MJBe

Dark energy

I have painted a picture once in a while, and I've visited some art galleries. So I know a little bit about painting, and a little bit about some famous painters. And I know that I enjoy some paintings more than others. But if I were to write up my ideas about what makes great art and how to create it, you (as an artist) would immediately see that although I know a little bit about art, I don't really know art. I don't know which theories of art have been proposed by different people at different times. I would mix up the aesthetic ideals and goals that various artists have had in mind when they created their works. I don't really understand what process goes into creating a given effect on canvas, and how that's influenced by the materials chosen by the artist or available at the time. My ideas make sense to me, and help me enjoy art, but you (as an artist) would find that there's a lot I have never seen, misunderstood, and don't even know that I don't know. Similarly, I think you have read a bit about general relativity and cosmology, but you don't really know them. It's impossible to get this kind of understanding by reading popular books on science, even very good ones. There's no substitute for personally working through the mathematical formalism and looking at the observational knowledge we have. It's like the difference between reading a travel guide of a foreign country, and living there for years to really get to know the place. If you want to really understand this subject, you need to spend a lot of time working through the details of topics like the expansion history of the universe, structure formation, and the meaning of energy conservation in GR. --Amble (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't have a theory, right or wrong: you have a lot of physicsy-sounding words strung together. If you want to be able to put together a coherent cosmological theory, or understand what one should look like, you need to actually spend the time to intimately learn GR and cosmology. --Amble (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the above user 'Amble' is expressing, and trying to justify, pure prejudice. MJB 3 March 2010

Uh, no, I'm humbly suggesting that if you want to revolutionize modern physics, it might help to learn something about it first. Please stop pasting your ideas onto Talk:Dark energy. Talk pages are meant for discussions directed at improving the article, not for original research whatever its merit. If you continue in this way, you're likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Original research and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines for some information on relevant Wikipedia policies. --Amble (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Humble? You're being presumptious to say I havn't learnt something about modern physics - and on that purely prejudicial basis edit out my contribution. I think it would improve the article a lot to show that there is a simple explanation, based on well established physics, for the accelerating expansion aka dark energy (that was deduced in 1994 before it's observation). And that explanation arose out of a physical explanation for the expansion. This explanation shows that other (after-the-fact) theories maybe unnecessary. I have written it up as simply as possible - wikipedia is not supposed to be an exclusive club. If you have no reasonable objections or even if you have, it is not right to censor this explanation. I'll put it here for you to take another look and consider it properly. It would be interesting to see if you or anyone can find a real reason, other than prejudice on whatever basis, to argue against it, in which case you may have learnt something to teach me or the world (for no other physicist or anyone else for that matter has seen a fault in it). MJBridger 4/03/2010

Interesting. Do you believe that you have in fact mastered general relativity, for example? --Amble (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr Amble I see you (is it you?) have once again practiced censorship/intellectual tyranny to the detriment of the wikipedia website. Can you not see that even if my explanation is wrong - it is an answer that has to be addressed and considered, even if only by reasoning out why my answer is wrong on a reasonable basis (not prejudice) your, or the world of astrophysicists's, intelligence may progress in at least one way. It should also be noted as an explanation that was forwarded in advance of observations. I wouldn't say I have mastered General relativity (in my decades of thinking and reading about it) because it is intrinsically unmasterable, and it holds the capacity for confusion which I've noticed even astrophysicists don't get(all impressions being relative) but insofar as there may or should be a simple explanation at the bottom of it, I would say it is because the universe is infinite, as it all works out. Unfortunately this would be untestable so you can practice your censorship/simple-explanation-denial ad infinitum. mjb

You can easily see what I've written, because I sign my posts. You can do the same by using four tildas at the end of your post, like this: ~~~~. If you opened up one of the standard GR textbooks to a problems section, would you expect to be able to work out all of the exercises? Some of them? Any of them? Does your answer to this question make you more or less confident that what you have been posting on the dark energy talk page is a valuable contribution to cosmology? -Amble (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2010 (Utc

Your questions are just trying to justify your predujice, provoked perhaps by the fact that I first described myself as an artist. There are infinite ways to go off at tangent. Can you make some point or argument that actually addresses my theory?

