Jump to content

A completly new theory of gravity, time dilation and dark matter.


Recommended Posts

Five years ago i was very surprised to learn that nobody understands what makes gravity work.  So I decided to solve it for myself.  After lots of study and ideas both good and bad, I've come up with a completely new concept based on gluon spin.  I wrote a paper on it.  I'm not an academic, so my paper won't meet scientific academic standards, but you are welcome to take a look and make any comments on the subject matter (but not on my looks or sanity).

There is even boat stuff and weather stuff involved!

Have fun!

GluonColourChargeTimeDilationGravityDarkMatter.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Foolish said:

Five years ago i was very surprised to learn that nobody understands what makes gravity work.  So I decided to solve it for myself.  After lots of study and ideas both good and bad, I've come up with a completely new concept based on gluon spin.  I wrote a paper on it.  I'm not an academic, so my paper won't meet scientific academic standards, but you are welcome to take a look and make any comments on the subject matter (but not on my looks or sanity).

There is even boat stuff and weather stuff involved!

Have fun!

GluonColourChargeTimeDilationGravityDarkMatter.pdfUnavailable

"Unavailable". Maybe for the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tax Man said:

The OP is in BC.  Weed has been legal there for a while.

What's legal got to do with it?

Foolish, for whatever BB reason, you can't upload PDF's to SA. Best bet is to link it from Google Docs or OneDrive, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that everybody here is approaching a very serious subject with the appropriate amount gravitas.  It's a weighty subject and should be taken as such. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

you can't upload PDF's to SA

never tried BUT does changing the extension to .jpg , uploading and changing back to .pdf once downloaded work ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ed Lada said:

I don't think that everybody here is approaching a very serious subject with the appropriate amount gravitas.  It's a weighty subject and should be taken as such. 

low hanging fruit .

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Foolish said:

Five years ago i was very surprised to learn that nobody understands what makes gravity work.  So I decided to solve it for myself.  After lots of study and ideas both good and bad, I've come up with a completely new concept based on gluon spin.  I wrote a paper on it.  I'm not an academic, so my paper won't meet scientific academic standards, but you are welcome to take a look and make any comments on the subject matter (but not on my looks or sanity).

There is even boat stuff and weather stuff involved!

Have fun!

GluonColourChargeTimeDilationGravityDarkMatter.pdfUnavailable

I think the pdf got sucked into a black hole....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mid said:

and now my head hurts ....

Certainly my head hurt a lot while I was doing this.  Then, one day I was listening to one of the most famous physicists talking about his profession and he said "you know how your head hurts when you think about something really complex, while our heads hurt like that every day." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mid said:

and now my head hurts ....

yeah... but I think it does explain why you don't fall thru the floor when you roll our of bed ... kinda sorta

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Foolish said:

Certainly my head hurt a lot while I was doing this.  Then, one day I was listening to one of the most famous physicists talking about his profession and he said "you know how your head hurts when you think about something really complex, while our heads hurt like that every day." 

so basically you need machoistic tendencies ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bump-n-Grind said:

yeah... but I think it does explain why you don't fall thru the floor when you roll our of bed ... kinda sorta

see Foolish , that's the kind of stuff we need

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mid said:

so basically you need machoistic tendencies ...

It's no different from launching a spinnaker in 25 knots of wind, singlehanded.  Fun while you're doing it but painful a few hours later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the things I've been doing during the pandemic is rewatching all of the old Carl Sagan Cosmos shows and shit like "What the bleep do we know" and other rather esoteric science shows that have rolled out over the last few decades, so this didn't make my head hurt nearly as much as it would have, say, two years ago... it's not that I understand any of this shit more now, it's just that I've become more numb to those things that made my head hurt LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Foolish said:

It's no different from launching a spinnaker in 25 knots of wind, singlehanded.  Fun while you're doing it but painful a few hours later.

now that I understand :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"viscosity of space"  my new favorite phrase of the day ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Time travel is fascinating. I've always wondered about the going back in time paradox of trying to changing things. Lately I've come to believe that you cannot change something that has already happened but that is where the creation of an alternate timeline happens and you may be stuck there. I think I read something about Quantum signatures that locks you to your time and moving about in time can create problems when you fuck with things.

Also from our point in time, how can you go forward in time when it has not happened yet? I know that time is not linear but still, the future is not written yet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

I don't think that everybody here is approaching a very serious subject with the appropriate amount gravitas.  It's a weighty subject and should be taken as such. 

