In thinking about Aristotle (was it him? :unsure: ) describing space as 'aether'...
and Newton describing the idea of gravity being some unseen force which mysteriously reaches across space between objects as "absurd"...
and Einstein considering gravity as "a curvature of space, not a mysterious force between objects"...
and 'quantum foam' (with 'now you see it, now you don't' particle-pair creation)...
and 'quintessence' ...
and 'inflation' ...
and 'universal acceleration' or 'second inflation' ...
over the years, I have built up a picture of what space-time might be, and how it might behave ... :blink:

Has anyone else imagined a universe where space-time is always expanding, but galaxies are not necessarily moving apart...? :huh:

Oh, if any moderators think this question might be more appropriate in 'Alternative Theories', please advise and/or re-post it ... I wasn't sure where to put it, and I'm not claiming it as a theory... :unsure:

__________________

Hmm.. either this is very simple (eg. Andromeda and Milky Way are definitely not moving apart) or much too hard for me (where "moving apart" is not synonymous with "increasing separation").

However your post inspires me to confess that I'm not entirely clear about the difference between the Ether (completely dismissed) and curved space-time (mainstream). Both to me imply that space(-time) has some sort of absolute independent existence. How does this measure up to your picture, cran?

I'll admit, Joff, that I'm not too clear about the classical concept of 'aether', except that it was envisaged as a substance, independent of 'Earthly elements' - which were pure, theoretical elements of 'earth', 'water', 'air' and 'fire' in order of decreasing mass or density - anything that could be found on the Earth could be defined in terms of some combination of these four 'elements', but the 'pure' elements could not be found anywhere ... even fires as we know them contained impurities of earth (ash) and 'air' (vapours) and even 'water' (steam which cools to form recognisable water) - but "the heavens" or space appeared to be removed and mostly immune to these 'elements' and so must have comprised something else - a 'fifth element' which had less density than even fire, but was a substance nonetheless... :huh:

Space (or space-time) has certain definable non-zero properties - permeability and permittivity; average density and temperature - as well as constructed properties - overall expansion, local curvature in response to the presence of mass (or matter) - and some quantum properties - 'fluctuations' or 'foam' - all of which suggest that 'space-time' is indeed a substance rather than an 'absence of substance' - added up (in my amateur brain) these properties lead me to think of space as 'the ultimate (but not quite perfect) low-viscosity fluid' (so, yes an independent substance rather than an absence) ... and that, if it has a 'fundamental' unit or particle, that 'fundamental' unit or particle will be indistinguishable from the postulated 'gravitons' (except that 'gravitons' are thought to be emitted by matter, rather than attracted to matter).

Instead of the 'thought' image of a rubber sheet (a common illustration for a gravity field) which implies a static existence, I imagine space-time in the presence of matter to be a 'flow' towards that matter - the easiest analog I have conceived is this :wacko: :-

If you've ever seen one of those Canadian or Northwest US logging movies, where the tree is cut down, trimmed and then lowered into a river with a strong current ... you will note that the log is not so much being pulled by the ocean (using some pseudomagnetic 'force') but is simply 'going with the flow' of the river ... if you were silly enough to try and stop it (or worse, move it upstream against the flow) you would notice that: first, a log moving towards you exerts a greater force than one not moving; and 2) it would require much more energy on your part to prevent (or reverse) this motion than if you just hopped on and went along for the ride... :P

By thinking of space-time in this way, I find it easier to understand the similarity between gravity and acceleration of mass ... the greater the concentration of mass, the more space-time will flow towards it (per unit cross-section per unit time); the faster a concentration of mass moves through space-time, the more space-time can interact with it (per unit cross-section per unit time) ... :huh:

What happens to space-time when it interacts with quantum particles ... who knows? Perhaps it is (or becomes) the 'energy' which gives particles their active properties (ie, 'spin' or oscillation or whatever the particle's intrinsic motion is...) :blink:

