Dear Forum Readers,

Thanks to your valuable feedbacks in an earlier thread, we've been able to extend on "our" thoughts on gravity. :-)

=> Link: www.findlay-haenggi.blogspot.com
Please see PDF on assumptions and their discussions. Any hints or suggestions are very much appreciated.

We hope not to be in conflict with the rules of the ATM section by linking to an outside blog but couldn't manage to insert PDF right here.

Thank you so much for your support!

OK

I was just about to call it a....night/morning. Hey all. Went to your site and wathced video's. Your approach is inspiring. I am NO expert, but, my initial impression was that you are presenting this as "Forget Dark Energy, that makes no sense, we present.......Space energy, so far undetected or see, but there"

I like the differences after that between FH and DE, but what is the energy sorce, other than just "space", how?

__________________
Where did everyone go?

I'm looking forward to reading their ATM proposal outlined here, as opposed to being directed to another website.

The forum moderator rightly asked us to provide "theory in a nutshell" as well as difference to initial (first) thread a couple of months back. Starting with the later; Initial thread was all about one very specific point, which initially seemed to result from theory. It dealt with different time dimensions and realy got us all confused. Thanks to your help we could do away with that thought as it was not necessary for theory. So here we are with whole "theory" as it stands and are happy to share it with you in hope of receiving constructive feedback on where we need to refine or redo certain aspects.

[Findlay-Haenggi Theory (FHT) in a Nutshell]

The mechanism by which a body with mass interacts with space time to create the fields (energy distributions) of General Relativity.

Gravity is a local effect. Protons and all materials with mass take the energy required to exist from the surrounding space time. This causes the space(-time) to become smaller in the region around the particle and hence the space(-time) gets bent and stressed. This then causes the surrounding space(-time) to give up energy too, which causes all particles with mass to approach each other at an ever increasing rate. Thus particles with mass appear to “attract” each other, even over great distances. The resulting effects are what is called "gravity".

Assumption 1:
In the theoretical absence of matter and fields, spacetime still has some energy

Assumption 2 based on Assumption 1:
The amount of energy in any given volume of spacetime is proportional to its volume.

Corollary to Assumption 2:
If you remove energy out of space time, the volume of the spacetime will contract.

Proposed mechanism of how matter bends spacetime:
All material with mass interact with space such that the space loses energy (vacuum energy) and the material gains kinetic energy

Discussions about the above assumptions:
Assumption 1 – It has been known through observation that sets of particles and anti- particles can spontaneously appear from cold empty space. This is considered proof by many that empty cold space has some sort of residual energy in it. Therefore this assumption is not so far fetched
Assumption 2 – It seems logical that if a given volume of spacetime has energy in it, a larger volume has more energy and a smaller volume has less energy. As far as we know this has not been proved, however we feel that this statement is at least probable. Discussion of the Gravity Mechanism proposition Firstly we would like to point out that this theory is not a competing theory to general relativity (GR). GR adequately describes gravity as being the result of curved spacetime, and that mass bends space time. It is a field theory where there are gravitational fields affected by mass which cause the space time to bend. What GR does not explain is how mass creates these fields and therefore does not supply the mechanism of how mass bends space time. FH Theory addresses the issue of the mechanism of how mass interacts with space time to create the gravitational fields (gravitational energy distributions)

Again, many thanks for your valuable feedback and support!

I look forward to seeing what quantitative, falsiable predictions your formulations make. Until then, I can say that you're off to a shaky start. Assumption 2 doesn't follow logically from, or depend on, Assumption 1 at all. It actually follows from an implicit assumption that space is isotropic in the sense of constant energy density. Then of course the total energy is the product of density and volume. Nothing magical or profound there. What did I miss?

Assumption 1 itself is vague. It is already well known that there is a zero-point energy (both in a classical view as well as a quantum description). Is this what you mean by "energy" or do you mean something else? If so, please be specific.

More to follow. Have to get some real work done.

Thank you for your reply! Please note that the above statements are just an excerpt. We've also tried to put it more quantitatively in the sense of using real values to see where we'd arrive (please see newer posts). As this certainly is no proof, we'd like to know whether we should progress any further and appreciate any help with formalization.

