Gravitation and the Observer

[Michael Noonan]

Local Gravity and the Observed Universe


Is there a correction factor for deep space energy readings?

The way we see our universe is based on the light we receive. What would happen if we were seeing it differently based on our position in the universe?

Length observed on earth |-------| , real length in space outside gravity well |------------| .

It would appear the same length as light compresses entering our local gravity well.
Fine it looks the same but if zero-field energy is uniform then in deep space there is a larger volume for that energy to exist in.

Sure we would see areas at the same gravity as having the same measurements, but what amount of adjustment is needed for the volume of lower gravity areas?

It would not present a problem visually as the light would arrive in the gravity well of the earth observer and appear to be the correct distance. The problem is that every point of the universe theoretically has an equal zero-field energy value and this is where it gets interesting.

Would there need to be a correcting factor if we were to measure the energy output of the area being observed . Possibly it is a small variation, could it be as much as two. It would definitely need to be less than three as volume is cubed.

If we were out in our dimension measurements by 3 the energy factor would be 3 cubed or 27, then surely that totals more than all the unexplained dark matter and energy combined.

If that was the case our universe would be in a state of collapse.
So even a factor of 2 would require a cosmic rethink if not already factored in.

More complications then arise with observations of the ancient universe where the background energy measured would be lower with the super dense systems existing in higher overall gravity wells.

Michael Noonan

[Cougar]

Interesting thoughts. But the fluctuations we observe in the microwave background, the acoustic peaks, verify that space in our universe is largely flat.

And the spectral shift due to light falling into the gravitational well of our galaxy is very small compared to the shift of light from very distant objects resulting from the expansion of space. It is certainly calculable, but I would guess that it is generally neglected because of its insignificance.

[Nereid]

In addition to the points Cougar makes, there is the general one of (unconsciously?) using key terms from the theories that your idea does great violence to*.

Take 'energy' for example.

This term has a consistent meaning in mainstream cosmology and astrophysics, and is intimately locked into General Relativity or the Standard Model (of particle physics). If your ATM idea involves something quite inconsistent with either GR or the Standard Model - even if you are unaware of that inconsistency - then at some point you will need to work out what 'energy' is, in your ATM idea, in a way that is both internally consistent (within your ATM idea) and with whatever parts of GR and the Standard Model you rely upon (where the domains of applicability overlap).

This may seem odd - I'm sure most of us accept 'energy' as something very 'real', and which exists independent of any theory.

To see that it ain't necessarily so, think of phlogiston, or earth-water-air-fire ... in the minds of the best thinkers of the day, these seemed just as much 'real' and 'independent of theory' as 'energy' no doubt does to most of us today.

*I've noticed that is a very common feature of ATM ideas, as presented in this section of BAUT.

[Michael Noonan]

I was reading whether the universe was round or eliptical, surely that
could only be determined at the measure of something constant in
the universe such as deep space.

Deep space would be consistant with expansion from the point of the
big bang. However we are not. If you look at the balloon like sphere
we are on wouldn't gravity pull the parts with matter and therefore local
gravity together.

We are in the local gravity well of our solar system and of the milky way
generally. So we are by definition shorter and in a shorter time frame.
If we look at the time frame from when it occured are we in a less time
elapsed part of the universe than deep space.

The picture of our balloon is then somewhat like a spiky dogs toy with
the spike facing inwards. The larger the local gravity the more inward
our position on the spike, and by definition the younger we are in time
to the start of the universe.

So deep space even nearby deep space is more consistant a time
reference to a universal measure for time elapsed from the big bang.
Deep space being older than us may be bigger by lack of gravity and
by being older in time elapsed. So the difference may be more than
it not having its own gravity compression.

[Michael Noonan]

First observe the observer.
Our platform is the planet earth. So we are squeezed by the gravity we
stand in. Squeeze happening on horizontal axes X and Z. We also have a platform
so gravity works on us on surface earth shortening us axisY, where Y
is the verticle axis.

In space the Cobe telescope is orbiting. It experiences squeeze on
axes X and Z. However it is orbital velocity that keeps is up.
So on axis Y it is in freefall and therefore stretched.
The fact that it has velocity and is in a slightly different time frame
is possibly not significant.

It was built on earth to exact dimension but the put in space where
it must conform to the laws of space around it. Wouldn't any picture
it takes of a round phenomina show some degree of elipse?

[Nereid]

I was reading whether the universe was round or eliptical, surely that
could only be determined at the measure of something constant in
the universe such as deep space.

Deep space would be consistant with expansion from the point of the
big bang. However we are not. If you look at the balloon like sphere
we are on wouldn't gravity pull the parts with matter and therefore local
gravity together.

We are in the local gravity well of our solar system and of the milky way
generally. So we are by definition shorter and in a shorter time frame.
If we look at the time frame from when it occured are we in a less time
elapsed part of the universe than deep space.