I'm 100% confident that my theory explained the accelerating expansion before it was observed. I am also very confident that it is a sound explanation because it questioned such ideas as 'expansion principle' as a 'reason' for the expansion and realised that there needed to be a proper physical explanation (from which it would naturally follow that the Cosmos would start to accelerate apart as it expanded). It's a great theory too for explaining why, as the Cosmos expands, the matter must subdivide. This was/is also a great puzzle and my explanation should delight mathematicians. I also think it wonderful for providing an explanation for the basis of Relativity; that reality and gravity is reference-frame-centric. As Einstein said/illustrated in Equivalence, a person does not experience the gravity of the Earth, for example, as a direct pull, but rather they see themselves as static and the Earth coming towards them (when not standing on the Earth) or that they are in the Earth's field of acceleration(the acceleration meaning the straight paths of light may appear curved) so they experience the Earth accelerating against them when they stand on it. That is the basis of General Relativity as modified from Newton's pull. Now my theory shows exactly why Gravity works in that way - because that is the only way Gravity can be resolved if the universe is infinite and there is an infinite surrounding mass of other Cosmoses. Your GR textbooks don't have an EXPLANATION for GR.

Finally, as I pointed out in the recently deleted comment, that we may be living in an infinite physically interconnected universe, surrounded by other Cosmoses (even if there are infinite other universes that we are not connected with) means that it cannot be an infnite universe of infinite repetitions (infinite other you's. The interconnectivity (evidenced by the accelerating expansion)makes you/your environment one that extends to infinity with infinite variables so it becomes unique and unfathomable.

This explanation does not go into how the Cosmos started and how the mass and particles were formed - but I do have an explanation/scenario for that based on a key particle/pair (electron and positron) of near infinite kinetic (moving near the speed of light) (allowable given a context of infnite space with no absolute background and the potential infinite energy of the spatial context - as deduced from my answer to Olbers paradox). In my theory the electron as it speeds along, pumps out other high energy electrons, and they similarly pump ot more, generation after generation. Then at slower speeds the electons generate the atoms and atomic particles. The electron's properties have in it the blueprint to create all this (including the size of the atom and set the speed of light) and those resonated particles and atoms similarly carry the blueprint. This is of course a theory that will be much harder to grasp and explain so for now I will just say it shows how gravity was not a problem in the early stages. Kinetic energy created the matter bit by bit and spread it out as it did so, so there was no Gravitational singularity.

Mark Bridger 5 March 2010

With regard to whether my theory is published, well I recorded it as a text in a painting and exhibited tt in a public art gallery in Reading Berks in January 95 in a group art show. I sent the text to distinguished professors of astrophysics at the time and of course again when it was affirmed by astronomical observations. The theory has since been exhibited a number of times in public art galleries in text paintings. Also published as comments here and there like in the New Scientist comments sections. It's also in the book Corealseix p.174-176 available on Amazon so yes it has been published.

Mark Bridger 5 March 2010

So you believe that you can understand GR as well as anyone, without being able to work out any exercises from a standard text; and that exhibiting a novel writing on physics in an art gallery counts as publication in a reliable source. Really??? --Amble (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you hear the story of the Atherians? See Below with The Equivalence of Equivalence Mark J Bridger 12 March 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.235.194 (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your story. You don't believe that it's necessary for you to have a working understanding of cosmology, such as learning GR or being familiar with quantitative observations of the universe, because you are guided by feelings rather than science. Do you understand why your own subjective emotion of correctness is not convincing to others? --Amble (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Amble, Yes I understand why my reasoning is not immediately convincing, that was one of the messages of the story. Also with regard to feelings or vision or intuition or an artistic sense of what rings true, the point I am makiing is that can be a good guide, if it then allows one to immediately spot the reason for things that scientists have missed (referring in particular to the Olbers paradox solution). As Einstein is supposed to have said, to understand the cosmos you need to have the mind of an artist, after all what makes an artist? Someone who has a good model of reality in their head and can apply it, perhaps. On the evidence I have a better working understanding of the Cosmos than other Cosmologists who were surprised by the accelerating expansion. Did you read the Equivalence of equivalence passage by the way?

