That must have been Mugaliens' grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-father then

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Dear Celestial Mechanic,

Delving into your kind of prose, there seems to be so much frustration and bitterness in your wording that leads me to believe we are actually on something. :-) It’s funny to see how you are trying to bash things with story telling and your know-it-all attitude – cut it out, please! Why are you spending so much time (loooong replies) and aggravation on this thread anyway if it’s of no substance to you? (no answer required)

=> see posting from Oct 26th, 10:11 PM

PDF online-version works fine (no download required). In any case, all relevant material is in this forum already as well, including some humble calculations. We are missing the SUPPORTIVE feedback here. Again, all is presented that lies within our limited abilities; we’d like to have CONSTRUCTIVE feedback and are more than happy to answer any QUESTIONS but won’t respond to any personal insults. We noticed so much stuff on ATM, which IMHO are far more speculative if not absurd, that we’d like to be treated equally fair as well. Simply, dry and unemotional state what is wrong and/or what is right (if any). Go bash some other place… but we know you keep coming back.

Thanks to all other members how are trying to tackle the issues raised in a more serious yet critical manner, we know to well how this forum might be misused to push ones ideas and ego. Believe us; we couldn’t care less if “our” theory were to be presented by another party. It’s for our own curiosity that we want guidance on where we might be completely off track or where there might be some merits to our thoughts. We see this a test ground and not a full-fledged peer-review. Else, why would anyone use the ATM forum anyhow if it is not for its brainstorming, open and supportive character. Going forward and being non-academics, we’d certainly need a lot more help on detailed calculations and ways of presentation in an academic-like fashion. We will aim at doing that, once FHT seems at least feasible - but first things first... ;-)

Thank you!

PS to Moderator: We certainly hope not to have misjudged any of the ATM rules by posting this reply, but things simply need to be said.

PDF download does not work. It requires a google account. Fix please.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Thanks for letting us know, slang! Had it checked by various people and it seemed to work (the online reading part)... in any case - PDF not needed anymore after requests to have it directly put in this thread (see above). Thanks!

First you write:
then you assume:
Shouldn't that make A_p = 0, just like any other quantity directly dependent on M_a?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Don't thank me, thank Celestial Mechanic. He said exactly the same thing I said, all I did was confirm it.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

thank you, cm!

But don't you have Ma = 0?

The smallest volume of space is a cube of side of length the Planck length? If a Planck mass were in a cube of that size, you'd have a black hole, right? Is that what you mean? Actually, it'd be a black hole with radius of the Planck length so it would have even more mass.So, a black hole? In every volume of space? All space would be a black hole?

The Planck mass is pretty large. I think you might even be able to see something with a Planck mass, naked eye.

Let's see, a human hair might be 0.01cm width and a density of what? 1/2 gr/cm³? So if we divide 2.18E-05 gr (2.18E-08 Kg) by (1/2 gr/cm³ * pi * (0.005cm)²) we get one half centimeter? A piece of human hair half a centimeter long is a Planck mass? Google is no help here!

I don't want to have to go online to read it. Almost every other ATM theorist provides their "documentation" in a PDF file that can be downloaded without strings attached -- why can't you do the same?



Edited to add: I will look at what you have presented earlier. The reason I haven't looked carefully at it is that in its first iteration most of the formulas did not come across correctly. You have edited it, but I would still rather have the PDF to make sure of getting the best version of your document.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

This theory sounds very interesting concerning my own ideas. If I'm understanding it correctly, would it be considered that as mass moves through spacetime that the energy from spacetime itself is transferred, or fills the space interrupted by the mass as it moves through it? Or something to that effect? Please excuse my laymans terms but my scientific prose is limited. My own ideas have been that a particle can exist in one space at one TIME but as it moves through space the time changes as well as the position of the particle. Would that be considered a possibility with your theory?

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

Sorry if this is not a very deep question, but I'm just surprised because I've never seen this before. Are you actually two people writing posts together? You always use "we," and sign with two signatures. Is one of you writing the messages and getting approval from the other? It seems like a terrible amount of work. I would think you would allow each other to write independently...

