(-1/2)
r=2.25E26 meters r=23.7 Billion light years
This is a much better radius to work with than the original, "uncorrected" Einstein formula gave us, as we haven't yet reached and passed it. Now for a snap shot radius of the original super white dwarf exploding star (the surface of which our particle came from).
r0=[M/((4/3)*pi*rho)]^(1/3)
=3.31E14 meters
=12.8 light days or (2,212 AU) from the white hole event.
I have tried to be fairly logical about this model, but there are problems to be solved out, and only by some very mature General Relativity calculations. Obviously, why after all these billions of years, are we seeing this primal Cosmic Ray of 51 Joules? If it wandered through normal space, filled with matter, wouldn't it have been greatly red shifted, or degraded by particle impacts? And wouldn't we expect any such particle to be going away from us?
To help out in this, we must use our mind's eye to examine the point shortly after the explosion of the universe. The geometric point that was of the highest density in the universe, suddenly becomes nearly the lowest. The expanding fire ball is hollow in its interior. And moreover, not until after the Radiation era, can particles anywhere except the surface, escape the fire ball. But, possibly the interior surface of the fire ball could reflect a high energy particle, or with the creation of high temperature protons, we would have a seperation of Relativistic electrons from them. The movement of relative charges would create incredibly powerful magnetic fields. It should be not so difficult to compute these fields and their feedback effects on the Relativistic energy protons -- that become our Cosmic Rays. Really the whole matter could be quite interesting and logical.
Well the above should certainly give those that have an interest in such things, something to think about. Have fun with it.
GIFTT: Thanks for your comments, great insight! we are asking mathematical minded guests to comment on your remarks and calculations. I am very interested in the size and mass of Universe that you suggest. Since the massive space-time will create a Red-Shift in the frequency of light, the calculations of the expansion and size of Universe have to be reconsidered. Universe may very well be closed and smaller than we think, or it could be infinite. Galaxies may not be speeding away at the speeds we think. I am excited to see minds like yours are stimulated by this theory, the whole idea is to have the Physicists rethink present science that does not associate mass with the fabric of space-time.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