Some may find the subject attractive such as one object to another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Meat Wad said:

Time travel is fascinating.

It's settled that travel into the past is impossible.  But travel into the future is rather simple.  If you were to take a rocket at a high speed, nearing the speed of light, OR if you were to orbit around a black hole for a little while, then when you return to Earth you would find yourself in the future, watching the year 3000 go by.  Have fun there!  

In  my paper I unify gravitational and kinetic time dilation.  As far as I know this is the first time this has been done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

working overtime ,,,,

Link to post
Share on other sites

my extremely underedumacated opinion on this subject is that sooner or later, all of the molecules-atoms-particles-gluons and muons and Biggs Hosuns  that make up our current configuration will end up getting sucked up into one black hole or another and spit out somewhere else to start all over again .... 

 

you may feel free to quote me on this at your own risk :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bump-n-Grind said:

my extremely underedumacated opinion on this subject is that sooner or later, all of the molecules-atoms-particles-gluons and muons and Biggs Hosuns  that make up our current configuration will end up getting sucked up into one black hole or another and spit out somewhere else to start all over again .... 

Surprisingly not.  The universe is expanding, and the rate of expansion is actually accelerating.  So we are spreading apart faster and faster.  The current thought is not that we collapse into another big crunch, but rather that all the galaxies separate enough that the sky becomes black.   But there is a lot of debate on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Foolish said:

Surprisingly not.  The universe is expanding, and the rate of expansion is actually accelerating.  So we are spreading apart faster and faster.  The current thought is not that we collapse into another big crunch, but rather that all the galaxies separate enough that the sky becomes black.   But there is a lot of debate on this.

says you! becomes black where? 

 

shit may be too far away for "us" to see it. meaning that existing sources of light have burned out, but it's also speculated that there are sources of light too far away from us for their light to have made it here yet, or ever... or their light has already been sucked into black holes betwixt there and here.. so it keeps expanding... so what?  at some point, long after we're gone, the gravity will catch up ... I hope it does anyway, I'm still missing a few socks and car keys and I'm hoping they're out there somewhere... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

I wase kinda hoppeng foire that.....................               :)

e6bb346e1282767233d7b92a7cea2128.jpg

I hope you're onto something here ... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bump-n-Grind said:

at some point, long after we're gone, the gravity will catch up ...

Currently the evidence is the opposite of this, that the universe will continue to expand and accelerate, forever. 

It was Edwin Hubble’s seminal 1929 PNAS paper, “A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae” (1), that led to a turning point in our understanding of the universe. In his short paper, Hubble presented the observational evidence for one of science’s greatest discoveries—the expanding universe. Hubble showed that galaxies are receding away from us with a velocity that is proportional to their distance from us: more distant galaxies recede faster than nearby galaxies

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3173

Let me tell you that even if you dive deeply into this, it still takes a few years before some of these concepts make any sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Foolish said:

Currently the evidence is the opposite of this, that the universe will continue to expand and accelerate, forever. 

It was Edwin Hubble’s seminal 1929 PNAS paper, “A relation between distance and radial velocity among extra-galactic nebulae” (1), that led to a turning point in our understanding of the universe. In his short paper, Hubble presented the observational evidence for one of science’s greatest discoveries—the expanding universe. Hubble showed that galaxies are receding away from us with a velocity that is proportional to their distance from us: more distant galaxies recede faster than nearby galaxies

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3173

Let me tell you that even if you dive deeply into this, it still takes a few years before some of these concepts make any sense. 

I'm not a physicist, but I'm pretty sure that it's not Hubble that you're looking for to support the eternally expanding universe proposition.

Something to do with Dark Energy, perhaps? That's much more recent than 1929.

Just sayin'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bump-n-Grind said:

"viscosity of space"  my new favorite phrase of the day ;)

....missing the download,  I am wondering how this might translate to my favorite "flat earth theory"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, chuso007 said:

Gravity is not a force...

to be trifled with!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Meat Wad said:

Time travel is fascinating. I've always wondered about the going back in time paradox of trying to changing things. Lately I've come to believe that you cannot change something that has already happened but that is where the creation of an alternate timeline happens and you may be stuck there. I think I read something about Quantum signatures that locks you to your time and moving about in time can create problems when you fuck with things.

Also from our point in time, how can you go forward in time when it has not happened yet? I know that time is not linear but still, the future is not written yet. 