We stayed away from putting all in one post as this might shy away certain readers. But for the sake of completeness here we go:

Our reasoning is as follows;
If we have two particles at a certain distance apart at relative rest to one another, then they will start attracting each other and start accelerating towards each other. But where does this energy come from? The classical answer is gravitational potential energy. But where does gravitational potential energy come from? The conventional answer is that it requires work to be done on a particle to carry it a certain distance to give it gravitational potential energy. But there are examples of spontaneous particle creation, such as gives rise to the Hawking radiation, so how would the potential energy of such created particles be explained?

The mass energy is assumed to come from the vacuum energy, and as the potential energy is very small compared to the mass energy in most cases, it is not far fetched to suggest that this additional potential energy comes also from the vacuum energy. Taking a simplified universe with only two particles in it. And assuming these particles are from spontaneous creation from vacuum fluctuations, they are initially at rest relative to each other and are a given distance apart. For the sake of simplicity to understand the argument more easily, let us assume that the particles do not have electrical or magnetic fields, nor are there any such fields in the universe. The particles have then a mass energy and gravitational potential energy but zero kinetic energy at the start.

As the particles are attracted towards each other they lose potential energy and gain kinetic energy, but their total energy, Mass + potential + kinetic must remain the same. However if this universe is expanding as is the real universe, such that the particles actually move away from each other at an ever increasing rate as in the real universe, then the particles gain both kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy. As their total energy must remain the same, this would suggest that the particles mass energy must decrease. But we notice that the mass does not decrease in the real universe.

Our conclusion is that the additional energy does not come from the particles mass. But what has also increased? Assuming for the sake of simplicity of this argument, the other particles are moving away at a constant rate, then they have not gained kinetic energy nor have their masses changed. So what has changed and increased to account for the increased gravitational potential energy? The answer - The space between the particles has increased. Therefore our conclusion is that the space between the particles has energy and it is from this space that gravitational potential energy is derived. It then begs the question, if the particles absorb energy from the surrounding space why wouldn’t the particles heat up or travel faster? The answer is that they do move faster relative to all other particles. But, as it is absorbing space from all directions it speeds up in all directions and therefore remains apparently in the same position. How can a particle speed up in all directions? It is hard to imagine how this would work, but is it impossible? Our conclusion is that it is not impossible. If it speeds up in one direction it gets closer to another particle in that direction. If it does this in all directions, the result is that it gets closer to all particles in all directions. And this is exactly what we notice, and we call the effect gravity.

So which of the two explanations seems more reasonable?
1) Space has energy and particles absorb this energy. The result is that the space between particles decreases and the kinetic energy of the particles increase. This effect is what we call gravity…… or…..
2) Particles can have almost infinite potential energy (but mysteriously we can’t actually find it in the particle itself) and each particle immediately creates huge fields the size of the universe and starts acting on billions of particles billions of light years away. Further, particles with mass like protons can just about last forever and do loads of work like making these huge gravitational fields without requiring an external energy supply.

Why are photons (light) affected by gravity, since photons do not seem to have a (rest) mass?
What happens when a electron-antielectron pair turns into a pair of photons?

__________________
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)

Hi, find your gravity theory interesting if not without problems. Other gravity theories no doubt also have problems.

From what little seems firmly known about gravity your theory looks to be a Space/EnergyEther theory that cannot allow anywhere in the universe to be empty or be nothing. And while to me there undoubtedly seems to be some evidence for that, there does also to me seem to be some evidence to the contrary.

A basic issue would seem to be that gravity appears to be universewide and seems not to diminish locally significantly over time. If in your theory matter must constantly suck energy out of local Space/EnergyEther, then surely local areas of nothing should result and local gravity vanish ? Would be very interested to hear if your theory can address this issue ?

__________________
www.new-science-theory.com

FH theory, please explain further of your understanding of 'vacuum energy', from the phrase "The mass energy is assumed to come from the vacuum energy". Where the vacuum energy came from, in the first place?

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

It is inaccurate to think space as a material thing, as I first thought of it. But yes, I agree, there is 'something' there, mixed w/ empty space that is 'unseen' and undetected (non-EM entity) that seems making the space to expand.

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

Please do not direct me to your website and other docs -- I will not read them. If you are interested in an actual defense of your ideas, present them here for review.