Even if your idea of General relativity (with the help of dark matter) gives the Cosmos an ultra-dimensional shape, the theory cannot exclude the physical possibility of an infinite universe outside the cosmos any more than a black hole can deny the existence of the Cosmos. And my theory concerns the physical consequences of what may be outside the Cosmos.

Mark J Bridger 12 March 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.235.205 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Without learning cosmology, you have absolutely no basis upon which to judge whether your ideas are correct or not. The practitioners of every form of pseudoscience have the same internal sense of correctness that you do. It is not a reliable guide. For example, you may feel confident in your reliance on conservation of energy, but if you studied GR, you would find that the conception of energy conservation you're working with is completely inapplicable in a dynamical spacetime. Your emotions will not tell you this. There is no substitute for study and painstaking critical evaluation. Do you not see the hubris in claiming to have a better understanding of cosmology than cosmologists, when you haven't learned the fundamentals such as GR or the detailed quantitative observations that form the empirical basis of cosmology? --Amble (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are really trying to be difficult and unnecessarily, wilfully misunderstanding the point I made about intuition. My theory is based on solid reason and solid physics. There is no pseudo science. As for energy conservation I am very confident that one and one makes two. Please read my explanation of Olbers paradox and the balance of energy and understand. I am sorry if you spent all that time learning G.R. but it didn't help you to see this point about Olbers paradox. Perhaps you are jealous you did not spot it and embarassed on behalf of the whole community of scientists because it is fundamentally so simple and undeniably reasonable. Sometimes answers come from unexpected sources (artists) - it's a paradoxical fact of life - because those sources are thinking outside the box of your expectations. So far you have not made one single point in the manner of a reasonable scientist to refute any part of my theory, so you can only boost my confidence if you carry on in that fashion, but thanks for taking the time to think about it. We may agree that it could matter a bit. MJBridger 12/03/2010

How can you know whether it's based on solid physics, when you haven't learned the relevant physics? For example, the meaning of energy conservation in dynamical spacetime? --Amble (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering if you are reading what I am writing. Re Olbers paradox I am talking about the balance between the energy that is received by the average position in space and that which is emitted by the average position in space. They have to be equal and there are no dynamics implied by definition. You might call it a new application of the conservation of energy principle based on the solidity that one equals one. With regard to my other theory that there may be an explanation of dark energy in the energy that is lost by light to space by the light being redshifted in the expansion then yes, that is a dynamical scenario. If you can show that the conservation of energy principle specifically does not apply here then that would be fine because it would remove some cause for uncertainty in my first and preferred theory that the acceleration is due to the gravitational effect of the surrounding infinity. All the same, as the cosmos expands there is a redshift/loss of energy in the light that travels through space. Maybe whatever reasoning or maths there is that says this is not real or applicable as far as C of E is concerned is not real or applicable.

Re your attacks generally: You seem to think that there is only one path to the understanding of things, but that is wrong, you need to learn a bit more about everything to appreciate that. Some people who think of themselves as scientists tend to have a more narrow/blinkered view of the what the world is that needs explaining and don't like to include anything that falls outside what they have prejudged to be rational. This narrowed view is why they might dislike or avoid the implications of an infinite universe, the ultimate nature of which may be fundamentally indeterminable. It seems you especially don't like the idea that it no longer becomes something 'closed' in a way that only scientists can, or think they can, understand. I am not against scientists but I disagree with people who are irrational and prejudiced in the name of science. I have studied relativity i.e. I have read about it in books including Einstein's own book explaining it. I got an understanding of it and realised eventually that if you apply the precept that the universe is infinite, with reason, then it simplifies relativity and may explain it. You don't need to think of curved spacetime (although you might like to think about infinitely curved spacetime). The theory goes on to an explanation of Gravity - but that is not yet necesaary to import here to explain the accelerating expansion. Importantly, my theory as I expressedd it, worked out, it was affirmed by astronomical observations so far as I can gather.

