APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
That suggestion is not compatible with any physical theory, and is incompatible with a great deal of well supported theory.observer wrote:Is it possible that the space that contains spiral galaxies is actually rotating as a unit, generating its own gravity, which then holds everything in place like debris caught in a whirlpool? That might explain why the stars appear to be moving faster than they should be.
I was thinking of something along the lines of a vortex of collapsed space left behind after a large burst of energy. What's the main deal breaker?Chris Peterson wrote:That suggestion is not compatible with any physical theory, and is incompatible with a great deal of well supported theory.observer wrote:Is it possible that the space that contains spiral galaxies is actually rotating as a unit, generating its own gravity, which then holds everything in place like debris caught in a whirlpool? That might explain why the stars appear to be moving faster than they should be.
The main deal breaker? This part: "something along the lines of a vortex of collapsed space left behind after a large burst of energy". Just because you can put those words together in English, that doesn't mean they have any physical meaning. What is a "vortex of collapsed space"? For that matter, what is "collapsed space"? That concept doesn't exist within any physics I'm aware of. How would energy (what kind of energy?) collapse this space?observer wrote:I was thinking of something along the lines of a vortex of collapsed space left behind after a large burst of energy. What's the main deal breaker?Chris Peterson wrote:That suggestion is not compatible with any physical theory, and is incompatible with a great deal of well supported theory.observer wrote:Is it possible that the space that contains spiral galaxies is actually rotating as a unit, generating its own gravity, which then holds everything in place like debris caught in a whirlpool? That might explain why the stars appear to be moving faster than they should be.
Chris Peterson wrote:The main deal breaker? This part: "something along the lines of a vortex of collapsed space left behind after a large burst of energy". Just because you can put those words together in English, that doesn't mean they have any physical meaning.observer wrote:
I was thinking of something along the lines of a vortex of collapsed space left behind after a large burst of energy. What's the main deal breaker?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-true-meaning-of-bs/ wrote:
<<In a 2010 debate we had at the California Institute of Technology that was televised on ABC's Nightline, in the audience Q&A (http://bit.ly/1PQqk6s), Chopra defines consciousness as “a superposition of possibilities,” to which physicist Leonard Mlodinow replies: “I know what each of those words mean. I still don't think I know….”>>
A 'rapidly' increasing gravitational field that pulls surrounding material in and gets it spinning in uniform motion.Chris Peterson wrote:What is a "vortex of collapsed space"?
I'm not trying to replace anything. In fact it's possible that we're describing the same thing, just seen from a different perspective. From my own vantage point, fields of energy in uniform motion (even lumpy ones such as galaxies) tend to create secondary fields that oppose any changes to that motion.Chris Peterson wrote:I fail to see the point of taking a simple explanation that is consistent with both theory and multiple lines of observational evidence (dark matter) and trying to replace it with something that is poorly defined and lacks physical support.
What is an "increasing gravitational field"? That would require an increasing mass somewhere, or a change in mass density.observer wrote:A 'rapidly' increasing gravitational field that pulls surrounding material in and gets it spinning in uniform motion.Chris Peterson wrote:What is a "vortex of collapsed space"?
I have no idea what you're trying to say.observer wrote:I'm not trying to replace anything. In fact it's possible that we're describing the same thing, just seen from a different perspective. From my own vantage point, fields of energy in uniform motion (even lumpy ones such as galaxies) tend to create secondary fields that oppose any changes to that motion.Chris Peterson wrote:I fail to see the point of taking a simple explanation that is consistent with both theory and multiple lines of observational evidence (dark matter) and trying to replace it with something that is poorly defined and lacks physical support.
Yes.Chris Peterson wrote:What is an "increasing gravitational field"? That would require an increasing mass somewhere, or a change in mass density.observer wrote:A 'rapidly' increasing gravitational field that pulls surrounding material in and gets it spinning in uniform motion.Chris Peterson wrote:What is a "vortex of collapsed space"?
If you extrapolate the laws of electronics to three dimensions you end up with something that resembles a combination of relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory all rolled into one. It's the only method I've seen that explains the mechanism behind gravity to my satisfaction. I'm in the process of exploring that concept, which involves getting someone with expertise in those areas to punch holes in it. That's where you come in. =)Chris Peterson wrote:I have no idea what you're trying to say.observer wrote:I'm not trying to replace anything. In fact it's possible that we're describing the same thing, just seen from a different perspective. From my own vantage point, fields of energy in uniform motion (even lumpy ones such as galaxies) tend to create secondary fields that oppose any changes to that motion.Chris Peterson wrote:I fail to see the point of taking a simple explanation that is consistent with both theory and multiple lines of observational evidence (dark matter) and trying to replace it with something that is poorly defined and lacks physical support.