But the future HAS happened, we just aren't there yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

I'm not a physicist, but I'm pretty sure that it's not Hubble that you're looking for to support the eternally expanding universe proposition.

Something to do with Dark Energy, perhaps? That's much more recent than 1929.

Just sayin'.

Others hypothesized that the universe might be expanding before Hubble, but Hubble confirmed that expansion was in fact happening by analyzing the Doppler effect on star light.

Dark matter and dark energy are sort of like Krakens. We see evidence of strange physics, but we lack the full story.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Foolish said:

In  my paper I unify gravitational and kinetic time dilation.  As far as I know this is the first time this has been done.

tenor.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clicked on the URL version and some dodgy addresses spun up.  Synching something.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, apophenia said:

Dark matter and dark energy are sort of like Krakens. We see evidence of strange physics, but we lack the full story.

That's why I came up with an idea of dark matter in my paper. It should really be called dark gravity because there is no "matter" involved.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Randro said:

Clicked on the URL version and some dodgy addresses spun up.  Synching something.

It should just take you to my Sugarsync page where you can download the paper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Foolish said:

It should just take you to my Sugarsync page where you can download the paper.

I am by no means terribly well versed on physics.  A while back I dated a woman a few times that had a PhD in philosophy and a PhD in physics. which makes sense because most of the early physics scholars were philosophers as well.  At some point the two disciplines come together.  The woman was a university professor and had a way of explaining these concepts in a way that it made some sense to me.  But I quit dating her because I discovered she loved alcohol as much as she loved physics.  So my education in the subject ended abruptly.

But the way I understand it is that 'string theory' has all the answers because it just ties everything together.  With a nice neat bow even!  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you actually clicked on his link??  From the "Master of Singlehanded Sailing" in his own mind to now Astrophysics from "not an academic".  This dude is not on the radar of any of the most brilliant minds on Earth and we should believe he came up with a completely new "correct" theory that no one has thought of before. 

My name is Bernie and I have something to sell you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ed Lada said:

 

But the way I understand it is that 'string theory' has all the answers because it just ties everything together.  With a nice neat bow even!  

EM_81282_PS12182020-EDS-394.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure if I am pro or anti-matter

Oh well, doesn't matter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

But the way I understand it is that 'string theory' has all the answers

Right now there is debate, about 50/50, on string theory versus loop quantum gravity as the ultimate theory.  I have a stronger belief in loop quantum gravity because it fits very well with the rest of my ideas.  But string theory requires some 10 dimensions and I just can't find any evidence that fits with that.  But both theories are well discussed in the literature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Foolish said:

Right now there is debate, about 50/50, on string theory versus loop quantum gravity as the ultimate theory.  I have a stronger belief in loop quantum gravity because it fits very well with the rest of my ideas.  But string theory requires some 10 dimensions and I just can't find any evidence that fits with that.  But both theories are well discussed in the literature.

Of course string theory requires 10 dimensions. Why do you think our numbers are based on 10s.  Coincidence?   The answer isn't 42, nobody in their right mind believes there are 42 dimensions except maybe VWAP and Douglas Adams.  So obviously the answer is 10.  QED.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Snow Guy said:

This dude is not on the radar of any of the most brilliant minds on Earth and we should believe he came up with a completely new "correct" theory that no one has thought of before. 

I've done a lot of research on this and I have not found any papers that discuss gluon charge/spin as the source of gravity (but I have found quark spin as the source) but certainly that doesn't mean others have not thought of this and I just did not see their papers.  And in all my reading on loop quantum gravity, I have not found anyone else who has associated gluon charge and the gluon field with a dilation in time. But also that doesn't mean others have not discussed it, and I just haven't found it. 

Is my concept correct?  I don't know.  but at least it is plausible. I'd love to discuss it with a physicist if you know of one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Foolish said:

Is my concept correct?  I don't know.  but at least it is plausible. I'd love to discuss it with a physicist if you know of one.

Caulleng Mickey, caulleng Mickey, plesae reportre to the witte curtissey phone.............                  :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

Caulleng Mickey, caulleng Mickey, plesae reportre to the witte curtissey phone.............                  :)

Oh, now you've done it!   

Why didn't you just say Beetlejuice 3 times.  Sheesh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ed Lada said:
5 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

Caulleng Mickey, caulleng Mickey, plesae reportre to the witte curtissey phone.............                  :)

Oh, now you've done it!   

