sirjon,

There is no other way to describe this grammar and word usage except strange and incorrect, and finally often unintelligible. We are grateful to hear your ideas, but sentences such as the following may produce headaches and vomiting, not clarity and understanding, for someone not willing to spend much time and energy trying to decipher what could have been a straightforward statement:

I am going to bed now. Its already past midnight and I have work tomorrow
and I am sleepy. Thanks for all the replies and comments. Wait 'til a week, I only have time to send messages in this forum during my free hours. Again, thank you very much and goodnight.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

This, along with the rest of your post, is difficult to understand. Let me ask tusenfem's question in a different way.

You claim that Earth is expanding, and the expansion rate is increasing at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s. I understand you to have said that our weight is caused by this expansion. You also claim that the moon is expanding. The gravitational acceleration on the surface of the moon is 1.6 m/s/s. If this is caused by the change in expansion rate, shouldn't that be 1.6 m/s/s for the moon? We should be able to detect this relative shrinking of the moon compared to the size of the Earth.

Or, if the moon's rate of change of expansion rate is 9.8 m/s/s, like Earth's, why is its gravitational acceleration rate so much lower than that?

Please focus your answer on Earth and the moon and the questions asked, leaving out iron bars and tennis balls.

Sorry, I am not that fluent in English. What I wish to explain is that one should project it in another place, where one can see the Universe expanding, viewing things differently, not the same way as we observe things in a real world. Good night. Thanks for the comment.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

And you still haven't addressed how your theory accounts for orbital mechanics, or ocean tides.

As for your last word salad, it amounts to nothing more than hand waving that is full of factual errors and contradictions.

__________________
I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
DETAILS: Where the Devil waits to ensnare the unprepared!
Remember. Just because I'm sure doesn't mean I'm right.
Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognise a mistake when you make it again.

sirjon
The idea that the surface of the Earth is accelerating away from the center is the correct explanation of gravity.
So why isn't the Earth getting bigger?.
Why doesn't the person in the centifuge get nearer to the center of the centrifuge?.

Because the acceleration is at right angles to the direction of the perceived "force".

Imagine a person standing on the end of a steel bar ,1 meter in diameter, that goes all the way through the earth.
Another person stands on the other end.
Both say they feel that they are accelerating away from the center at 1 G so why doesn't the bar get longer?.
An observer outside the universe would see that the bar is curved and that the ends are accelerating in the same direction.They do not get further appart.
The curve is in a direction which is at right angles to the 3 physical directions we are
aware of.
Nothing to do with time as a dimension.
Why different G on different planets and all the other distractions from the posters who cannot think 4D are easy to explain.
Read the nonsense in reply to this post.
Equivalent to the flat Earthers who ask "If the Earth is a sphere why don't the people on the underside fall off.".

So why don't they fall off?.

SirJon your explanation does not explain red/blue shifting due to gravity.

If your theory was correct and space was also increasing between everything to compensate for the larger sizes then you would also have to explain how light waves get stretched at the same rate. This would, of course, still break down because we see light red/blue shift when falling into or climbing out of a gravitation well.

Your idea is simply nullified do to this.

If you disagree then please explain, using math, how a laser pointed down from the 10th floor of a building is blue shifted when it is measured on the ground in your scenario.

Then provide, with the same math, how that would work on a body the same size as earth but with 5x apparent gravity.

I severely doubt you can come up with a model that will mathematically explain the observations we see better then GR. You'll have to account for light bending around objects too.

This idea is like a bad Swiss cheese, more holes then cheese and the cheese that is there still stinks.

"The 3 spatial dimensions are expanding into a 4th spatial dimension."

Your words.

That makes 4 spatial plus 1 temporal = 5 dimensions.

Or did you mean to write "The 3 spatial dimensions are expanding into a 4th TEMPORAL dimension.

I'm not sure that "the 3 spatial dimensions are expanding into a 4th spatial dimension" is necessarily more than an analogy.

So how does gravity come about according to this analogy?.

No maths ,that is to work out magnitudes of effects,just what is the principle?.

Gravity? Who knows?

My point is simply that the expansion of space (and for that matter any deviation from Euclidean space due to or causing gravity) does not necessarily entail that our observed space (or space time) is embedded in a higher dimensional Euclidean space.