Translating that to the large-scale structure of the universe, what happens to space-time between large aggregations of mass, such as galaxies? Could we envisage that space-time appears to 'stretch' or flow towards each of these aggregations, and is then replaced (using that 'quantum fluctuation') :unsure:

And what happens to particles (eg, photons, intergalactic spaceships, etc) which traverse that intervening space-time? Would they then behave as though they have had to pass through more of that intervening spacetime 'flow' than if space-time were a static field? :unsure:

The recently discovered 'universal accelerated expansion' - which requires a "false vacuum" or 'dark energy' or something to explain it, I only recently found out seems to have begun about 5 billion years ago - within the order of magnitude of the formation and evolution of our solar system - perhaps the observed 'acceleration' does not extend beyond about 5 billion years ago because there did not exist the concentration of mass "here" (from our frame of reference) much more than 5 billion years ago... and that the observed 'acceleration' is an independent confirmation of the formation of the solar system and the change in 'flow' of space-time towards this aggregation of mass... :wacko:

I'm not trying to overthrow existing theories... I'm not even sure that I'm trying to reconcile QT with GRT ... I am simply trying to understand what might otherwise be contradictory observations ... and to imagine a better analog than 'the infinitely stretchable rubber sheet' for the behaviour of space-time in the presence of mass... if that makes this an 'Alternative Theory', rather than a 'Question and Answer', then I do apologise for having posted in the wrong thread -_-

(as I look back over what I've written, perhaps it does more properly belong in AT; but I don't know maths, so if you tell me the equations don't work, I'll take your word for it...) :unsure:

__________________

Then there is this and this.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

:huh: okay... :blink: GH...
I come before you on bended knees,
wondering whether I should be awed by your inspiration and genius...
or laughing out loud at your clever sarcasm ...
and ask:
1- how should I take your offered information? :huh:
2 - do your posts indicate that I should...
or shouldn't think of space-time as a flow field rather than an implied static 'rubber sheet' of apparently infinite stretchability? :unsure:

__________________

Cran, your idea about space-time is not new, many people, noticable those who argue for matter made of waves (spaceandmotion.com , http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm , http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/ , and David Ford (aka Finitness_does_not_exists on UT, unfortunatly, link to his page does not work anymore)).
It's very difficult to find the holes in such constructions of Ether (not that I'm looking for them :-)).
(word in bold added by me)
The same can be said for Einstein's interaction between mass and ST, where ST is not physical entity.
That's why many argued thet GRT is just another ether-theory (if you curve ST, then it must exists physically, if it exists physically then SRT postulat is wrong (or SRT is wrong, M-M experiment is wrong or not valid using just one (Earth's)reference frame)
We never achieved the vaccum without some kind of matter in it.
It's impossible (with current technology) to screen all those neutrinos away, just to name one component.
When we explore properties of the vacuum, we actually explore ST properties without barionic mass, so to say. We don't know anything about ST, so the properties we have left are those "constructed".
I think that expanding ST, without expanding Universe fits in several alternative theories (La Sage's pushing gravity, David Ford's zinfinity, H. Yilmaz's (?) GRT ...)
Of those alternatives, I look for those constructed by people with some accreditation, like Ether Gauge Theory. Ronald R. Hutch makes some exciting predictions for results of Gravity Probe B experiment (test against SRT), so I can't wait for GP-B results.

Well when talking about space&time... I've read that time actually depends on speed /faster movement - slower time/. So I am wondering - since galaxies are all moving at different speeds then time will be constant everywhere but with a different value. And that is really true what happens at speed 0 ie the center of the universe ? :blink: Well my head hurts today, don't mind me :P

P.S. Neutrinos cannot be stopped.