__________________
As above, so below

Will try to but can’t promise as I am yet to find a free file-hoster, where links generated last longer than 30 days and integration in blog is easily possible. It’s unfortunate that this Forum doesn’t allow for any uploads in PDF format (only pictures). We certainly hope to have copied/pasted all formulas correctly and after editing are now somewhat more reader-friendly.

We are very much looking forward to your feedback. Thank you for taking the time!

To all: We will use the coming weekend to address any open questions.

Hi FHtheory
I want to ask you what is a gravitational field made of in your theory?. What is a mechanism of the space curvature in that field ?

Sorry, I even thought of it as 'Magellan' (thinking of Philippine History...)

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

Surprised you ask that question as WE would have thought that all ATMers share and discuss their ideas with at least another buddy before moving ahead and try to reach out for the world... :-) Anyway - we try to motivate each other with the pursuit of putting our thoughts down as precise as our humble abilities allow and get feedback on it. No, we don't need each others approval :-), we are both in accordance with the basic ideas. Each of us answers independently but we stick to the "we" as “we” don't want to be seen as some egocentric crank trying to proselytize the world. Rather, we'd be perceived as team-workers with different skills. Needless to say that probably most ATMers using “I” are sharing the same view but simply wanted to make it clear that it’s not the work of a sole individual - and you guys are of great help as well…

Hi FH

Interesting theory. I'm no Physics PhD, just an interested layman.

So you are trying to explain the "how" of how mass warps space. If I understand correctly, an object does this by taking energy directly from spacetime (in my mind, the so called Quantum Foam) which it needs to exist - converting the potential of the local spacetime field and converting it into a type of kinetic energy Is this correct?

You assume that "empty space" has some pervasive level of energy available that is non-zero and uniform over the universe.

Questions:

1. What tests could be performed to support the theory? Do you have any thought experiments or outlines of tests to support it?

2. Since the warping of spacetime is caused by the trasfer of energy in your theory, then If we could somehow put energy back into the local spacetime warped field, would we see evidence of this as anti-gravity behavior? Ie, we'd be effectivily unwarping space. Is this possible? or does it violate the law of conservation of energy?

3. If the experiment in #2 were performed, would the effect be local (small local dimple in the warp field), or a net effect over the entire warp field?

4. Does this affect the need for Dark Matter to explain the amount of gravitation influence we see on large structures? How?


I hope these are not too elementary, I am interested to hear your thoughts.

and
Hmm.. Ma = 0 ----> I see we were a bit sloppy and jumped a few steps... We have redone this - hopefully that will help.... the PDF update will come soon (also working on downloadable version)

Yeah, the sphere... I thought that at first too... and the original calculation used a sphere... but Phil pointed out that anything other than multiples of a planck length cube will always leave a little bit of space left over that would be less than the planck lenght... so we redid the calculation using the lowest number of cubes = 1 cube, and to our astonishment we recognised the result - the planck mass - we think that is an indication that supports our theory ;-)


Section 1 - To calculate the mass of the smallest possible volume of space using FH theory - top down approach

Assuming two identical masses (P1 and P2) initially at rest are attracting each other mutually by gravitation, and there are no other forces acting on them. (Idealised situation)

Mp1 = Mass of P1 Kg
Mp2 = Mass of P2 Kg
Fp = Force acting on P N
G = Gravitational constant m^3/Kgs^2
R = Distance between the two masses m
Sp1 = Distance travelled by P1 m
Vp1 = Velocity of P1 m/s
Ap1 = Acceleration of P1 m/s^2
T = an amount of time s
Mt = Total mass Kg
Ms = Mass of space Kg
Vp1 =Velocity of P1 by itself due to absorption of vacuum energy m/s

Then the force acting on the mass P1 is given by

Fp = GMp1 Mp2/R^2 ... 1

And is also given by

Fp = Mp1 Ap1 ... 2

Therefore the acceleration is

Ap1 = G Mp2/R^2 ... 3

This results in a velocity of

Vp1= G Mp2T/R^2 ... 4

And a distance travelled of

Sp1 = G Mp2T^2/2R^2 .... 5


-> New Situation, there is only one particle, P1
When there is only one particle and the acceleration continues anyway as per FH Theory, it follows that the acceleration is only half of previously.