Please state, in clear and succinct language, how your formulation makes quantitative, falsifiable predictions that differ from the ATM. Also show -- again, clearly -- how, at the same time, your theory makes the same correct predictions as mainstream physics in all other areas.

Don't offer as an excuse that your theory is so comprehensive that it can't be presented here. Choose a subset of it and focus on that.

Again, be quantitative. Word salad, tossed with much handwaving, is punished severely here.

I was about to post a third part of my dialogue concerning the FH "Theory" in the previous thread last November but the timer ran out minutes before I finished it. The following post is that third part as it was finished. If any of the 18 "predictions" have changed since then, or if there are any new ones, I'll be happy to critique those. And I'm sure my friends will be happy to join me also.

__________________
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.

FH Theory -- A Deconstruction -- Part Three

It's November in Wisconsin, and you know what that means -- no flowers, no leaves, no birds, no bees, no sun. Definitely time to brighten things up a bit with a set of dialogues over coffee!

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

Celestial Mechanic: "The paper concludes with 18 'consequences' of their theory. Here is a list:"
BH: "That's quite a list! And all of it follows from a mass of word-salad without a single equation?"

CM: "Afraid so. Well, better get started on this, point by point. The first 'consequence', that general relativity is generated from local effects is really a no-brainer. The problem is this: does Findlay and Haenggi's mechanism by which massive particles drain energy from the vacuum provide the right local interactions to be seen as macroscopic gravitation. In the absence of formulas, there's no way to judge whether this is true."

BH: "For their second consequence, they imply that the distortion of spacetime is proportional to the amount of dark matter. Now if that's true, then since the scalar curvature of a large central mass M such as the Sun is proportional to G*M/c²r³ outside the Sun, then the amount of extra matter contained in a sphere of radius R outside the Sun will be proportional to the logarithm of R, and the resulting acceleration will be proportional to 1/R. No evidence for such effects have been seen in the Solar System."

Virginia: "And this is not the way that the Pioneer anomaly behaves. The most important thing about the anomaly is that it has no radial dependence whatsoever. The most mysterious thing about the Pioneer anomaly is that it only affects spacecraft that have gone into hyperbolic orbits. It does not affect planets at all. Their third consequence is not true."

DB: "If they had bothered to read any books on cosmology, they would have learned that in most cosmological models the rate of expansion predicted and observed is at about the -2/3 power of time and so volume increases by the inverse square of the time, not the inverse cube. Consequence four strikes out."

CM: "Let me just clarify that time here means cosmological time, time elapsed since the beginning of the Universe as measured by an observer co-moving with the expansion, that is not having significant 'peculiar motion' of his own."

Jimmy K.: "Their fifth consequence contains their 'thought experiment' that they claim requires three time dimensions. As CM has pointed out, different observers in the same frame see different Doppler shifts that are dependent on the direction. But the actual 'time dilation' of the moving object is dependent on the square of the velocity and the resulting gamma in the Doppler shift equation are both scalars and are the same for all observers in the frame. No need for extra time dimensions at all. By the way, CM, what is this fatal flaw you've referred to?"

CM: "Wait for it, I'll drop it during the 17th consequence."

CM: "As for their sixth consequence, Renormalisation, I find it strange to see them criticize it for being a 'decidedly unmathematical process'. Most ATM types reject renormalization because it is mathematical, or at least too mathematical for them. There being hardly any mathematics in this paper, we really cannot judge except to make the default judgment that they have not demonstrated their case. Your turn, BH."

BH: "I didn't know we were taking turns in a circle, well here goes. The seventh consequence asks why omega is almost exactly one. Of course they do not define it or calculate it any way, they just make a hand-waving assertion that their 'relationship between time and length and energy' will 'naturally produce an expanding universe as long as the arrow of time continues in the same direction'. Of course they haven't really told us what this relationship between length, time and energy is, at least no formulas that I can see. And I certainly don't see how we can have an arrow of time if there are multiple time dimensions allowing us to go continuously from movement in the positive directions of three time dimensions to movement in the negative directions of those same time dimensions."

CM: "Wow, you know, that may even be worse than the fatal flaw I have in mind. Good one!"

V: "The eighth consequence is a repetition of the second consequence, this time for galaxies. Of course they don't actually calculate a rotation curve or anything like that, they just claim that the resulting dark matter distribution 'is exactly the same as the distribution of energy in bent space predicted by FH theory'. Without telling us what that is, of course."