I would like to see to understand more of all the data first hand to assess whether my theory of dark matter is also being supported. So far all the little jigsaw bits of evidence that I have read about are matching the big picture that I worked out and recorded in 2002. MJBridger

What is your understanding of the meaning of energy conservation in dynamical spacetime? --Amble (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice one! To answer that question I will have to give you my explanation of Gravity - and an infinite universe is necessary. May be a while. Mark J Bridger 13 March 2010

It's just that you clearly aren't familiar with the role of energy conservation in GR or the implications of dynamical spacetime for defining total energy of a system. In fact, the total energy of a system is undefined in general, and global energy conservation is meaningless in an expanding universe. This is really, really basic GR. I'm fascinated by how you can convince yourself that you have a better understanding of gravity than anyone else, when you aren't actually familiar with current knowledge about gravity. I suppose that if you really are guided by your subjective feeling of correctness, you would not feel that there's anything to be learned from others? --Amble (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Prejudice again. You have not heard my explanation of Gravity yet (I will post it soon-ish). I answer the questions about energy conservation in dynamical spacetime and you will see that the idea that energy conservation doesn't apply or that 'global energy conservation is meaningless in an expanding universe' is the biggest cop out in the history of theories of physics. Of course it applies, it's the first law of an infinite universe and it's because physicists have copped out of trying to answer it that they do not have an explanation of Gravity. You should note that although they say energy conservation doesn't appear to apply in these circumstances, they don't have a clue as to why not, as they know it should apply in all cases. And then your second-hand interpretation of that is 'in fact it doesn't apply, that's basic GR'. Did it not occur to you that you are being ineducated on this point and that you might try to think it through yourself? I worked out my explanation for gravity years ago, from scratch, because to be confident you understand a theory you have to work it out for yourself. I'm guided by reason and supported by the physical evidence that has emerged since working out the theory. And it seems understanding of gravity is creeping towards my explanation. As for terms like subjective correctness, they may apply more to your prejudicial attitude (in an infinite universe evryone suffers from the truthful delusion that they are at centre of things) but I have pointed out that all I may ultimately achieve is that we may not be so conclusive about anything, even if we arrive at a theory that explains things, so ultimatly a theory of everything may be taken to be more a work of art, composed of reason, than a composition of fact. Thanks for your participation. Mark J Bridger 14 March 2010

It's not prejudice to read what you've written and observe repeated misunderstandings that would be cleared up by learning the relevant science. It's not prejudice to probe whether you have actually learned the science you purport to be overturning. Prejudice would be asking which school you went to or what your credentials are, which I haven't done. Nor have I claimed to have (or not have) any particular personal authority myself. As for energy conservation, it certainly apply in GR (and I didn't say otherwise), but not in the simplistic, global way you're trying to use it. You may not have a clue as to why it doesn't take the same form as in high-school Newtonian physics; speak for yourself. Anyway, this conversation has shed light on certain things for me, and given me some helpful perspectives on how people process scientific information. So thanks for that. --Amble (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your statement here is a bit inconsistent in a predictable way. You say you have not claimed to be an authority yet you are making dogmatic statements re energy conservation that actually do not reflect the debate and uncertainty that appropriately exists on this issue among modern scientists, and you've not provided any kind of reasoning to support your dogmatism. And in the same sentence you say it's not prejudice that you observe my repeated misunderstandings. I am not talking about social prejudice, just pure prejudice, in the true meaning of the word. Making a judgement on something before you undertsand it or have all the information. Your attitude re simplicity does reflect a prejudice that I think exists in modern science, since the theories they refer to tend to be almost inconceivable and not accessible to Joe Bloggs. But my point may be that most of these theories have been built on very simple and simplistic mistakes. The idea the the universe must be finite because it looks that way (Olbers paradox) is as simplistic as 'the earth is flat because it looks that way'. Even more simplistic is 'conservation of energy principle does not apply here because it doesn't (otherwise we'd be wrong)'. I'll be detailing how and why I think energy conservation works in the various ways it does in the Explanation of Gravity, coming shortly so I hope you can be a little more patient. The conversation has been useful for me in deciding where to start in the explanation, which is very important, so thanks for that. Mark J Bridger 15 March 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.243.230 (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Amble, it looks like you ran out of stamina in making and trying to defend prejudicial comments and that left you with nothing to make a fair and objective assessment - or even an acknowledgement that my reasoning could be sound.