The picture of our balloon is then somewhat like a spiky dogs toy with
the spike facing inwards. The larger the local gravity the more inward
our position on the spike, and by definition the younger we are in time
to the start of the universe.

So deep space even nearby deep space is more consistant a time
reference to a universal measure for time elapsed from the big bang.
Deep space being older than us may be bigger by lack of gravity and
by being older in time elapsed. So the difference may be more than
it not having its own gravity compression.You seem to be including an effect predicted by General Relativity (GR), one which has been measured with considerable accuracy, both here on Earth, on some stars (Sirius B, for example), and near some super-massive black holes (SMBH).

The size of this effect is tiny, so the difference it would make, in terms of observations of the kind you seem to be referring to, would be far below what we can detect, today.

Or, if you are proposing (an ATM idea) that the effect is, pace GR, huge, then you need to spell out what your ATM idea actually is, and how it can account for all the good observational and experimental results which are consistent with GR.

Can you?

[Nereid]

First observe the observer.
Our platform is the planet earth. So we are squeezed by the gravity we
stand in. Squeeze happening on horizontal axes X and Z. We also have a platform
so gravity works on us on surface earth shortening us axisY, where Y
is the verticle axis.

In space the Cobe telescope is orbiting. It experiences squeeze on
axes X and Z. However it is orbital velocity that keeps is up.
So on axis Y it is in freefall and therefore stretched.
The fact that it has velocity and is in a slightly different time frame
is possibly not significant.

It was built on earth to exact dimension but the put in space where
it must conform to the laws of space around it. Wouldn't any picture
it takes of a round phenomina show some degree of elipse?Well, as WMAP, which produced far more accurate and precise measurements of the CMB than COBE did, 'orbits' the L2 Earth-Sun point, and as the 'calibration' of the raw data was done on board (look at all those differencing thingies), I guess that pretty much knocks out your ATM idea, doesn't it?

[Michael Noonan]

Thank you

It is always nice to know that the obvious things have been
taken care of.

Cheers Michael Noonan

[Michael Noonan]

This is what I was thinking when looking at gravity and I know
it has been posted by me under "GR & The Universe" by Russt.

The idea is along what if the end of things changed the start of others.
This was a reply to the big crunch but it seems to have some link here
too.

The inverse of the Big Bang what would it look like?
Fair enough shape might be important. So might heat, spin, stretch,
fold or flow.
My high school description.

1. If the universe crunches back as an even sphere:-
All the matter and whats left of heat fall inwards.
The matter collects into black holes and they join up.
All wavelengths fall into the event horizon.
Ultimately they meet at a point and form one singularity.

2. If the universe experiences an unbalanced collapse:-
Picture the universe as the neck of a balloon dense at one point.
This part collapses first to a singularity and drags in the rest.
This may look like a deflating sausage.

If the neck goes inwards the sphere falls in on itself.
It may pull the back of the sphere into the point of singularity.
This would look like a doughnut flatened on one side.
So one centre is falling in more rapidly.

The sphere may have more than one density region.
This may resemble a bunch of grapes with one common point.
The collapse may appear to be occuring in several places to the
observer on the outer surface of this collapse.

3. If the fabric twists there may be spin:-
At least matter falling into a black hole is represented as spinning.

Finally there is one singularity full of all the super dense matter.
When the last of the grapes or whatever is drawn in there is no more space
to exert gravity in. The singularity is surrounded by space time as it too
approaches the point of singularity. They meet time ends.

Funny thing this, what to do with all the matter of the universe as it is no
longer contained. It is unwrapped from time and appears.

It may have the size of a marble or a grapefruit or a house or a star.
It is spinning and now at a size where its outer surface is moving faster
than light. Remember it was singularity size at the end of the collapse.

This is where time begins. The outer surface is blown off and forms a disk
of high energy wavelenghts. The matter now has a new time space surface
rapidly expanding and collapses under its own weight into a singularity.

The wave of light is followed by a wave of gravity that does not catch up with
the light due to the time lost in falling into a singularity. Everything between
the new disk of "energy" and the singularity ends up staying in the singularity
until this new time space universe collapses.

The black hole at the centre of the universe doesn't start pulling on the matter
in the new universe until it starts forming some one to two hundred thousand
years from time start of the new big bang.

As time goes by the gravity of the central black hole slows down the matter
but has no effect on the empty regions of this sphere. It appears to the people
of this time that empty space has its own energy and is accelerating.

This process will repeat every 20 to 30 billion years. The inhabitants of this time
realise that their only escape is to separate themselves from the time and space
connection to the central black hole and ride out the next collapse.