Why didn't you just say Beetlejuice 3 times.  Sheesh.

I stopte at to!  I wase tryning to be a reverente............                    :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nota said:

read the rules as they are very pickie about how a question is presented

I have been very heavily involved with physics forums, particularly the physics stack exchange, during my research over the past 5 years.  It was based on the answers I received that I was able to develop these concepts.  Unfortunately these types of forum do not appreciate new, speculative ideas.  As I mentioned in one discussion, I'll stick to earth, air, fire and water from now on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ed Lada said:

I don't think that everybody here is approaching a very serious subject with the appropriate amount gravitas.  It's a weighty subject and should be taken as such. 

Ooo, dat's heavy, man

3 minutes ago, Foolish said:

I have been very heavily involved with physics forums, particularly the physics stack exchange, during my research over the past 5 years.  It was based on the answers I received that I was able to develop these concepts.  Unfortunately these types of forum do not appreciate new, speculative ideas.  As I mentioned in one discussion, I'll stick to earth, air, fire and water from now on.

Many of us would like to grok your new theory

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Foolish said:

I have been very heavily involved with physics forums, particularly the physics stack exchange, during my research over the past 5 years.  It was based on the answers I received that I was able to develop these concepts.  Unfortunately these types of forum do not appreciate new, speculative ideas.  As I mentioned in one discussion, I'll stick to earth, air, fire and water from now on.

very true that is why I would try simple Q's about spin and other points you mention

rather then dropping a whole new theory all at once there

but there are real PHd's who are willing to discuss stuff there IF you play by their rules

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nota said:

very true that is why I would try simple Q's about spin and other points you mention

I have already been through all of that.  It is only after all of these questions were answered that I was able to put the whole thing together.  I spent five years, with many wrong ideas, before I came up with this.  If you were to look at my earliest questions you would laugh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not know Wikipedia can be used as a cite for a technical paper.  

I learned something new today.  Box checked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, apophenia said:

Others hypothesized that the universe might be expanding before Hubble, but Hubble confirmed that expansion was in fact happening by analyzing the Doppler effect on star light.

Dark matter and dark energy are sort of like Krakens. We see evidence of strange physics, but we lack the full story.

 

Perhaps, but the OP cited to Hubble in support of his assertion of an eternally expanding universe. That was NOT Hubble. He did confirm the expansion, but it was decades before it was discovered that the rate of expansion was actually accelerating, not declining as expected. Again, I am neither a physicist nor cosmologist, but my understanding is that it was the discovery of this acceleration that led to the discovery/theory of dark energy (dark matter is an entirely different, and unrelated animal).

It is also my understanding that, while an eternally expanding universe is now more accepted than the "Big Crunch" (largely due to the 'discovery' of dark energy), that remains far from settled.

And of course, none of this takes into account the recent unexpected results from Fermi and CERN regarding the muon, which may well turn cosmological physics on its head. (See? Now it's morning!)

I would love to be corrected if I'm wrong here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So why does the bacon grease spatter sideways and not straight up?

And what is that screechy noise from the other side of the room when I leave the mess and sit down to eat?

Physics is a strange science. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

last link worked

it created an MS word doc not a pdf

but is readable and caused no problems to d/l it

not sure I understand the total idea

but your presentation seems not to be whoo or BS

I would try to put basic parts in small bites to their Q page and see what they say about them

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, More Cowbell2 said:

did not know Wikipedia can be used as a cite for a technical paper.  

Go back to the op where I say that this paper does not meet the standards of an academic paper, because I'm not an academic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

Perhaps, but the OP cited to Hubble in support of his assertion of an eternally expanding universe. That was NOT Hubble. He did confirm the expansion, but it was decades before it was discovered that the rate of expansion was actually accelerating, not declining as expected. Again, I am neither a physicist nor cosmologist, but my understanding is that it was the discovery of this acceleration that led to the discovery/theory of dark energy (dark matter is an entirely different, and unrelated animal).

It is also my understanding that, while an eternally expanding universe is now more accepted than the "Big Crunch" (largely due to the 'discovery' of dark energy), that remains far from settled.

And of course, none of this takes into account the recent unexpected results from Fermi and CERN regarding the muon, which may well turn cosmological physics on its head. (See? Now it's morning!)

I would love to be corrected if I'm wrong here.

I think we are in complete agreement, just possibly stumbling over words.