DB: "The ninth consequence partly overlaps with the seventh, again asking why omega is nearly one. They claim that the second law of thermodynamics should cause the Universe to flatten out with the energy is highly 'bent' regions migrating to less 'bent' regions. Of course they state that galactic cores are highly curved regions of spacetime. Where is the evidence of curvature and energy being transported away from galactic cores?"

JK: "The tenth consequence is a misreading of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but I'm not sure why."

DB: "The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle applies to operators that do not commute. The operators for measuring the x-coordinate and the x-component of momentum are canonically conjugate and do not commute with one another, so we cannot measure both to arbitrary precision. Now as for the position and the time, we have no problems with measuring them simultaneously because their operators all commute with one another, contrary to the assertions in consequence 10."

CM: "Consequence 11 is 'Planck's Constant'. It is strange for it to appear here, since it appears nowhere else in the paper. I'm going to quote it in full here:"
CM: "Of course they don't really explain why it exists and has the value that is does. Their arguments are a little better than a certain paper by Schreiber that was referred to in another thread. I wouldn't dream of wasting your time and my coffee on that piece of bird-cage liner. But back to this paper. They claim that a particular space dimension is related to a particular time dimension but again they don't really tell us how. What follows is a bunch of muddle about smallest measurable times and distances somehow forbidding a smallest time interval of zero. There is much misunderstanding about quantum mechanics and when and where it predicts discrete values for measurables that we just don't have time to get into. Consequence 11 is part of the long tradition of amateurs misunderstanding quantum mechanics."

BH: "Consequence 12 is more of the same as consequence 11, this time targeting the speed of light."

V: "Consequence 13 contains questions about inflation. They don't state the questions very well and settle for a claim that their theory does not contradict inflation. Without offering any math to explain why this is so, of course."

DB: "Consequence 14 expresses their misunderstanding about the need for energy to keep electrons in orbit and massive particles in existence. They also claim that this energy of existence gets turned into heat energy. If that's the case, then why is the Universe as a whole so cold? And getting colder?"

JK: "Consequence 15 concerns the arrow of time. They claim it must be in the same direction as in an expanding Universe, but they don't really explain why anywhere."

CM: "I'll handle 16 and 17 together. In consequence 16 they claim that events in the Universe can be described with six coordinates, three of space and three of time. They then state:"
CM: "What does it mean for a coordinate to have not 'occurred'? I presume they mean time dimensions as not occurring, but why not space coordinates 'not occurring'? What is this supposed to mean? Either there are six coordinates or there are not."

V: "Well, maybe they mean that some of the time coordinates are less than the others."

CM: "But that is observer-dependent. Another observer can choose different time coordinates so that different ones are greater or less than others. Some can be positive and some can be negative. It is possible to have a path that starts out as having all time coordinates increasing and gradually turn to having one or all of them decreasing. What possible meaning does the arrow of time have in this instance? There really isn't any.

CM: "And it gets worse with consequence 17. They mention the Maxwell equations but of course do not give them much less solve them or show that their solution really has these properties. Then they give the only attempt at a numerical explanation of their theory. They send two photons out in opposite directions along the x-axis from the origin, (0, 0, 0; 0, 0, 0) with the space coordinates first and time coordinates second. After three seconds the original point and the photons are at:"
BH: "They've got to be kidding!"

CM: "If only it were so. Here is the fatal flaw that I mentioned. In the case of the original point, we can transform the space and time coordinates simultaneously (as they would want us to do) and transform it to (0, 0, 0; 3*sqrt(3), 0, 0) among infinitely many others. Having time elapse the same rate along the three coordinate axes is only valid in one coordinate system. It is not valid in others."

DB: "It's apparent that Findlay and Haenggi know absolutely nothing about coordinate transformations, not even rotations in three-dimensional space. They really need to get themselves to a library for some intense reading."

CM: "Hey! 'Get thee to a library is my line!' Well, I really don't mind if people borrow it, so I suppose it's OK, DB."

CM: "Anyone want to take a shot at consequence 18?"

BH: "I'll do it. They ask how can gravity 'escape' from a black hole if nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. The brief answer is virtual particles. Virtual particles are able to transmit gravity and electromagnetism to the exterior. This results in gravitational effects being felt outside the event horizon, as well as electric and magnetic fields."