I may be totally wrong about this but it was fun and a description of a collapse.
Cheers

[Nereid]

Have you done any work to take this idea beyond the 'just words' stage? How about checking which parts of it are consistent with the physics in today's textbooks (and which parts not)?

[Michael Noonan]

The challenge is not that we have to worry about the end of it.
The problem is arriving at the beginning.
The cosmic background radiation is flat yes but at a level just above flat.

Our "space" expanded to far like a balloon powered by a charge.
Large quantities of the matter were stored in black holes.
Their gravity gave overall "space" a slightly positive reading of gravity.

After the initial slow down "space" was overextended without the mechanism
to contract back into equilibrium.
The voids became the powerhouse solutions for bringing "space" back together.

The void has a positive overall gravity reading and so "pushes" outwards.
This creates the negative field required for a wormhole above zero.
The wormhole forms upwards and seeks a high energy source to connect with.

When it does it must loop back down and attach to the high energy source.
It loops in over the event horizon of a black hole and steadily energises the void.
The voids grow larger and some billions of years later have the energy needed.

The balance ratio is 1 : 3 which energy achieves quite quickly.
This is seen as dark energy.
Matter earth wind fire water and all other stuff takes longer.
It must balance with dark matter the mirror of its own mass also in 1 : 3 ratio.

At 13.7 billion years we are still building up to it.
As I said the void is the powerhouse of the universe and is attached to black holes.
When it has the required pull at the event horizon with the assistance of the
local galaxy it draws the singularity out of the black hole.

Due to the effect of time travel in accordance with relativity the singularity must
travel back in time to.
It gets to its destination and super inflates and forms a galaxy in the void.
The conduit closes at the event horizon on release of singularity.
This is because there is no longer the energy source to power it.
This seals "space" in the galaxy which no longer has a black hole.

At first the minor black holes get returned and so on to the biggest.
When all the matter and energy is in "space" the voids still operate randomly
picking a galaxy here and there.
The travel backwards if survivable still wipes out all knowledge as time travels
backwards in the wormhole.

So you see humanity went on to have a great future and colonized the universe
but just occasionally something went wrong and some got caught and were
sent back.
The irony is that time travel and incredible development has already occurred for
humanity it is just that the generations of the future can't be sure we are not
the ancestors of their past so all contact other than polite observation is totally
forbidden in case they cause their own extinction.

Which is a shame really because it would have been nice to know what the whales
could have become if we hadn't eaten them.

[Thanatos]

The dots you are connecting are not on the same page. Causality is the most inviolable premise in all of science [an arrow of time thing]. Time is orderly. It can be bent, even twisted into knots, but never reversed in our observable universe.

[Michael Noonan]

The dots you are connecting are not on the same page. Causality is the most inviolable premise in all of science [an arrow of time thing]. Time is orderly. It can be bent, even twisted into knots, but never reversed in our observable universe.


True, very true and I have no argument with this very correct stated fact in any way or shape what so ever.

Cheers

[Michael Noonan]

This bit still holds true;


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thanatos View Post
The dots you are connecting are not on the same page. Causality is the most inviolable premise in all of science [an arrow of time thing]. Time is orderly. It can be bent, even twisted into knots, but never reversed in our observable universe.

True, very true and I have no argument with this very correct stated fact in any way or shape what so ever.

Cheers

This of course means that while time is orderly multilevel can be bent twisted the one thing I forgot to mention was the way in which we plough through it.

Cheers

[Michael Noonan]

For those who haven't followed my babbling threads I think there is a good chance that the universe could be reasonably well described by the alternate Twister theory that was discarded by Professors Penrose and Hawkins in 1967.

With a bit of luck this thread might stay in against the mainstream.

I agree with a number of people here in ATM with pieces of many theories
and describe gravity as slightly different, a factor of one in a million.

Gravity is an energy density anchored at the quantum level to matter and by attaching it to the tenth dimension string level allows it to exceed the strong nuclear force. The other end is looped out through structure back to mass at string level.

This to a degree should link GR and QM.

To make it work gravity needs all aspects of energy, mass, dark energy, and dark matter to be included in the model. Twister is a good model we just need to change gravity.

When nuclear action such as fusion occurs gravity is effected only in the
amount that is converted to energy. I do like E=mc^2.
That links gravity to both matter and energy and makes it the basis for
all relativity to be exact in fields of equal gravity density.

This is the observe the observer bit here, I hope it helps.

I was forgetting one of the most sensitive instruments that some of us have.
We react to change so do any of the researchers in accelerator facilities feel unwell or even if we have some of the highly trained space crews that have felt micro gravity adjustment visit. They would know if they are experiencing the same symptoms around this equipment.

If it is exactly the same as when they returned from space, then perhaps we are changing gravity density.

Maybe the safest and cheapest test is how we feel around certain types of exotic energy generating machinery. If it doesn't feel good don't do it.

Cheers