It's been observed that academics can be masters of their own, created, sometimes obscure, fields, but at the same time not too good at applying, or knowing how to apply, their 'knowledge' appropriately in ordinary reality. They maybe be brilliant at thinking of the hypothetical in relation to the Cosmos, but fail to see it or understand it as a 'reality', for the Cosmos is a reality, not an academic field.

Art is not academic but is about understanding the nature of reality, so it should be no surprise that an artist explained the accelerating expansion of the cosmos before it was observed. It should be no surprise either that the explanation is basically simple and minimal. If the laws that applied were obscure and complicated with add-ons here and there, wouldn't that reek of artifice and contrivance? There should be simple principles at the core of things. That was my hunch and it appears to have worked out.

Last month it was widely reported that comprehensive Hubblle observations confirm the acceleration of the expansion does appear to have a (cosmological) constant, which affirms my explanation that it's a result of the Cosmos's own collective mass, gravitationally acting on the surrounding infinity. (According to my explanation the rate should be related to the mass of the Cosmos, and the effective distance of the infinite mass in the infinity, which may be, mostly, a measure of the mass distribution (of other cosmoses) in the more immediate space outside our Cosmos.

Mark J Bridger April 4th 2010

==

Dark Energy explanations by Mark Bridger (an artist)==

Here are two explanations for dark energy or the accelerating expansion of the Cosmos. Note that the first explanation I recorded in November 1994, at a time when it was presumed by the scientific community that the expansion of the Cosmos should be slowing down, and before observations of supernovae type 1a showed an apparent acceleration. This explanation was occasioned by the need to find an explanation, in terms of ordinary physics, for the expansion (as it was perceived that there wasn't one). It just followed from this explanation of the expansion that it should also be an acceleration.

1) An Infinite Surrounding Universe and Gravity.

The gravity from an infinite surrounding universe (of other cosmoses?) on any object would be infinite and omni-directional and thus cancel itself out, as well as engulfing and annihilating gravity pulls from objects in the vicinity. This means that Gravity can only work from the object to the objects that surround it ( the reference-frame-centric scenario that is Relativity). So the infinite universe does not pull on the Cosmos but the Cosmos pulls on the surrounding infinity, at a rate proportional to it's own mass,.The Cosmos then, in effect, pulls itself apart at a constant rate of acceleration. Subdiviisions of the Cosmos's mass should then also pull themselves apart at proportionately smaller rates, which means the clumping of matter into localised gravity patterns is enforced as the Cosmos expands. With this theory one has to address Olbers's paradox i.e. what becomes of the light (of all the other cosmoses(?)) of the surrounding infinity. That may be rendered invisible by gravitational redshift (as I have explained in detail elsewhere).

The following more recent explanation does not necessitate, but does not exclude the possibility of, an infinite universe.

2) Redshift Yields Dark Energy

As the Cosmos expands the light/radiation that is emitted by objects in the Cosmos is redshifted, meaning light energy is being lost to space. According to the conservation of energy principle overall energy cannot be lost, so this deducted (dark) energy must be expressed in kinetic energy given to objects in the Cosmos, i.e. more expansion, which becomes more redshift thus more dark energy and an acceleration. If the kinetic energy was contracting the Cosmos, pushing things together, then it's light would be blueshifted, i.e being given additional energy, but there is nothing to supply the addition of that energy, so you can only have an overall redshift, which yields energy, to give to movement, for movement takes energy. The Cosmos can then only expand in an acceleration (despite gravity). The amount dark energy in the Cosmos is then a measure of the accumulative history of the radiation. This explanation may also explain the apparent lack of antimatter in our vicinity, for if the movement or acceleration of an object takes energy, then the movement of an object of anti-matter, which might be called 'anti-movement' or "moving backwards through time", as Richard Feynman put it, would give energy. Therefore the movements of anti-matter objects should fund a blueshift of light, meaning they will tend to move to contract/huddle together rather than expand. So all the antimatter may remain near the centre of the Cosmos, or the centre of large galaxies, and thus tend to be unseen as it would more likely form black holes.