Therefore as there is half the acceleration even without the second mass then, for the acceleration we can still substitute

G Mp2/R^2=Ap1= 2G Ms/R^2 ... 6

Thus the velocity is given by

Vp1= 2G MsT/R^2 ... 7

Thus the distance travelled is given by

Sp1 = G MsT^2/R^2 .... 8

When the mass has a distance R to travel in space then

R = Sp1 .... 9

It follows then that

R^3 = G MsT^2 .... 10

The mass of space can then be calculated as follows

Ms = R^3 / GT^2 ..... 11

Putting in Planck units to work out the mass of this smallest possible volume of space that can be absorbed, we have the mass of space as:


Ms =1.616E-35 3 / (6.674E-11 x (5.391E-44)^2)

Ms = 2.18E-08 Kg

This is the Planck Mass.

Therefore the energy (Mc^2) in the smallest volume of space is 1.93E09 J

This is of course the Planck energy

ps can anyone tell us how to do superscripts and subscripts here... it would help thx

[sup]SUPer[/sup][sub]sub[/sub] -> ^SUPer_sub

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

It is not a field theory, so our theory does not provide an answer to that, but I would say that a field could be thought of as a distribution of energy and our theory provides the distribution of vacuum energy to vary. We believe (or rather hope...), though we have not proved it yet, that the energy distribution of our theory would be compatible with general relativity. So if it is the same as GR, why do we need FHtheory?... well if FHtheory is correct it means that GR is a result of local quantum interactions between space and matter, linking GR and quantum theory...and that we think that might be worthwhile ;-)

Thanks for all your great questions! After been giving enough thought to them, we try to finally answer all remaining questions by tonight. Looking forward to your feedbacks.

We believe yes but are still working on this... Updates will most probably follow on our blog.

As M = R^3/GT^2 was only true for a fraction of a second (as T^2 increases => M decreases, T now is more than 13bn years). A short while after the bigbang space expanded so that its volume was greater then the volume of the black hole with a planck radius. So there was a phase transition. To calculate the nowadays mass of a planck volume you'd have to set T at 13bn years, which makes T^2 "big" and M "small" enough not to be directly observable at the human scale. In real world experiments we never test for space in such a short period of time and therefore we haven't had a chance to notice it (yet).


Yes, but only for planck time - which is way too short a time for any measurements (currently). Any measurements that take longer would result in a lower mass. The equation tells us that the mass that we measure is dependent on the time it takes us to measure it. Perhaps it's strange to think that a mass of a volume would change with time but that's the mathematical result. :-)

Our theory does not currently address this possibility.

As you can see from Section 2 of our calculations with real world values we make a prediction of the ratio of the visible mass to "dark matter". That is testable. PS: We believe GR is correct and our theory should have identical predictions as GR (that would also be testable). GR states that a mass causes a gravitational field. Our theory tries to explain HOW (not the effects but the mechanism) a mass actually causes a gravitational field.

Yes it is possible. If we put a ton of TNT in the middle of a metal sphere of a certain volume and we let the energy in the TNT loose then the volume of the sphere would surely expand and anyone sitting on top of the sphere will certainly feel anti-gravity behaviour ;-)


...the immediate local part of the field will have probably quite a large effect. As you get further away from the "event", the less it will effect the field at that point.

We think that if space has energy it also has a mass and therefore space is in effect the "dark matter" itself. Even if the mass is relatively small per unit of volume, then on a huge scale (where we see large structure) it has an effect. That makes the "dark matter" the dark stuff between the stars at night (= space), which everybody can observe...;-)

Hi FH, thanks for your answerss... a comment

Originally Posted by iquestor
FH replied: I dont think we need a new theory to describe the effects of sitting on top of a metal sphere packed with TNT.

Seriously, based on your theory, would there be a way to take advantage of the effects of how mass warps space to practical use, if we could somehow put energy back into a local warped field to reverse the effect? My two ideas would be:

1. Starship drive - oscillation of local warp field acts on mass to provide propulsion.
2. Anti gravity - reversal of warp field to negate attraction.

A.Would the energy required to do this be feasible or would we need to be a Type II civilization to accomplish this?