CM: "And there we have it. I want you to stick around because even though this thread is turning into a pumpkin I want us to brainstorm a little bit on just what a six-dimensional Universe could be like. By that I mean what sort of physics could we expect and how could we have it without noticing it macroscopically."

DB: "You aren't doing this in order to continue discussion of 'FH Theory', are you?"

CM: "Good heavens, no! But I do want to say that the idea of three time dimensions balancing out three space dimensions is very attractive, and I admit being drawn to it. But a satsifying symmetry doesn't always good physics make. Let's ask ourselves what the consequences of multiple time dimensions are. Let's ask 'what if?'. See you in the next thread and don't be late!"

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.

*** REDONE ***
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


Section 2 - Calculation of the mass of a given volume of space using FH theory - bottom up approach at the quantum scale
R/T = C
Where
R is the Planck length
T is the Plank time and
C is the speed of light
Therefore
R = TC
It follows that for a volume of space of
R^3
That
R^3= T^3 C^3
and
R^3/ T^2 =TC^3
and
R^3/ GT^2 =TC^3 /G
Letting
R^3/ GT^2 =TC^3 /G = B
Then
R^3 = GBT^2
Where B is some property of the volume R^3
It follows that
R = GBT^2/R^2
Now, we know that the distance travelled S under an Acceleration A is given by
S = AT^2/2
So where
R = S
Then
R= AT^2/2 = GBT^2/R^2
and
A = 2GB/R^2
What does this mean? For a given volume of space (R^3) there is a certain property of the volume of space (B) such that an acceleration (A) of the volume can be produced where the acceleration is equal to 2GB/ R^2

Now, a body with a mass of M1 next to this volume of space will have a relative acceleration equal to this in the opposite direction.

It would appear as if a force would be acting on the mass M1 of the magnitude of
M1A = 2GM1B/R^2
Now according to FH theory, this acceleration is a gravitational acceleration -
Therefore the gravitational force F
F = 2GM1B/ R^2
and as
F= GM1M2/R^2
Where M1 is the mass of the particle, M2 is a second mass then, again using FH theory where there is an acceleration even with a single mass, and this acceleration is half of the acceleration caused between two identical masses then as the force for the full acceleration is given by
F= GM1M2/R^2 = 2GM1B/ R^2
for a single particle
F= 2GM1B/2R^2 = GM1B/R^2
We can thus deduce that the property B of the volume R3 is a mass.
And the magnitude of this mass
B = R^3/GT^2
We therefore infer that B is the mass of the volume R^3
Therefore we can generalise that the mass Ma of space of any volume of a cube
with the side length of Ra in a time Ta is given by
Ma = Ra^3/G Ta^2
Ra^3 = MaG Ta^2
When V = Ra^3
Then the rate of change of the volume with time is given by
dV/dT = 2MaG Ta
From this we can deduce that, as the mass (or energy) of the universe and G remain constant, the increase in volume of the universe is directly proportional to the time.



Some calculations with real world values

1) Mass of the Planck volume
Substituting real values for R, G and T we deduce that the mass of vacuum space with a volume equal to the Planck volume R3 is ….
B = (1.616e-35)^3 / (6.674e-11 x 5.391e-44^2)
= 2.18E-08 Kg => the Plank mass!

2) For a cubic meter of Space, in 1 second,
M1 = 1^3 / (6.674e-11 x 1^2)
=1/G = 1.498 x10^10 Kg

3) For the universe
Mu = Ru^3/G Tu^2
Ru= 46.5 billion light years = 4.4x10^26 m
Tu= 13.8 Billion years = 4.35x10^17 s
Mu = 6.73x10^54 Kg
The mass of visible matter is estimated to be about
Mv = 3.0x10^52 Kg estimate presumed to be within 1 order of magnitude
Thus
3x10^51 Kg <Mv<3x10^53
Making the visible mass between
0.05 % to 5% of the total mass of the universe
Rate of change of volume = 1.96 x10^62 m3/s


From Wikipedia…
“However, as noted in the "matter content" section, the WMAP results in combination
with the Lambda-CDM model predict that less than 5% of the total mass of the
observable universe is made up of visible matter such as stars, the rest being made up of
dark matter and dark energy.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