In fact I'm told that it is easy enough to describe a space, a manifold, that would look Euclidean at small scales that cannot be embedded in a Euclidean space of any dimension.

I readily admit that I'm not the world's expert on this stuff; one reason why I'd never propose an ATM theory myself (even if I wanted to).

Lately, I realized that I started my thread w/ the title “The Existence of A Fifth Dimension”. It seems things are going out of proportions while the essence of the subject-matter is being over-shadowed by a similar idea (also Adam’s idea), that the Earth could be expanding along w/ the rest of the Universe. I also believe that some of the issues in that blog (for those who has access to that) has no bearing to this thread. This time, pls. allow me to be the one citing the “valid issues” from that blog that I may find reliable and connected to this thread. Let’s focus on the issue of “the fifth dimension”.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

To convey to you the idea of a Fifth Dimension, read these stories somewhere out there:

A Two Dimensional Prince ( Original Story of FMJr., for reservation)

Tom In A Strange World ( Original Story of FMJr., for reservation)

1) The idea of an expanding Earth along w/ the rest of the Universe is similar to Tom’s story, perceiving a cube as three different quadrilaterals that are strangely connected to each other.
2) Fitting the relation between the Earth and the moon through usual math equations is similar to Jack’s story, sensing a vertical line that suddenly appear as two separate dots.
3) The presented proposal that the Earth could be expanding is as crazy and ridiculous as Adam’s idea, cannot be realized or understood if my critics keep saying, “such things do not agree w/ the natural laws of science”. Let me borrow a similar phrase as to Dr. Emmett Brown’s words in that sci-fi movie, Back to the Future III, “Marty, you’re not thinking 4th dimensionally”… Guys, you’re not thinking 5th dimensionally.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

Thanks for the story, but try to read "flatland."

Well, first of all, if everything expands, then we cannot proof this.
Secondly, Adam was not educated like lots of physicists are, we do think about other/extra dimensions.
Thirdly, we just noted here that different gravity would require different expansion, and that would be problemous for our observations.
Fourthly, orbital motiol would be difficult to maintain in such a scenario.

Unless, you can specifically comment on points 3 and 4, not even necessarily with math, but with real arguments and not some watered down version of "flatland", then we could get into a real discussion.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

tusenfem brings up a couple of valid points.

1. You still haven't answered my question.

2. If Earth is expanding along with the space it occupies at 9.8 m/s², then the Moon would also expand at that rate and therefore have Earth-normal gravity, correct?

To expand on my original question, how does your model account for the observed differences in gravitational acceleration between the Earth, the Moon, and other masses throughout the Universe?

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

This could be my last stance, how did I get the idea of a fifth dimension?

1) It all started w/ the intriguing conflict between Newton’s idea of gravity as a force of attraction and Hubble’s discovery of an expanding Universe.
2) Led me to put aside (for a while), Newton’s version of gravity and to look for a similar situation w/ the same effect.
3) Came up w/ the idea of a man inside an elevator traveling at the accelerated speed of 9.8 m per sec per sec.
4) Relating that situation w/ the same man standing on the surface of the Earth led me to assume that the surface of the Earth could possibly be moving upwardly at the same rate, It gave the impression that the “Earth could possibly expanding”.
5) W/ that line of thinking, I assumed the man along w/ the rest of the Universe should be expanding in proportion to the rate of Earth’s expansion..
6) …came up describing the expansion of the Universe this way…”the four-dimensional space-time is similar to a stretching surface of a five-dimensional balloon (Universe) that steadily being blown up (see p.42, Chap, 3. “A Brief History of Time”, S. Hawking, Bantam Books, 1988)

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

Admissions:
I admit, I should not tackled these issues as “related to science” but somewhat, “mathematical” in nature, a similar situation as to William Clifford’s suspicion that gravity is an underlying geometry and no scientific basis. So, I am withdrawing the following views (not yet as “claims” for all of these are mere proposals):

1) Mass of the earth increases due to the new matter …(Reason: New matter no longer recognized, today’s science in favor of anti-matter and dark matter)
2) New matter composed of ultra-small droplets of degenerated energies (is that English correct?) (Reason: Science still in search of that “true” elementary particles)
3) Entities of “pure energy” and “absolutely empty space” and a different version of the evolution of the universe (Mere speculation, am I not entitle of my own opinion?... truly, sometimes being “abused” SORRY for that)
4) State of Circumstance (Reason: a self-invented words, a shortcut for “from that state at rest to a state in motion and vice versa”, not yet accepted as a scientific term)
5) Dubious English (Reason: Wrong choice of English words and poor grammar that make my explanations seems more complicated than Einstein’s relativity)

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

Would you PLEASE provide an answer to this. This is not the first, or second, time you've been asked.