"time will be constant everywhere but with a different value."
I'm not sure I understood this.
Did you mean, constant for a given galaxy reference frame, but different value for every galaxy?
It's usually expressed in SRT as different time for the observers in different reference frames.
In ether theories it's usually expressed as slowing the clock rate, which depends of the mass of the frame of the reference (it's prefered contrary to the SRT), which in turn is connected to the density of the ether (gravitational push) around the massive objects.
But, when talking movement of the galaxies, there is a catch.
All above is applied to kinetic movement of the reference frames, which is what SRT is about. The movement of the galaxies in Bing Bang theory (incorporating constructed properties to the ST from GRT, like curvature) is caused by expanding ST, they don't move by themselves, they are at the rest to each other, it's expansion that drives them from each other.
So, you can't actually apply Special Theory of Relativity, that is theory describing FLAT space-time to the real space-time that is CURVED in General Theory of Relativity (and BBT).
The reason you can apply i.e. "relativistic" equation for redshift from SRT to the observed redshift changes (non-constancy of the Hubble constant) is that Universe is observed to be FLAT (or nearly flat) on any scale measured.
You have 2 possibilities:
1.to dismiss BBT (and GRT as valid description of Universe on the largest scales) and consider Universe as flat, infinite , ever-existing or
2. believe that BBT is correct, GRT is correct on largest scales, but we live in VERY special time, when Universe is FLAT, but has not been flat and is on it's way away from flatness
But more on this in Alternative section :-).

I don't recall any mention of time dependence in Newton's original statement ... I had read an extract from one of his own essays or letters ... but as this was many years ago, it might just be my infamous memory letting me down again... :unsure:
The same? Meaning I should insert "instantly" somewhere in Einstein's explanation of gravity?
Why would SRT or M-M experiment be wrong? I thought the M-M experiment was to test whether c was constant in a given frame of reference? :unsure:
:huh:
Yet you remain confident that the vacuum is ST (assuming ST means space-time?)?
:blink:
And yet entire cosmologies seem to be based on ST, its properties, and the behaviour of populations within it ...? :unsure:
:P
Oh good! >phew!< So, I'm not the only nut in the fruitbowl... But, as I hope I explained before, I'm not looking to build a theory... to quote from StarLab - "Cran, in his ever-so-lengthy fashion..." was trying to find out 1: whether a better illustration of Einstein's view of gravity is a dynamic flow rather than an infinitely stretchable static rubber sheet, and 2: if so, would that have some implications relating to our observations of the universe which might then not require 'false vacuums', 'dark energies', undiscovered 'gravitons', 'second inflationary eras', etc...
Regardless of my views about the BBT, I don't see how any of this could work to supplant it, but perhaps it might make some of the attendant 'weirdness' unnecessary... :unsure:

thanks for the tip, Svemir ... 'exciting predictions'? yes, I like results - I won't have a clue what they'll mean... I'll the experts argue over them, and then see how I feel about those results...

Sorry to hear about your head hurting, jayfb, but thanks for the tip... I promise I won't try to stop any neutrinos...

:huh:
are you sure about that, Svemir? ... should we tell all those interacting galaxies that they are not moving? What about the so-called 'river of galaxies' all apparently converging on the 'Great Attractor'? And all that talk about Andromeda approaching the Milky Way is... a hoax?
:huh:
So...it's 'curved'?... but it's 'observed to be flat? ... and it's 'expansion? that drives them? ... from each other'? :blink:
Well, okay... :unsure: but what does this have to do with 1: whether a better illustration of Einstein's view of gravity is a dynamic flow rather than an infinitely stretchable static rubber sheet, and 2: if so, would that have some implications relating to our observations of the universe which might then not require 'false vacuums', 'dark energies', undiscovered 'gravitons', 'second inflationary eras', etc...? :huh:

__________________

'Space-time' is energy (time=motion). Space-time (energy) field expands universally, creating pressure when it attempts to expand into already existing space-time; creates spinning regions of compressed space-time (energy). In the vicinity of these regions space-time field does not expand or expands relatively more slowly. 'Matter' is the manifestation of 'gravitational field' which is itself converging space-time coordinates (i.e. compressed energy). Universal evolution is continual harmonization of field and 'matter'.

Hi ngeo, welcome to my nightmare...
So... you are suggesting that space-time (energy) acts counter to all other flow-fields or energies, in that it moves from regions of low potential towards regions of high potential? :blink: I have imagined mass (rather than matter) as 'constrained' energy ... is that close? Is your 'gravitational field' static or dynamic? :unsure: It sounds good...