“Significance
The Planck mass is an idealized mass that is thought to have special significance for
quantum gravity when General Relativity and the fundamentals of quantum physics
become mutually important to describe mechanics.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass
“The Planck energy is not only the energy needed (in principle) to probe the Planck
length, but is probably also the maximum possible energy that can fit into a region of that
scale. A sphere 1 Planck length in diameter, containing 1 unit of Planck energy, will
result in a tiny (and very hot) black hole.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_energy


Section 3 - Calculation of the amount of energy absorbed by a proton using FH theory

Assuming there are 2 protons at a distance R apart.
Using equation 4 from section 1
Vp= G MaT/R^2
Then as the kinetic energy in the direction of the second particle is
Epk = Ma Vp^2/2
or
Epk = Ma (G MaT/R^2)^2/2
Using FH theory, for 1 proton the kinetic energy in one direction is
Epk = Mp (G MpT/R^2)^2/4
Using FH theory, for 1 proton the kinetic energy in 6 directions is
Epk = 3Mp (G MpT/R^2)^2/2
Or
Epk= 3Mp (G MpT)^2/2R^4
Or
Epk= 3Mp^2G(G MpT^2)/2R^4
Using equation 15 from section 1
R^3 = G MsT^2
Then
Epk= 3Mp^2GR^3/2R^4
Or
Epk= 3Mp^2G/2R
Therefore at any distance R from a mass Mp the energy absorbed from vacuum space is proportional to the square of the mass and inversely proportional to the distance away.
E= 3M^2G/2R
Gravitational potential energy is given by
Epp= MpAR
And using equation 3 from section 1
Ap = G Ma/R^2
Therefore
Epp= Mp^2G/R
Using FH theory for only one mass and in 6 directions then
Eppt= 3Mp^2G/2R

This is the vacuum energy of space absorbed by a mass M a distance R away according to equation 8 in section 3. Therefore gravitational potential energy is the vacuum energy of space absorbed by a mass.

Some more calculations with real world values

E= 3M^2G/2R, where R = the Planck length and M = the mass of a proton, then

E= 1.7326 x 10^-29 J

For the universe:

Volume of the universe = 3.57 x 10^80 m3

Energy is E= Mc2 Energy of universe is 6.05 x 10^71 J

Energy per Planck volume is 6.99 x 10^-94 J

For a proton:

As the smallest amount of energy absorbed by a proton is 1.7326 x 10^-29 J

This is a mass of 1.84 x 10^-46 Kg

Assuming the previous estimates of the volume and mass of the Universe are correct,

This is equivalent to 2.48 x 10^64 Planck volumes

This is sphere with radius 1.81 x 10^21 Planck lengths

This is 2.92 x 10^-14 m

Therefore a proton should have this as a minimum radius.



Note: The apparent radius of a proton is estimated as being approximately

1.2 x 10^-15 m

Therefore we conclude that

1) our calculation needs to be refined or
2) the estimate of the universe volume needs to be adjusted or
3) the estimate of the mass of the universe needs to be adjusted or
4) some combination of all three of the above


Working this result backwards

1.2 x 10^-15 m is 7.42 x 10^19 Planck lengths

Thus is sphere with radius 7.42 x 10^19 Planck lengths

This gives 1.71 x 10^60 Planck volumes

Energy per Planck volume is therefore 1.01x 10^-89 J

a) If the Mass of universe Mv = 3.0x10^53 Kg

Energy of universe is 2.70x 10^70 J

This is equivalent to 2.670x10^159 Planck volumes

Which gives a universe of Volume e =1.1 x10^55 m3

Or

b) If the Volume of the universe = 3.57 x 10^80 m3

Number of planck volumes = 8.45 x 10^184

Energy of universe is 8.54x 10^94 J

Then Mass of universe Mv = 9.5x10^78 Kg


Conclusions that can be drawn from FH theory are:

The result of FH theory is that the space surrounding any particle with mass will grow smaller over time

Therefore, if you think of units of spacetime as a series of boxes between the particle with mass and an observer sitting on a tower of such boxes, then as the boxes are made smaller due to the energy loss into the particle, then, the particle will appear to cause an acceleration between itself and the observer. The equations to calculate the geodesic of the path of the observer are exactly the same as for general relativity (with mass causing the gravitational fields to bend space time.) Energy is not lost; it is transferred into the kinetic energy of the motion of the particle and observer as they move towards each other.

