h a l f b a k e r yIncidentally, why isn't "spacecraft" another word for "interior design"?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Could Dark Energy just be due to conservation of spacetime
deformation?
For example, for every compression of spacetime caused by
mass, perhaps we must have an equal and opposite expansion
of spacetime between the masses which balances it out.
As an analogy, if you put a bowling ball
on top of a waterbed,
it would create a well, but the rest of the surface moves
higher.
The spacetime between the stars may be expanded due to
the compression of spacetime around the stars.
[link]
|
| |
If so, one would expect to find energy symmetrically around massive objects and their deformations. |
|
| |
It wouldn't have to leave evidence so close to physical
accumulations. Just like, in the waterbed analogy, the
whole surface rises, nearly uniformly, in response to the
local impression. |
|
| |
but then perhaps mass wouldn't form at all. |
|
| |
This is either a very dumb idea or a brilliant one.
Sadly, if the Higgs Boson is anything to go by, you
may have to wait until you're in your 70s to find out. |
|
| |
I wish I were smart and informed enough to contribute
meaningfully to
this conversation. [+] |
|
| |
This Idea will probably get the MFD for being about theory,
and not an invention. Alas, I am well-experienced in
having that difference pointed out. |
|
| |
So how to test the... notion? |
|
| |
I'd be fine to delete it after 1 week of healthy discussions.
This community has entertained me with many great
discussions on related topics of no immediate utility. |
|
| |
I'm still on for the Pullman theory, that the dark
matter is angels. |
|
| |
<returns to own dark bun research with a lion-tamer
outfit and a thermos flask (for the dark matter)> |
|
| |
Would that make a dark cosmological constant? A value when the bowling ball is dissolved(homogenised) in the waterbed. |
|
| |
The Milky Way becomes the Quilty Way to cover up the
great water bed in the sky. |
|
| |
This Idea will probably get the MFD for being about theory, and not an invention. Alas, I am well-experienced in having that difference pointed out.
— Vernon, Aug 27 2015 |
|
| |
More theory then: If this hypothesis is true, then we might
be able to measure the actual size of the universe. We
could say: |
|
| |
"The background should rise X given the known mass of the
observable universe, but it only rose 0.25X, meaning, our
observable universe represents only 25% of the real volume
of the universe." |
|
| |
The problem with the usual illustration of gravity - in
which a heavy mass makes a dip in a rubber sheet
into which things fall - is that it only works because
real gravity makes things fall into the dip. |
|
| |
It's a bit like trying to explain electricity by using
electricity as an analogy for electricity. |
|
| |
//No it isn't. Water is the analogy used for
electricity. // |
|
| |
Water is a useful analogy for electricity. My point,
however, was that the ball-and-rubber-sheet analogy
for gravity is not good. |
|
| |
Yes, but the analogy is circular. The rubber sheet is
only depressed because gravity is acting on it; and
things only fall into the depression because gravity
pulls them down into it. It does not help you to
visualise the distortion of spacetime, nor why such
distortion should cause objects to fall towards
eachother. |
|
| |
2D is always simpler to visualize and explain. Isn't the model really 3 dimensional rubber and uses spongy elasticity to model gravity. |
|
| |
//electricity as an analogy for electricity// That's a limitation on the analogy, but not a fatal flaw in it. An analogy for that analogy is that it is, I understand, perfectly possible to define XML in XML. |
|
| |
The only drawback is that you then have to go and read Douglas Hofstadter until your head falls off. Or Hegel. |
|
| |
Since most gravitational objects are spheres, give or take, and all the examples usually given are objects within a plane anyways, just nix the 3rd dimension and represent them as various sized polka dots on the distended rubber sheet. |
|
| |
And that's where the missing mass is, hiding in the gravitic dimension: it's further in distance in 4 dimensions (3 + gravitic) from the center of a massive object to the center of another massive object than it is in 3 dimensions, so gravitational pull is less, so it looks like there's less mass than there actually is. |
|
| |