__________________

hi cran, hope I don't add to your nightmare -

The way I see it, energy as 'space-time' is the only energy there is. I'm not really clear about other flow-fields or energies, but the 'forces' other than gravity I believe will be seen to evolve out of the fundamental field, which is an expanding field (although I haven't the foggiest idea how the other force relate, at the moment - I think it needs moving imagery showing the motion of, for example, a sphere spinning simultaneously on three axes on its surface while acting as a three-axial vortex in its interior).

The idea is that motion, represented by the 'time' of 'space-time', forms the basis of our measurement of it. In other words, when we measure 'gravity', we are actually trying measuring that with which we measure - time and space. Like using a ruler to measure itself. If the ruler is variable according to the situation (i.e. frame of reference), how can we know the situation (and the ruler) is changing? Only by measuring it with a ruler that is not in that particular situation. (Like Einstein's clocks.) So a 'gravitational field', being a specific system of changing space-time coordinates, isn't a manifestation of a force but the very 'structure' of a moving universe that appears to be a force to us because things move in it. (I have asked in this forum whether 'gravity' moves at the speed of light or instantaneously, and it appears the 'mainstream' understanding is that it moves at the speed of light. But 'speed' varies according to the space-time in which the motion takes place. So 'gravity' can't be said to move at any speed, it is the variable ruler by which 'speed' is measured. You may as well say that 'gravity' is 'instantaneous' because it determines the co-ordinates of the ruler.

Whether 'matter' is 'compressed' or 'constrained' energy - 'constrained' implies to me something being held back. I don't look at it quite that way. In this scenario, matter evolves as a response to pressure created in the field by the action of the field energy on the already-created field. Initially, certain regions begin to spin (because the universe is not perfect). Spin (on the equivalent of three axes) absorbs the pressure of the field. At a certain point there is a kind of equilibrium, in which the 'matter' absorbs all the immediately available energy of the field, and there follows a kind of 'breathing' in which the field and the body of matter trade energy with each other. As the universe evolves, 'matter' is created in cycles just inside the 'edge' of the field (I know, there isn't supposed to be an edge - but in this scenario there is). Combinations of matter may arise that create a more efficient absorbing mechanism, in which case they radiate out to the field. Huge conglomerations of matter may be capable of absorbing far more energy than the field can produce, so they constantly radiate back into the field. These conglomerations are created because, in the vicinity of spinning regions, the field does not expand. It may even contract (i.e. space-time coordinates converge). Gravitational fields! So 'matter' is the manifestation of a gravitational field, which is the manifestation of energy - spacetime - being absorbed by a spinning region.

A gravitational field in this scenario couldn't easily be characterized as being static or dynamic, because once again it is the ruler by which 'static' or 'dynamic' is measured. However, in this scenario I think of 'spacetime' as being an energetic medium (as well as being the 'bodies' that reside within it and form part of it), so it is certainly dynamic. It brings up the question of how radiation or bodies travel through this medium. Radiation is simply a disturbance through the medium, while bodies moving through it are constantly trading with the medium (the field).

This is very wierd to me, since nobody has treated this as worthy of even considering before. I am a self-certified ignoramus who tried to figure out what a singular universe powered by a single 'force' would look like. Now I really hope I haven't added to your nightmare.

Yes, and it must be measured/observed to move no faster than c because c must be constant in all frames of reference ...
ditto, ngeo ... I was more concerned that I am so dense about these things the gravity generated might simply have drawn you in with no possibility of escape...