In addition, as a field can be defined as how a type of energy is distributed around the object associated with the energy, then, FH theory describes a mechanism of how the gravitational energy bound in the space around a mass can be distributed.

The properties of space are then limited as the distribution of the space energy must be identical to the distribution in the gravitational fields of general relativity.

Instead of the mass of the particle by some unknown mechanism creating a field and thus bending space time, space time is bent by the transfer of energy from space time to the (any) particle with mass.

This makes gravity (and general relativity) a local effect of the transfer of small amounts of energy at the quantum scale from space time into particles.

I do not see an answer to my questions.
When are you planning to provide one?

__________________
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)

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
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 ►

The photons take the shortest route between two points. As the space is bent the shortest route is not a straight line. The shortest route is a curve with the inside of the curve towards the body with mass.

Conservation of energy. As the photons do not have rest mass they do not absorb energy from space time. So the "bent space" starts straightening out as it gets itself into equilibrium with the rest of the spacetime around it. i.e. the "gravity" doesn’t just disappear but starts disappearing- Not really noticeable on this scale, but on the scale of two colliding galaxies, the “dark matter = FHtheories bent space energy equivalent" appears to travel through the collision.....Here is a prediction.... the dark matter then appears to disappear from past the collision and reappear around the collided remnants....

Regions of space that have a lesser energy density would "suck" energy from regions of space with a higher energy density => 2nd law of thermodynamics so no local area of nothing appear, unless the energy density is zero. But then the space would disappear as the energy is proportional to the volume

Just space......we presume no energy = no space.... and any space = some energy.....

The big bang... :-) and if you're asking how the big bang got energy..... dunno... not something our theory adresses

We assume that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to vacuum energy to, which would tend to make space isotropic except at disturbances.... we think matter causes disturbances, and the result is what we call gravity... nothing magic or profound as you say, then the rest is logical deduction see the "not word salad part"..,

Yes ... the very same ... again so you can’t really criticize this assumption... well.. I guess it is not really an assumption >>> Are you calling it in this case a proven fact?

The great storyteller is back :-) If you had bothered reading the introduction to THIS thread, you would have noticed that we did away with the 3D time discussion, which formed part of the last thread. This was thanks to you and other valuable feedbacks. Also, your various comments on SPECULATIVE thoughts are just that. That’s why we named it purely SPECULATIVE and these do not form part of the "Theory" to be discussed here. So please – no more ironic mocking but advice on what’s good and what’s bad. We are here to learn and try to make sense of all we read.

Will certainly do! Please excuse any delay in answering.

And can you make this quantitative?
For example, can you calculate the deflection of star light traveling close to the Sun?

__________________
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)

We have already discussed the problem of the Vacuum and Gravitational Field in July 2007.
It seems very similar to your assumption.
Do gravitational fields have mass ?
Reference:
www.blackhole.glt.pl

I have looked at the introduction to this thread and there is no mention of dropping the 3D time discussion. In fact, the first occurrence of the phrase "3D" is in the post quoted above.
So you are actually going to have some substantive real physics this time?
I would also like to read and try to make sense of what you have written, but I have not been able to download your new, improved PDF. The link you give is not to the file itself but to Google Docs. Google Docs loads it into a slow, clunky reader. There is a link to download the PDF (finally), but that link requires me to set up an account at Google Docs. You just don't get it. No one wants to jump through hoops to get a readable version of your magnum opus. Please put a link to your PDF and only your PDF file ON YOUR WEBSITE, not a link to some other website requiring registration and Flying Spaghetti Monster only knows what. Please see if your web designer can do this for you.

I do not have broadband and I have no wish to view a bunch of videos. If you want to have your theory critiqued you will have to make it readily available in a standard format (not MS Word, not Google Doc) in a readily available place -- your website. I will not invite my friends over for coffee and doughnuts without your PDF file to study.

__________________
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.

I read some threads of 'Do Gravitational Fields has Mass?' I came with this lines posted by Mugalleons... "True. Gravity is not energy. It is a tensor. To become energy, it must be coupled with a local mass."... I'm just curious, if gravity is not an energy while others consider it as a kind of force, what seems to be the difference between being not an energy but possess 'force'?

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