0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Here's a video I made to help explain my theory I posted before:1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYXXinW_w7w
does this proves that the description is how gravity works and what quarks are made of?
Your video seems to show what a quark is. You still keep the GR concept of gravity as curved spacetime. However, your quark looks weird. In GR, energy (therefore matter and light) curves spacetime. Your model shows a spacetime curvature that exists without any cause, but I don't think it is impossible, in principle, but quarks have other features that show they shouldn't be just free space, like mass, charge and 1/2 spin. I have posted a brief description of some features of gravity that I think are very important, but these should be discussed on a separate thread.https://dwgtheory.quora.com/A-hypothesis-on-how-gravity-worksYou've shown your hypothesis on how a planet generates gravity and it is true that most of the constituents of a planet are quarks, but in fact most of the gravity generated by an atom comes from quarks energy not from quarks rest mass.How do you think light generates gravity?
I regret using the term quarks to describe the smallest particles of matter. Quackery.
Quote from: trevorjohnson32 on 05/02/2019 18:34:21I regret using the term quarks to describe the smallest particles of matter. Quackery.What word would u now use?Anyhow u talk of density of spacetime.Is density of ST a mainstream Einsteinian thing, or do u thinkg that it is slightly heretical?I have heard of the bending of ST. I have heard of the fabric of ST. But can ST stretch? Can ST compress? Can ST shear? Can ST distort? Can ST change density? What do u think? If we bend something it stretches on say top, & it compresses at bottom, & suffers a shearing in other directions. The density changes in some places, in some directions. If we bend ST then i wonder whether we get a similar stretching compression shear etc, ie as for when we bend a something? Or praps if we bend ST we get a change of shape but no stretching compression shear etc. What do u think is the mainstream Einsteinian view or views?I wonder whether a LIGO GW is made up of lots of changing bendings together with associated stretchings & bendings. Or whether a GW is made up of lots of stretchings & compressings with no bending.If your quarks-particles are made of density of ST, then i think what we have is that density of ST tells ST how to bend, & the bending of ST tells ST how to densify. Which do u think came first?
Nice to hear from you mad aetherist. I think the popular idea of space-time bending is a description of how light travels across a gravity field. The path of the light bends so they say that space-time is bent at that particular spot. I think if your going to talk diffraction its well understood that the path of something diffracting bends because it hits a something that is denser, in this case space itself is denser. I don't imagine space being bent any way though.
My limited understanding of GR is that Einstein said that light always goes straight but that the bent spacetime gives the illusion that the light's traject is bent. Same for objects i think.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 06/02/2019 04:27:56My limited understanding of GR is that Einstein said that light always goes straight but that the bent spacetime gives the illusion that the light's traject is bent. Same for objects i think.How would space be 'bent'? I don't understand.
How would space be 'bent'? I don't understand
Quote from: mad aetherist on 06/02/2019 04:27:56My limited understanding of GR is that Einstein said that light always goes straight but that the bent spacetime gives the illusion that the light's traject is bent. Same for objects i think.How would space be 'bent'? I don't understand
Gravitation is described as objects following straight paths through curved spacetime but this is a meaningless interpretation because the curvature of spacetime can only ever be measured (in principle) by the paths of the worldlines though it, so it's exactly the same as saying that objects follow curved paths through flat spacetime. It's not wrong to model it as straight paths through flat spacetime, it's just equivalent to curved paths through flat spacetime. Either way, mass curves worldlines towards it proportional to their distance.A lot is made of general relativity not including a description of how mass is able to curve spacetime (curve worldlines) but nobody question how energy does the same thing. If it's not an issue for energy then it shouldn't be an issue for mass given we know there's an equivalence between the two.