What little (very little) I understand of the 3 fundamental forces is that they involve a transfer of energy (or particle) and the gross effect is one of 'attraction' ... in mesoscopic and macroscopic systems flow is always from regions of highest potential to regions of lowest potential ... or higher energy-state to lower energy-state ... or higher pressure to lower pressure ... that's why, even though there seem to be many similarities in how you are describing your view of universal space-time, your concept of actively expanding (and pressure building) space-time is completely counter to mine where space-time is dynamic (ie not static but always in motion) but passive, and only responding to concentrations of mass (I use mass rather than matter, because there are forms of mass 'increase' or 'mass equivalence increase' which do not entail an increase in matter (eg, inertia) ... that the motion or flow of space-time is a transferable energy ... so that the interaction of space-time with mass entails a loss (or transfer) of that energy to the mass (with regard to matter, that would mean that the flow of space-time can be the source of energy that maintains 'the spin' or instrinsic motion (and therefore the continued existence) of quantum particles (quarks, etc) ... in this way, space-time does not violate either the nature of fundamental forces nor the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... because the interaction with mass would entail a change from higher potential to lower potential by the transfer of its instrinsic energy ... we experience it as mass or mass-equivalence and as the flow of gravity towards mass... :blink:

__________________

OK, but how can you say it has speed when there is no way to measure it - like everyone is saying - it is not likely that there are gravitons so gravity has to do with particles as much as bringing my food on the floor and gravitons have nothing to do with my burger. And so if this is a field not made of any particles whatsoever how can we say it has speed and not only direction and density /which formes an open circuit :blink: which is more interesting to me.../

Oh, and you added to mine.

/sorry if me word sound lame, i am a bit less aware of life, universe and everything than most of ya fellas :P /

Sorry for confusion Cran.
Newton may not have said exactly that, I added it because it's a core in Newton approach. I bolded it to underscore unphysical part of Newtonian gravity.
Of course the speed of gravity is c in GRT.
"The same" is comment on mass acting upon ST.
Actually, there was an atempt to measure it, look for Kopeikin in arxiv or on the net. Some mainstream scientist along with dissidents (Tom van Flandern -kopeikin) argued that he was not measuring the speed of gravity but merely the speed of light, but Kopeikin responded last (in arxiv).

SRT is wrong if you regard GRT as an ether theory.
I thaught M-M experiment was the test for ether drag, leting two beams of light go different paths it should arrive at different times. M-M experiment showed zero (averaged !) result: no ether drag. The constancy of the ligh, I believe, was postulated by Einsten after the experiment as a part of SRT.
Of course relativists refuted that GRT is an ether theory, so both SRT and GRT are valid.

Beloved child has many names.
Vacuum for me has nothing in itself, someone will call it "true vacuum" as opposed to ether, false vacuum,zero-point energy, etc..

He he cran, I'm not so ...
Proper motions of galaxies are just not significant in redshift cosmology.
What is Andromedas 300 km/s (due to proper motion) compared to 6c (6x3x10^5km/s) of some objects (due to expansion)?
No, it's not.
As observed, it's not.
As theorized it's curved, but just coincidentally it's flat in our era.
(Can you believe that?)

On the question about better explanation of gravity (better then Einstiens):
The major problem with GRT is it's incompatibility with Quantum theory, mainly because GRT does not provide physical explanation of gravity, it merely describes how gravity acts between masses (or how it acts on ST), not what gravity is.
Unless you or others provide the answer what the gravity is, there is no need to explain how gravity acts once again (after Newton and Einstein).
Both Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity are exellent approximations in the regime of low gravity.
Newton does not work in the regime of strong gravity (black holes, warm loops and such things).
But it's not quite sure that Einstein works on cosmological scales, so your description will have big implications on standard cosmology.
I would like to see that, specially redshift problem. (Does it raise from your wiev as it does from Yilmaz RT (all redshift is gravitational))

jayfb, even if we cannot measure speed of gravity directly, we can measure its effects and the speed of change of those effects when the primary source changes.