B. Is it theoretically possible to put this energy back into the local spacetime without desroying everytning in the vicinity, ie TNT example ?

If your theory doesnt address this, thats fine, I am just curious. While I don't have the education to provide very helpful feedback to you, it is very interesting to me. I think a true understanding of exactly how Mass Warps space would be a gigantic breakthrough for humanity.

We put energy into local space time all the time. The LHC and all other particle accelerators do just this and observe all aspects of SR. This is my problem with so many ATM threads. The supporters just don't seem to understand how much of main stream science is verified all the time. I have a friend that is a big supporter of EU. I can't convince him that EU is, at the very least, making claims that are not right. He'll claim the sun's energy is actually an electric field in some higher dimension and claims that we have no proof of nuclear fusion. Even when I point all the proof of nuclear fusion he refuses to acknowledge it or acknowledges it then jumps to some other point while ignoring the fact that one of the huge claims the EU makes is demonstratively false.

Things like warp fields etc aren't so much ATM claims as much as they are "not currently technologically feasible". Why introduce radical changes to science that reopens more answered questions then it actually answers.

To the OP if your idea sits besides GR/SR great. We are still looking for an answer on quantum gravity. But the way I read your idea is that you are saying there is a constant transfer of energy from the vacuum to matter to cause the warping of space time. This adds more complexity into the model for no reason in my opinion. the mainstream says "energy warps space time" This energy can be in the form of mass or energy. In your idea you say there is a constant invisible flow of energy from some place we can't see causing the warps in space time. I don't see what it really adds. So you explain gravity that way....now explain where all this undetected energy is coming from. You ultimately haven't got us closer to an answer.

If we find the graviton then that would be a good explanation it because it doesn't just push back the question. If I'm totally off base here forgive me ...it is now 3:30 am and I REALLY should get to bed.

FH Theory -- Again -- Part One

It's November in Wisconsin, and you you know the drill! Time to have some friends over for coffee, doughnuts, and some really execrably bad physics.

My old friends from grad school, BH and DB, have come over, as well as Virginia and JK, who are both seniors at UW-Madison.

Celestial Mechanic: "Thank you for coming over, I hope you won't mind leftovers from last year."

BH: "Just so long as they're not the doughnuts!"

{General laughter}

CM: "No, it's the theory we're going to debunk that's a leftover. Remember the 'FH Theory of Gravitation'?"

Jimmy K.: "Oh, not that thing again!. The timer ran out last year on that."

CM: "Yes, it did, but they have come back claiming to have some mathematics to show this time. And they have dumped their silly three time dimensions."

DB: "That's good."

CM: "I must explain about today's printout. There is a PDF file, but I can't access it because it's at Google Docs and it requires me to open an account there. I have complained, but to no avail. They have a website. They can put their file right there where anyone can download it without visiting other websites and jumping through hoops. But they just won't do it. They just don't get it."

BH: "Didn't you have the same problem last year?"

CM: "Yes, but ultimately they did provide a PDF that could be downloaded. I don't know why they haven't done so this year. It doesn't look like they are going to this time, so we have to go by what they have been able to post at BAUTForum using BBCode."

Virginia: "I've been to their website. They now have videos. I really hate what YouTube has done to the Internet."

DB: "Why?"

V: "It was bad enough with all the physics wannabes thinking that they were the next Einstein, now they think they're the next Sagan as well!"

DB: "I feel your pain."

CM: "Well, I don't have broadband so I can't watch these videos. I haven't seen them and even if I had broadband I still wouldn't watch them. I want a clear, concise exposition of the theory that only the printed word can provide. That's what I will base my judgment on. Let's start reading this thread, with special attention to posts 16 and 17."

{A while passes as our intrepid dialoguers read the thread transcript.}

JK: "The assumptions seem to be the same as last year's, except there is no third numbered assumption. They are still asserting it, though."

CM: "Yes, and our objections to these assumptions are unchanged from last year. But what about the mathematical development?"

BH: "This is just awful!"

DB: "How so?"