DE/DM is an unknown variable that we need to solve for. CERN and Fermi produce data in volumes that push the state of the art of IT, and that's on top of the data reduction that occurs within the instruments themselves.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might be onto something, but you will find that using English to describe something is going to be loaded with problems, it's why physicists use math when possible, it's less ambiguous. You seem to have a lot of knowledge of this area, and you clearly put in a lot of work on your paper, so I've no problem giving some running feedback as I read it. If you enjoy this, you might decide to jump into the ice-cold swimming pool and get your Physics Ph.D., so you can have all the tools at your disposal.

  1. "Empty space is not empty" - Words matter here, empty space and vacuum are two totally separate things. Empty space is truly empty, it has no vacuum energy in it, and the only places that we know are actual empty spaces are outside of the universe and potentially inside of black holes. Remember that vacuum energy is composed completely of integral-spin particles (bosons) that are excluded by spin-half particles (fermions). There are in-lab experiments that show this, for instance the Casimir Effect. But also any step potential in a quantum well shows an exponential decrease in applied energy, because the spin-half particles (which obey the Pauli Exclusion) also exclude the vacuum energy by interacting with them, in compliance with the Heisenberg Uncertainty. On the other hand, the energy in the vacuum field is all integral spin particles which do not obey the Pauli Exclusion. So when the vacuum energy (the energy below the ground state, proportional to h-bar • omega) encounters some spin-half particles, they interact. (Remember that neutrinos are also spin-half particles, but they only interact weakly, so it isn't apparent that they interact with vacuum energy very often, other than the tail of a weakly-interacting distribution.) I believe what you should have written here is "Vacuum is not empty." And that would be correct, vacuum space is filled with an unimaginable amount of energy composed of quantum fluctuations, and which we can measure with things like Josephson Junctions and the Casimir Effect. Empty space in fact CAN be filled with spin-half particles for all we know, and for all we know, the empty space outside of the universe may well be infinitely massive, like a black hole, because it contains no vacuum energy. When we think of the Universe, the correct way to consider it, is as a mixture of empty space versus vacuum space. Everything in our lives contains varying ratios of those two thing. A cotton ball for instance, is mostly vacuum energy, with a bit of empty space. A sample of Osmium or Plutonium, has a fuck-wagon of empty space, with not a lot of vacuum energy. A black hole seems to have no vacuum energy at all, it's all empty space. Try to think of the Universe as a bubble of energy in an endless infinity of dead mass. It's the vacuum energy that allows us to survive and drink gin. If you're willing to get into the lab, Dr. Cassandra St. Clair can show you the experimental process to calibrate your end-points of vacuum versus empty ... she worked directly with Rick Yukon on those empty space experiments, she knows the process better than anyone right now, maybe even better than Rick, who is at this point, likely too fucked up on Martinique Rum to even be much of a physicist anymore ...
  2. Personally, I would try to decouple your theory from space-time, the fully covariant tensors seem to add a complexity that isn't necessarily needed with interactions between spin-half and integral-spin particles. We may eventually get there, but the second you invoke Einstein, you better make sure you can support your math with fully covariant tensors, and the complexity of that may be beyond any living person at the moment. As far as I know, nobody has successfully done it, and may never do it. If you can't do it, you can't do it, c'est la vie.
     
  3. Ditch the "standard bar magnet" explanation, and at least try to explain it with something much simpler, like an electromagnet. Permanent magnets are insanely complicated, there are only a handful of truly expert materials physicists who truly understand how they work, and the only current tractable explanation for them relies on Relativity. You'll get more mileage out of say, a solenoid, or the Lorentz force.
     
  4. Unless you absolutely need time-dilation, I would dump that too, because the only way you're pulling consistent math out of that is with fully covariant tensors. Again, if you absolutely need that full covariance, then you need it. I used Steven Weinberg's book in grad school, it did the job. I found it difficult, but you seem pretty sharp, you might pick it up a lot easier than I did. https://archive.org/details/WeinbergS.GravitationAndCosmology..PrinciplesAndApplicationsOfTheGeneralTheoryOf
     
  5. If you can explain your theory with a generic integral spin particle, you'll give yourself more leeway, because the Gluon has a unique two-stage polarization state. And as far as I know, we're not even sure what really happens to gluons in their bound versus unbound state. Remember that under the right conditions, (i.e. wtih superfluidic helium) we can actually convert spin-half particles like into integral-spin compositions that no longer obey the Pauli Exclusion. Unless you have specific data that shows the bound state of a boson, perhaps keep your distance. For all we know, in the bound state those integral spin particles may be forced to obey the Pauli Exclusion by ending up in a spin-half superposition, kind of the opposite of superfluidic helium.
     