I don't know if it's ever been done, but in a binary system where one star is giving up mass to another (which is accreting that mass) then the common centre of rotation would be shifting towards the star gaining mass, and the influence of that star over the other one would be increasing...

if we can measure the rate of mass change in each star, and the distance between them, then calculate the rate of change of motion, and check that against the observed rate of change... that should confirm whether the gravitational influence has responded (moved from source to target) at c or at some other velocity...

similarly, a star which spontaneously sheds a significant proportion of its mass should exhibit a proportional reduction in its gravitational influence ... if there is a known object within the original field of influence, it's response to the change (reduction) should occur at c (which should be faster than the shockwave of material shed)... again, if the change in response is instantaneous, then it should be even more distinct.

The changes I've described may be too small to detect at the distances where these binaries are... and the orientation may not be suitable for good observations ... it may be that suitable models of this can be constructed in labs ... didn't someone build two suspended cylinders or something that showed the influence of gravity between them ... my memory is rotten sometimes... but if someone did do that, then introduce a sudden change in mass in one of the objects and measure the time it takes for that change to affect the other ... you have the speed of gravity.

__________________

Svemir, hi.
I'm going to ask you to be patient... there are still a lot of points you've made and I want to be fair to each, as best as I can.
Right now I need some sleep... I'll try and at least make a start on it when I wake up, but this will also be the "day before the big move when the truck arrives at 6.30am the following morning to load everything up" >thinks< who the heck starts at 6.30 in the morning? Anyway, that's what the removalist told me today on the phone - so it's last minute panic time for me.
So it may be a couple of days before you get anything like an intelligent answer - assuming of course I can ever give anything like an intelligent answer. :blink:

__________________

Svemir, at the risk of running 'off-topic': I wasn't aware of that... but, if you say so, okay... :huh:
Again, at the risk of running 'off-topic': I still don't understand what you mean by "the same"... :huh:
Again, I wasn't aware of that... but, if you say so, okay... :huh: Okay, but that doesn't tell me if you view ST as 'the vacuum'... :huh:
If a curved surface is large enough, it may appear flat to an observer... so, yes... but I must hold the possibility that it is not, until it can be substantiated... :huh:
I'm not seeking a better "explanation" of gravity; I'm seeking a better "illustration" of gravity - ie, something other than "an infinitely stretchable rubber sheet"... what I know about SRT, GRT, QT, and all the other Ts could fit on a postage stamp ... in 10pt bold ... I'm not about to make the mistake of saying "everyone is wrong, and I'm the only one who knows the right answer!" I lay no claim to a theory; I don't have the first idea how to present, establish, validate, quantify, or defend a theory. At best, I have an idea ... and maybe a better (simpler?) way to mentally picture what is happening with ST and mass ... that's all <_<
Agreed.
Perhaps ... but only if the description is 1. relevant; 2. accurate; 3. valid; and 4. erudite ... these are measures I'm not qualified to make... <_<
I am not aware of 'Yilmaz RT' (the things I am not aware of could fill libraries...) but I don't think I'd be comfortable with the concept that 'all' redshift is gravitational - my understanding is that gravity should affect redshift, but not that gravity accounts for all redshift... :huh:

__________________

I have to differ on the speed of 'gravity'. The first website on a google search for 'speed of gravity' offers some interesting observations ('The Speed of Gravity - What the Experts Say'). If gravity determines the 'form' of spacetime measurement, that means any measurement of gravity is done within the 'form' of gravity - how do you measure a ruler with itself? It is like being within a system but pretending you are looking at it from the outside.

I have read something to the effect that "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells matter how to move", as if there are two independent entities interacting with one another. (Illustrations of a big net sagging with a ball in the sag also come to mind - one problem in attempting to understand four 'dimensions' by using only three 'dimensions' is that you will receive a false impression.) In my scenario there is no independent 'spacetime' (or ether, which was supposed to have mass). 'Space' and 'time' are human inventions - our way of measuring events that occur. That bodies of 'matter' seem to be surrounded by 'emptiness', but interact 'over time' through empty 'space', is historical. But I believe that both empty space and bodies of matter are manifestations of the same energy 'source', which is an energetic, expanding spatial field. The 'time' part of spacetime acknowledges the essential feature of energy, which is motion. But both 'space' and 'time', as our measurements of the flows of energy of the field, depend on where we are and what we are looking at.