BH: "They start out OK. For their first equation they give the force due to particle 2 acting on particle 1 as (paraphrased):"
BH: "They only give a magnitude, they say nothing about direction. And equation (2) is correct, and they correctly infer equation (3) from it:"
BH: "But then look at equations (4) and (5):"
JK: "It didn't take long for the wheels to come off this wagon! They don't know calculus. Equations (4) and (5) would only be true if R is constant, but it's not since the two particles are accelerating towards each other."

CM: "Congratulations. You found the fatal flaw in their argument. It gets even worse immediately following equation (5) where they write:"
DB: "Where do they get this idea that there will only be half the acceleration with just one particle? And acceleration with respect to what? If there is only one particle there is no acceleration."

CM: "Yes, I can't see anything in what they have written before this that would indicate that there should be acceleration in the absence of another mass. Nevertheless, everything after this worthless."

BH: "Too many amateurs take what little math they may have learned and misapply it to situations outside the domain of applicability. The result is math goulash in place of word salad. No improvement at all."

CM: "I'm afraid you're right. I really do suggest that Messrs. Findlay and Haenggi get themselves to a library and learn some calculus and differential equations ..."

BH: "And group theory!"

CM: "... and group theory, yes, so that they will have the tools to make a real contribution to physics."

DB: "And this dialogue is the sort of thing that certain posters here characterise as 'ignorant', 'sophomoric', and so on?"

CM: "You know you can't please everyone. Certain people believe that the atmosphere in the ATM forum is too hostile to all these would-be savants and their marvelous ideas. They want rules in ATM changed to stifle criticism of the bad physics being thrown our way."

V: "That would be like The Bad Astronomer refusing to criticize bad astronomy when he sees it!"

CM: "Let me just say this in my defense, in our defense if I may: sure, we dish out criticism when and where it is deserved. Several of these dialogues are important resources for people trying to understand, oh say, the precession of the equinoxes and the true meaning of Kepler's laws of planetary motion. I never hear any of our critics mention any of these dialogues. We try to add real physics in every dialogue of ours. And even as we criticise amateurs we also try to point them in the right direction, to direct their efforts to learning the things they need to know in order to make a contribution to physics and astronomy. And if someone cannot be the next Einstein or Feynman ..."

V: "Or Sagan!"

CM: "... or Sagan, be something else. Just whatever you do, don't be the next Bernie Madoff!"

JK: "Too bad we finished off the return of the 'FH Theory of Gravitation' so soon."

CM: "Looks like we'll just have to drown our sorrow in coffee and doughnuts, then."

To be continued?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

To our dear friend Celestial Mechanic,

As to your style of commenting - one word: “hopeless!”
You definitely use way too much „air time“ (it’s a fun read, though). Your dialogue style seems like an expression for your know-it-all attitude and narcissism. Above all, it is mostly simply silly.

In case you haven’t heard, this forum is about an unemotional assessment and/or questioning “theories” and thoughts posted - and just that! Neither is it a peer-review nor a “lets crucify the posters” exercise It is easy to see the watch dog of the old guard, frustrated with the ATM Forum (and what else?) for not being scientific but still can’t resist and letting your overeagerness overcome you, get off on it and type it all out . Anyway, we know readers can abstract from what’s serious feedback and what seems just like home-grown frustration and bitterness.

After all your childish blah, blah (so much to being ‘scientific’) about doughnuts, slow internet connection and your running gag about “going to the library”, the only lines which fall out and are in deed of great value to us are:
You are correct! We have to admit that that is indeed an error in this section. We really appreciate you pointing this out. But we also realised it was irrelevant. Therefore it is still not a fatal flaw.

We correct it below...

p1 = Mass of P1 Kg
Mp2 = Mass of P2 Kg
Fp = Force acting on P N
G = Gravitational constant m^3/Kgs^2
R = Distance between the two masses m
Sp1 = Distance travelled by P1 m
Vp1 = Velocity of P1 m/s
Ap1 = Acceleration of P1 m/s^2
T = an amount of time s
Mt = Total mass Kg
Ms = Mass of space Kg
Vp1 =Velocity of P1 by itself due to absorption of vacuum energy m/s

Then the force acting on the mass P1 is given by

Fp = GMp1 Mp2/R^2 ... 1

And is also given by

Fp = Mp1 Ap1 ... 2

Therefore the acceleration is

Ap1 = G Mp2/R^2 ... 3

>>> equations 3 and 4 deleted due to being both incorrect and irrelevant <<<

--> New Situation, there is only one particle, P1
When there is only one particle and the acceleration continues anyway as per FH Theory, it follows that the acceleration is only half of previously.