__________________
I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
DETAILS: Where the Devil waits to ensnare the unprepared!
Remember. Just because I'm sure doesn't mean I'm right.
Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognise a mistake when you make it again.

Reservations:
Originally, I thought that gravity is not a force, but I am now realizing it is still a force but different from Newton’s view, “it could be a force exerted by a body from within” w/c is an opposite version.
This could be possible only if the following statements are true:
1) Einstein’s revelation that matter and energy are interchangeable
2) Prof. Hawking’s view that the universe is self-contained
3) Linde’s bubble bigger than the universe
4) The "youthful" ideas that we are surrounded by a sea of fast-moving particles, that push on us from all sides, and that the earth shields us from the ones coming from below, so that we are pushed onto its surface.(From Northern Boy’s thread)
Why? There is beauty in this assumption, it automatically conforms to Hubble’s discovery that the universe is expanding (Note: Mere suggestion, no scientific value at all)

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

I will, right now I am doing some mathematical analysis using the fundamentals of trigonometry but I am carefully checking my math, I do not wish to be ridiculed w/ my equations, it is enough for my dubious English. Any way, try this, a point on the arc line w/in the earth's equatorial line. Consider the earth's rotation w/ another point w/c is above that arc w/ distance of 4.9m, representing the position of the point w/in a second w/ an angle of about 1/240degree covered by that two points, using point "O" as earth's central point.There will appear two triangles, one isosceles and oblique. I'm sure you're math is more advance than mine. Why be more adventurous? Try something different, maybe there is a mathematical parallelism somewhere there. It would appear that that point is in a spiral path w/ the rotation of the earth speeding up. Maybe, w/ this line of thinking I am making my math too complicated. Any way, just for fun of experimenting, nothing more. If my eq. are ready, I'll share it to you in this forum. You have also to consider the distance from the moon, the revolutions of both bodies and possibly, other external factors. Complicated huh, but thrilling.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

For those who have interest to know how I get that idea, consider the following;

A Journey to Infinity

Imagine a man standing inside an elevator, traveling in an accelerated velocity of 9.8 meters per second per second, in a straight path in space without any external factors that may affect his journey. The elevator is in the upward direction in respect to the man’s position, his feet touching the floor. The man thought he was still inside the building and everything was normal. He was waiting for the elevator to go up or to go down but he noticed that the elevator seems to be not moving. Unknowingly, he is in his journey of no return.

Top of the World

First Illustration:

Picture A - Draw a circle and a small figure of a man on top of it.

Picture B - Draw a bigger circle, twice the size of that circle in picture A and the same size of a man’s figure as in picture A.

Picture C – Draw a much bigger circle, twice the size of that circle in picture B and the same size of the man’s figure as in picture B.

Second Illustration:

Picture X - Draw a circle and a small figure of a man on top of it (a replica of picture A)

Picture Y - Draw a bigger circle, twice the size of that circle in picture X and a bigger figure of a man, twice the size of man’s figure in picture

Picture Z – Draw a much bigger circle, twice the size of that circle in picture Y and a much bigger figure of a man, twice the size of the man’s figure as in picture Y.

These illustrations are important tools to make a clear and simple understanding of how to relate the earth’s expansion to what we observe here on earth. The first illustration shows a set of pictures with different sizes of circles and identical sizes of a man’s figures on top of these circles. If one continue to draw pictures in this pattern, the result would be a series of pictures in which the circles look like getting bigger while the figures of a man, getting smaller. This would be the first impression one might perceive when someone told him the earth is expanding.