Cran, in response to your statement that "space-time is dynamic (ie not static but always in motion) but passive, and only responding to concentrations of mass (I use mass rather than matter, because there are forms of mass 'increase' or 'mass equivalence increase' which do not entail an increase in matter (eg, inertia) ... that the motion or flow of space-time is a transferable energy ... so that the interaction of space-time with mass entails a loss (or transfer) of that energy to the mass (with regard to matter, that would mean that the flow of space-time can be the source of energy that maintains 'the spin' or instrinsic motion (and therefore the continued existence) of quantum particles (quarks, etc). . . ."

- I don't think it is space-time that moves, or flows - space-time is our measurement of a flow. But between 'empty space' and 'mass', yes there is a continual transfer - back and forth, depending on events. Once a spinning region has the ability to absorb the field energy, they enter into a stable relationship with each other and transfer energy back and forth. Further evolution always takes place in the context of the transfer of energy between the expanding field (which doesn't expand in the vicinity of spinning regions) and massive 'particles' or bodies, depending on their particular motions and the temporary changes in relative potentials. There is always a flow of some kind. There is no essential difference between the 'particles' and the 'empty' field, they are both 'made' of the same 'thing'. But to an observer they appear to be different, because of the particular appearance and action of the 'particle' and the non-apparence of the 'field'. But I think the 'field' does become apparent in certain instances, for example in the 'shroud' that surrounds an electron, and in the intrinsic spin of particles.

"The same" in Newton and Einstein (mass-mass and mass-ST interaction) is "unseen force"

Could the perceived "universal accelerated expansion" actually be due to the SLOWING of the expansion rate of the universe? If the expansion rate of the universe was actually decreasing, could it cause (here's the dumb, wacky part) the galaxies to become SMALLER and only the SPACE between them to get larger, causing us to wrongly perceive that the galaxies were accelerating away from each other faster than expected? I mean, if mass or matter or whatever it is becomes infinitely large as it approaches the speed of light, wouldn't the opposite be true as well? If so, could galaxies get smaller as their acceleration through space-time decreased? (I don't really know anything about any of this. It just occurred to me that we ought to disappear if we are not moving through space at all. . . Is that completely dumb? Sorry for being in left field; I just read that Faster Than the Speed of Light book, and now I think I'm some kind of expert or something! Thought I better ask people who know what they're talking about.

If the effect of gravity is intantaneous -- in other words, if gravity is indeed the lay of the land, the shape of the rubber sheet, rather than a force carried by particle/waves at the speed of light (I do recognize that the distinction between these two apparently contradictory concepts may turn out to be analogous to the distinction between particles and waves, but I can't conceive of what that would really mean) -- does it need to be taken into account that all the matter we see is entirely in our past, while the gravity currently affecting us reflects the amount and distribution of matter in our present?

Obviously, the only gravity which has a significant affect on the Earth is that of the Sun, the moon and any other mass in our immediate neighborhood, so maybe there's no way you could ever discern any discrepancy between a scenario in which gravity's effect is instantaneous and one in which it propagates at the speed of light. The gravitational pull of the Andromeda Galaxy upon the Earth would be too slight to detect, even if there was no other mass in the entire universe creating interference ("gravitational background noise"), so there'd be no way to tell the difference between a scenario in which Andromeda's gravity were pulling us toward its present position and one in which it were pulling us toward the position it occupied when the light we now see left it. (I guess another complication might be that there perhaps isn't any universal "now" .)

What started this train of thought was my (very naively, obviously) wondering whether the reason that there is apparently too little (visible) matter in the universe to account for its expansion is that we're always looking at the past. If we could see the "present" distribution of matter, we might find the introduction of "dark matter" unnecessary to explain things. I realize this is almost certainly an absurd suggestion, but I do still wonder whether there's any significance to the apparent fact that we see only the past but experience the gravitational pull of the present.