Therefore as there is half the acceleration even without the second mass then, for the acceleration we can still substitute

G Mp2/R^2=Ap1= 2G Ms/R^2 ... 6

>>> New
When R= the planck length then, for a period of time of up to 1 planck time R is constant <<<

Thus the velocity is theoretically given by

Vp1= 2G MsT/R^2 ... 7

and the the distance travelled would theoretically be.....

Sp1 = G MsT^2/R^2 .... 8

In the planck time, R = SP1 = the planck length

R = Sp1 .... 9

It follows then that

R^3 = G MsT^2 .... 10

The mass of space can then be calculated as follows

Ms = R^3 / GT^2 ..... 11

Putting in Planck units to work out the mass of this smallest possible volume of space that can be absorbed, we have the mass of space as:

Ms =1.616E-35 3 / (6.674E-11 x (5.391E-44)^2)

Ms = 2.18E-08 Kg

This is the Planck Mass.

Therefore the energy (Mc^2) in the smallest volume of space is 1.93E09 J

This is of course the Planck energy

Of course over large distances where we are talking about a movement of a planck length then the change in R (= planck length) compared to R is so small that we can consider R to be a constant.

Between large distances and the planck distance this would not hold true---> So here is a prediction of our theory ---> at relatively small distances gravity can be measured to act slightly differently.

Speculation.... You could calculate this and it might turn out to exactly account for the casimir effect..... ....thanks to you we can speculate on yet another effect that our theory might explain.....

If two identical particles absorb a total of X volumes of space per second then how many volumes per second will one particle absorb? And if the acceleration is proportional to the volume absorbed then.....duh

Let us assume we have a theoretical particle standing still relative to our particle at time T1 and they were the only particles in this universe

If our particle would draw energy out of space such that the volume of space decreases, then the two particles would appear to accelerate towards each other.
Agreed?

Go one step further and put identical particles equidistant in front, behind, left right up and down. It would appear that our particle is stationary and all the 6 particles would accelerate towards our particle. But our particle is not actually stationary with respect to space. The original particle is also accelerating in all 6 directions towards all the other 6 particles at the same time... yes, needs a little thought to understand at the beginning, but once you understand you soon get comfortable thinking of it this way...
Agreed?

Substitute now the 6 particles for 6 volumes of space in front, behind, left right up and down of our particle It would appear that our particle is stationary and all the 6 volumes would accelerate towards our particle So as you can't see the space moving, you may think that our particle has no acceleration, but, in real space, it would appear to be attracting all other objects in the universe.(= the effect we call gravity)


Greetings to Wisconsin!

PS: The next time you get carried away, keep in mind that instead of insults you'd better be giving an unemotional appraisal. Now come on, your the guy with 4k+ posts, you should know how to behave...no be a good boy, will ya?

We think we have an idea about the mechanism of how.... as the mainstream says...."energy warps space time". We are not saying the mainstream is wrong, on the contrary we accept both GR and QM as very good, very accurate theories. We assume that the amount of energy in the universe remains constant over time. We believe its effects have been noticed (dark matter, dark energy) and we suspect the vacuum energy to account for this. Our calculations show (see above) that over time, the energy density per unit volume of vacuum decreases as the universe gets older, and they explain the decreased energy density per unit volume as being compensated by the creation of more space = the expansion of the universe as the increase in volume required to compensate for the reducing energy density -> total energy remains constant.

We think it has been done already. You could think of a rocket motor as putting energy into space to warp the local gravitational field. Engineering and technology will bring us to the day where we find better methods of warping the field....

Yes. When you increase gravitaional potential energy you add energy to space. The TNT example is perhaps not the most practical - a hot air balloon can be also viewed as an example. As soon as you pull two masses apart you add energy to space = increased gravitational potential energy. Sorry about such a boring answer, no worm holes or anything exciting like that ;-)