As an expert in electronics as well as someone well trained in relativity and quantum mechanics, and with as reasonable an understanding of string theory as a non-specialist can have, I'd have to firmly disagree with that assessment.observer wrote:If you extrapolate the laws of electronics to three dimensions you end up with something that resembles a combination of relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory all rolled into one.
That assertion assumes that there's only one correct way of explaining things. I'm not questioning the validity of any other theory. (Apologies for the title.) I'm just offering a view from a different 'frame of reference'. It offers some intriguing insights that clear a few things up (for me anyway), so I thought I would share it with you. This seems like a logical place to do that.geckzilla wrote:... you need to try to punch holes in a supported theory before constructing your own.
That was an extremely generalized assessment. A more detailed description would be that matter and space (respectively) exhibit properties strikingly similar to inductance and capacitance, only in (three) dimensions. It is therefore logical to postulate that there might be some other similarities as well.Chris Peterson wrote:As an expert in electronics as well as someone well trained in relativity and quantum mechanics, and with as reasonable an understanding of string theory as a non-specialist can have, I'd have to firmly disagree with that assessment.observer wrote:If you extrapolate the laws of electronics to three dimensions you end up with something that resembles a combination of relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory all rolled into one.
Agreed. Also, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.Nitpicker wrote:All correct ways of explaining things rely on evidence and theory to some extent. And if one way also forms a consensus within the scientific community, then it is embraced as mainstream science, which is what is discussed here on The Starship. Without consensus, thar be pseudoscience.
Well... no, they don't.observer wrote:That was an extremely generalized assessment. A more detailed description would be that matter and space (respectively) exhibit properties strikingly similar to inductance and capacitance, only in (three) dimensions.
For such a long journey, it makes sense to hitch a ride:observer wrote:Agreed. Also, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
It's always possible to toss out interesting sounding ideas in words. But if the idea remains only in the realm of words, it is nothing more than philosophy. In order to have your ideas taken seriously -- around here or in any other science based forum -- you'll need to express the ideas in equations, and put some values into those equations, and crank the wheels a few times to squeeze some more values out the other end of the equations. (It's damn hard work, by the way.) Until then, you're blowing smoke.observer wrote:I fully appreciate the inertia. I don't have a reputation to protect so I can throw my nutty ideas out there for you all to ponder. ...
Okay, on which equations did you base that statement? Which "laws of electronics" are you referring to? How are they extrapolated (in mathematical terms) to three dimensions? How are you putting together your "combination of relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory"? (LOTS of people would be interested in that!) And finally, how are you comparing the 3D electronic extrapolation to the latter combo?observer wrote:If you extrapolate the laws of electronics to three dimensions you end up with something that resembles a combination of relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory all rolled into one.
We're talking about a 3 dimensional ac 'field current' circuit where LC resonant systems are free to float around inside each other and match their impedance with gravity.rstevenson wrote:It's always possible to toss out interesting sounding ideas in words. But if the idea remains only in the realm of words, it is nothing more than philosophy. In order to have your ideas taken seriously -- around here or in any other science based forum -- you'll need to express the ideas in equations, and put some values into those equations, and crank the wheels a few times to squeeze some more values out the other end of the equations. (It's damn hard work, by the way.) Until then, you're blowing smoke.observer wrote:I fully appreciate the inertia. I don't have a reputation to protect so I can throw my nutty ideas out there for you all to ponder. ...
For example, you saidOkay, on which equations did you base that statement? Which "laws of electronics" are you referring to? How are they extrapolated (in mathematical terms) to three dimensions? How are you putting together your "combination of relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory"? (LOTS of people would be interested in that!) And finally, how are you comparing the 3D electronic extrapolation to the latter combo?observer wrote:If you extrapolate the laws of electronics to three dimensions you end up with something that resembles a combination of relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory all rolled into one.
When you've answered all those questions, very specifically and in as much detail as you can, submit the result to a peer-reviewed journal. If you pull it off, you won't have to tell us about it. It'll be big news, believe me.
Rob
I'm afraid I just don't have the math skills to pull that off. I was hoping someone here might be interested in giving it a shot. The best I can manage is a picture. =)