By the way, was it on this thread that someone mentioned Bohm's idea that an electron is a photon chasing its tail? Does that concept have any currency among physicists? It would be interesting if gravity -- the experience of mass -- turned out to be created virtually the same way we often create "fake" gravity, by something like centrifugal force (or at least by motion). You have to wonder, though, how a photon can "do" anything, since from the photon's point of view it's already at wherever it was going, because there is no time experienced at the speed of light -- every journey is instantaneous.

(It's also interesting, I think, that there has been a pretty widespread tendency in the modern/post-modern era to produce the revelation that something that used to be a solid, substantial noun is in fact better described as ephemeral and a verb. Really, it started 100 or 200 years ago when people started to understand that what we see as a solid wooden table is actually a collection of vibrating atoms with a lot of empty space. People started to see all sorts of things as processes -- including themselves, as in Buckminister Fuller's "I Am a Verb". Is this the cultural response to scientific discoveries suggesting such a direction, or did culture impact the metaphors chosen by science? I don't know exactly what this has to do with gravity, except that recent theories of gravity seem to definitely move away from the concept that it is a force in the traditional sense.)

__________________
"Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets" (1 Kings 22:23)

Svemir you said:

"The same" in Newton and Einstein (mass-mass and mass-ST interaction) is "unseen force".

Is this referring to what I wrote in that the field and the particle are 'made' of the same 'thing'? It brings something interesting to mind, in that once we 'understand' (if we ever do or will) the universe as an energy transfer system, the 'energy' itself becomes less interesting than the images that the energy creates - the images that we see. Indeed I believe the universe can be viewed as an imagery system, an image being that which is created by an imagination 'power' (in the dual sense that when we see, we create an image, and what we see is already a created image). But it is difficult for the system that makes or sees the image to see what the image is 'made of', since the system itself is an image. At which point the 'unseen force' is seen to be at work.

Time and space are not expanding. There was no big bang!

Evidence, please. And elsewhere, please.

I suggest starting, or joining, a thread in Against the Mainstream, instead of tagging your controversial sentiment on questions here, as you've done before.

Thanks.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Sorry Svemir, I didn't read closely your comments re "the same".

But there is something not right about a system in which 'mass' is said to 'interact' with space-time. I read somewhere an explanation in which "matter tells space-time how to curve, and space-time tells matter how to move". It seems to be describing a relationship between two separate entities. But there is only one entity in the relationship, namely matter. Space-time is our mathematical invention for measuring events that occur. In both classical theories and quantum theories, there is an 'absolute' background space-time by which events are measured, while in GR there is no background space-time (I believe this is right). However, from the above explanation it appears that space-time is treated nevertheless as an entity in itself. Is this right? If so, could it be that the 'entity' described as 'space-time' is an energetic (expanding) field? Then the above explanation would be amended to say that "matter tells the field how to move, and the field tells matter how to move". The motions of each would be governed by the potential between them. This reveals the sameness of matter and the field if we accept the field as being primary, and matter as being a creation of the field (which, once it is created, enters a dual relationship with the field).

A 'universal accelerated expansion' would occur in such a scenario as a cyclical event due to the ever-increasing volume of the universe. The more 'space' the field must create, the longer it will take to create matter from a buildup of pressure. A smaller field will create matter more quickly.

I like the way you are thinking, ngeo ... any chance you can expand on these thoughts?

__________________

Svemir, we talked about it on BABB back a ways. You may want to check here for some members thoughts on EGT. Ron Hatch was involved in this thread, although he doesn't appear until page 4.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Thank you Tensor,
It was exhausting, but useful, never the less.
The thread ends with last comment of BAD jcsd and I must admit I'm little bit confused, as if something is missing.
Namely:
There was a talk about some overlooked factor in Ron's calculations.
Has he corrected that on he's website?
In other words, does he's prediction on GP-B' results still stands?
Or would there be no difference after corrections are made?

I chose to, simply, wait for GP-B results to see if he is right/wrong, instead of taking a side.
If any alternative theory want to have my attention, it must make measurable predictions. That's why Ron has my attention.

What are values for average density and temperature of Space-Time?