Now let us consider the second illustration. It shows a set of pictures with different sizes of circles together with the corresponding sizes of man’s figure on top of the circles. Again, if one draws more pictures in this pattern, the result would be a series of pictures that look like the large versions of the same original picture of a circle with a small figure of a man on top of it. This is the right approach to illustrate a compromise solution to adapt this new definition of gravity with what we observe here on earth. Therefore, one must view it this way – all things that we see around us are also expanding in proportion to the earth’s expansion

Viewing A Five-Dimensional Universe

He assumed that space-time is finite and at the same time without singularity that could formed a boundary or edge. If we apply these new set of assumptions in redefining gravity and came up with a hypothesis that space-time is dynamic, that is, similar to a stretching four-dimensional surface of a five dimensional balloon that steadily being blown up, the imaginary time introduced by Hawking (as his personal proposal, a mathematical tool or a device and admitted as a “trick”), in reality, could be the mathematical representation of observing the Universe in a different projection, outside the limits of a conventional space-time.

Imagine a transparent rubber balloon filled with water together with glitters of small pieces of gold aluminum foils inside it. If one shakes the balloon, the glitters would possibly move in random, more or less, distributed equally inside the balloon and if placed in outer space, in an environment where there is minimal influence of gravity, the glitters would remain still and suspended in the water, that separate them. Assuming that there is a water hose connected to the balloon where a supply of water could enter and if there is a continues flow of water going inside the balloon, the balloon will expand and all the glitters inside it will move in a predictable pattern due to the influence of water flowing from the outside source. This is the three-dimensional version of Hawking’s two-dimensional analogy of an expanding Universe which he described as a balloon with spotted dots on its surface that is continuously being blown up. Visualizing it in a fourth dimension, simply draw imaginary lines similar to a globe, where latitude and longitude lines cross each other, representing a curved space-time. But to visualize it in a fifth dimension, the imaginary lines should be moving outward as the balloon continues to expand while imagining the gold glitters inside the balloon, also getting bigger in proportion to the size of the balloon. If one imagines himself standing in one of the gold glitter inside the balloon, he would observe that the other glitters are moving away from him whichever direction he look at them which would obey Friedmann’s assumption. This will support Hawking’s prediction that our Universe is a kind of a self-contained universe.

__________________
The search for the ultimate truth is man's greatest craving...

The earth is not expanding.The moon is not expanding.
The answer is simple but thinking in 4 physical dimensions is not.
Imagine the person in flatland finding a saucer the edge of which is level with flatland.
There are lots of saucers of different curve (depth).
As he steps over the edge he finds himself pulled towards the center of the saucer.We know he is sliding down but he does not know and is unable to even imagine down or up.
Different saucers make different "forces" toward the center.

Now forget the saucers.
Flat land has dips depending on the mass causing the dips.
Similar shape as the saucer curve but getting less as the distance from the
rim increases .The gradient falls off as the inverse square of the distance of course.
Big mass = big dip = big gradient = big "force".
The gradient around each mass is different.
In our universe all this is 4D.
Earth ,large mass ,much space/time gradient,much "force".
Moon ,smaller mass ,smaller -----------------------------

What is pushing down the masses in flatland to make the dips?.
Or causing the same effect in our universe?.
That is also very simple,but enough words for this post.

You're making a common mistake, but as I'm writing this on my phone, I'll provide an explanation when I get back to a proper keyboard.

__________________
I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
DETAILS: Where the Devil waits to ensnare the unprepared!
Remember. Just because I'm sure doesn't mean I'm right.
Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognise a mistake when you make it again.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Proof positive that a pictue is worth a thousand words. Maybe sirjon should take heed. Then again...

__________________
I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
DETAILS: Where the Devil waits to ensnare the unprepared!
Remember. Just because I'm sure doesn't mean I'm right.
Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognise a mistake when you make it again.

I've seen a number of "growing Earth" models presented in these pages as a propsed theory of the gravitational interaction. I have yet to find one that manages the simple task of getting a satellite to complete even a single orbit.

As for the geostationary orbit...

So what is my common mistake?.

Because it does not match observation.

You are missing this very critical point, it seems. You have proposed an idea that feels "right" to you. It feels right primarily because you have not studied physics.

People on here have pointed out some simple results of your scheme (satellites would not orbit, but would plummet to the ground, for example), which immediately falsify it, and yet you seem to ignore these points. Why is this?

Lemme guess: your introduction of the 3rd dimension into flatland?

There may be the dips in the rubber sheet of flatland, but the sheet remains 2D even when it is curved. So, there is no "falling down, there is only sliding along the curved 2D surface.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)