  6. "Virtual Particles" - Again, be careful, there are two kinds of virtual particles, the kind that don't actually exist in a real sense, and art part of the Feynman process to show force mediation, and there are actual virtual particles in the vacuum field, also called quantum fluctuations. If you mean the former, call them virtual particles, if you mean the latter (which you seem to mean here) perhaps call them "vacuum particles" or "quantum fluctuations".
     
  7. "The particles or loops" - You've suggested that these loops are near the Planck Length of 1.6 x 10^-35 meters. At this point, by the definition of the Planck Length, they can't be measured and thus are not physical. You can mention that they are near or smaller than the Planck Length, but I would recommend that you find a measurable consequence of these gluon fields, shorter than the Planck length. If your theory can't be tested in a lab, then it's just philosophy, not physics.
     
  8. The "viscosity of space" is a problem, you should explain it differently or phrase it differently. Remember that a vacuum has no viscosity because it contains no half-spin particles that interact in anything other than the weak force. So since there are no Pauli Exclusion particles in the vacuum, there is no viscosity, (proven, as the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved ether). Yes, in real space, there are a few errant atoms and such, but the viscosity from those is a tail end. The permittivity of free space in the permittivity, it's like a kind of viscosity, but it applies to integral spin particles, better not to simplify permittivity to anything else, it's one of the most basic measurements in the universe, and it's been measured and remeasured probably hundreds of thousands of times.
     
  9. Your idea of using the unit of a single Planck time for the "photon" to move unit distance is very clever, I've used the same construct for years, I think it's the right approach.
     
  10. An aside, but while measurements seem to point to the universe not only expanding but also accelerating, this could well be part of an oscillation. Remember that the dielectric of the universe is potentially at odds with the dielectric of the empty space surrounding the universe, and we know from in-lab experiments and applied theory (i.e. see Timothy Boyer's papers on spherically-symmetric Casimir Force) that this can create both a repulsive and an attractive force. So the dielectric density of the universe could potentially fall to the certain threshold at some point where the balance between vacuum and empty space cause it to contract again, at which point entropy would flow in reverse. This brings up your point, the entropy flow is more accurately the Third Law of Thermodynamics. The Second law is that energy flows from Hot to Cold.
     
  11. Once you get into the time-dilation stuff, I'm out and I can't suggest a thing. I'm not smart enough to make sense of time-dilation, and regardless my ability to ham-handedly manipulate covariant tensors or even just apply the Lorentz contractions, it still doesn't make any sense to me and thus I can't speak to anything about it. I have wisely kept all of my research (other than instructional stuff) far away from it, because I can't use it with any level of confidence. If you follow the flow of energy through the vacuum and empty space, you might not even need covariance, and you may be able to show gravity as a function of that.
     
  12. Regarding the corks example, perhaps just use conservative versus nonconservative fields, that wheel has already been invented.
     
  13. The thing with the bow wave ... yes, boats generate a bow wave, because of the Pauli Exclusion. But if a rocket or a planet doesn't interact with the vacuum field (which it may not, if it isn't actively pumping energy into the field, as shown by the Heisenberg Uncertainty) then there may likely be no bow wake at all. But do remember, that the bow wave and stern trough of a displacement hull moving through water is in fact shown by a linear wave system, and if you decide to get your Ph.D. in applied physics, you'll quickly learn that the Shrodinger Equation has nearly the same linear setup as a Froude system! So I do believe that you are on the right track here.
     
  14. Apologies, but I don't know have a good enough brain to know if your theory of gluons is correct or not, because it relies on time dilation. But I did enjoy reading your paper and you seem to have a strong aptitude for this. Your comparison to linear waves is really strong. Regardless of what happens with your ideas regarding gluons and chromodynamics and Relativity, I would keep that relationship in your quiver. And if you get some advanced training in the area, resist the urge to avoid the lab. You can accomplish a lot with good and simple lab experience in this area, especially using the mass defect of various heavy elements and seeing what kind of variation you can induce in the mass defect by fucking around with the potential barrier of energy pumped into the vacuum field and then extracted by the spin-half fermions. Mass defect is an approachable way to figure this out, and you shouldn't need a friggen supercollider to do it.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites