--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I respect the genius of einstein, but why should gravity causing a depression in space-time fabric "attract" objects? It would seem to me that gravity is creating its own gravity, which makes no sense. however, if you take two spheres and place them between two sheets, then pull on the ends of the sheets, they move together, because geometrically as they become closer, they allow the ends of the sheets to move further out. This satisfies BOTH the idea of gravity causing objects to move together, and the expanding universe theory.

Yeah, the rubber-sheet analogy has the problem that it invokes gravity to explain itself - but it's just an analogy.

Don't think depression, think curve of space. Space curves, and objects following their own path through space then follow that curve.

(Personally, I tend to think of it as the "density" of space - which is meaningless - but it helps me imagine it.)



I don't think this works. On the scale of Galaxies the Universe does not appear to expand because Gravity holds the stuff "together". But the distance between Galaxes (or maybe that's super clusters) does expand. Your model would make everything come together, wouldn't it?



(I don't know much, but figured someone should reply.)

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

[QUOTE=pzkpfw;1061486]Yeah, the rubber-sheet analogy has the problem that it invokes gravity to explain itself - but it's just an analogy.

Don't think depression, think curve of space. Space curves, and objects following their own path through space then follow that curve.

(Personally, I tend to think of it as the "density" of space - which is meaningless - but it helps me imagine it.)

pzkpfw;1061486 Actually space is not "empty". Thinking that way is the problem.It is filled with the neutrino sea, and the zero point radiation. Anywhere you have a classical gravitational field, you also have a distinct corresponding change in the ambient neutrino sea gradient...larger field/larger gradient. Any change in the local gravitational field gradient will always be accompanied by a corresponding change in the gradient of the ambient neutrino sea, and vice versa. The most sensitive test for gravitational redshift of a photon, the Harvard Towers Mossbauer experiment, (Rebka, Pound) showed that the resonance detuning occurred over ~a building height, but the neutrino sea gradient changed over that height,too....inverse square law from the barycenter of the Earth...for both. pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

Eh?

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Hi. Ok. It works like this. Fusion in stars emits neutrinos...(physicists sometimes loosely call neutrinos/antineutrinos....the same thing, but in the case of stellar fusion, it's neutrinos. Our own personal star, the Sun, does this and they are measured at the Homestake Mine experiment, and at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory. Every star in the observable universe pretty much does this. If you take your finger and wrap a tube around it, and point it at the sky, you subtend about one square degree of arc (steradian).
The Hubble Deep Field photo showed that each square degree contains roughly one million galaxies. Each galaxy has roughly 100,000,000,000 stars....so that's ~ 10¹⁷ stars your finger points at....and they're all shooting neutrinos at you, not just photons. Each neutrino carries energy and momentum. E=hv E/c =hv/c. So, in a given moment, there's a lot of neutrinos passing through you & me & everybody else....that's the neutrino sea. Space is not empty. OK?
Now, when the Earth is between the Sun and SNO fewer solar neutrinos are detected. When the sunny side is up, more are. That means the mass of the Earth, or any other body in space affects the ambient neutrino flux. Any mass. Anywhere. Affects the ambient neutrino flux. Any mass. Anywhere... distorts Minkowski space-time. Can't have one without the other . pete.

check out;SNO see:http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/

you'll find the day/night oscillation, here:http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/re...ht_results.pdf

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

By saying "meaningless" in my post what I meant was "no, I don't mean the density of Ether" (or anything else that could be mistaken for an ATM claim).

I didn't mean that space is empty.

(Then again, nor was I really thinking about what is in space, nor whether "density" was a term that could apply to it.)

You are not saying the density of Neutrinos in space is what makes us experience gravity, are you?

In which case, my use of "density" to envisage the effect of Gravity (basically extending the rubber-sheet analogy to 3D) is still meaningless, isn't it?

Cheers,

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/pr...easeNov15r.doc

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Trinitree;

Has there ever been an 'Observation' of Neutrino/Anti-Neutrino Annihilation?

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Don'no'.

However, if we were to put a neutrino source at the Earth-Sun Trojan point on the far side of the Sun, and aim it at Earth, and had a way to detect the neutrinos from the source, we could construct a tomographic image of the Sun's interior, over the course of a few years.

RussT That's an interesting question. I don't think I've seen an article where an experimentalist designed an experiment to look for that. It should produce the same result as photon/antiphoton (they are the same)...or electron/ positron at higher energy.
There was however the detection of neutral currents at Gargamelle...wherein an incoming neutrino emitted a Z⁰...which can be a neutrino/antineutrino pair...and the energy and momenta of the Z was transferred to an electron. At less than 1.022 Mev, the Z⁰ can only be either photons, or neutrino/antineutrino pair. pete

see:http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28982

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

I thought you might think so

And here is another...in a discussion on another board, someone described something that really made me realize a very important, but oft disguised distinction.

Do you realize that those Neutrino Anti-Neutrinos are really just the same thing BUT just spinning/oscillating in opposite directions?

I really think that far too often we get hung up on the Positive/Negative rather than the particles being the same thing, just with opposite spin.

+ spin attracts toward the center/proton/neutron and - spin is repelled.

AH, so is it possible that all the + is contained IN the particles and all the - is what we are calling baryonic matter?

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!