If the universe is infinite then both of these explanations may contribute to or be part of the same reason, for the accelerating expansion of the Cosmos, but there will never be testable proof that the universe is infinite - meaning the complete nature fo the universe will ever be uncertain.

Mark J Bridger 4th March 2010

The Equivalence of Equivalence

When it comes to theories about the cosmos that cannot ultimately be tested, feelings may be a guide. On reading, many years ago, the conclusion drawn from Olbers paradox that the universe must be finite, I felt it did not have the ring of truth or reality. Then I realised that astrophysicists, in being satisfied that Olbers paradox had been resolved, had not applied the equation for gravitational redshift to a possible infinite surrounding universe as an object. This equation would have the light from that infinity rendered invisible by the infinite gravity field(s). Then I had another simple realisation that affirmed the gravitational redshift solution. The Olbers paradox line of reasoning - that says in an infinite universe we could see infinite radiation - is invalid because it disagrees with the balance of energy. It is saying every point position would receive/observe infinite radiation. That cannot be balanced by the average radiation that is emitted by positions in the universe, which would be relatively low because space is/would be mostly empty of sources of radiation, and where there are sources they emit finite amounts. (There is also an explanation available to quantum physicists (It's appropriate that there are various paths to the same realisation). In quantum electrodynamical calcuations you have to put a finite limit on the number of recipient points of a radiation, otherwise the object would be giving out infnite radiation. This limit means that radiation would not be allowed, in reality, to travel the infinite distances that it might in theory).

The balance of energy problem makes it absolutely necessary, in an infinite universe, for there to be something that stops the theoretical infinite light. In other words Gravity, and the fact that it applies to light, is essential to an infinite universe.

This is very promising, as Gravity is here given an essential function in basic physics, or a reason for it's existence, if the universe is infinite. So, if you are looking for an explanation of Gravity, the idea that the universe is infinite may be a useful precept.

The next thing to consider, if the universe is infinite in this way (with infinite other cosmoses surrounding?) is what effect would it's mass have on our cosmos, or objects within our cosmos, as a gravitational pull? (N.b I had read that according to one matematical solution, an infinite universe should contract. That must be based on a misconception, because an infinite universe cannot contract overall nor has a central direction to contract towards).

Well, being infinite and omnidirectional, the pull has to cancel itself out, as well as engulfing and cancelling out the finite pulls from objects within the cosmos, meaning that gravity can then only work from the cosmos, or the reference frame/object, out to the objects that surrround it. The object only can experience/see it's own gravity working outwardly.

So the cosmos pulls on the infinity, and thus pulls itself apart, at a rate proportional to it's own collective mass, with subdivisions of it's mass doing so at proportionately smaller rates, hence the appearence of a 'dark energy' accelerating expansion with localised gravity patterns or 'clumping'.

As I pointed out, this way-that-gravity-works-in-an-infinite-universe, agrees with the way that Einstein said gravity works in his principle of Equivalence. He said that you (for example) are not pulled directly by the Earth. Rather you are in the Earth's field of acceleration, so when you are standing on the Earth, it is ever accelerating/pushing against you. And in that field of acceleration a beam of light that would travel straight across, bends (very slightly here). In an infinite universe you are similarly not pulled by the Earth, for it's pull is engulfed and annihilated by the pull from the infinity, but the Earth from it's perspective it can pull on you, so you experience the equivalence of being in the Earth's acceleration field. And gravity as an acceleration field explains gravitational redshift ( the field cannot slow down the speed of light but can slow down it's wave frequencies/extend the wave lengths).

For the purposes of my theory, that is as far one needs to go to explain the accelerating expansion.. The universe is infinite, creating a tendency for the Cosmos to accelerate apart, as well as deciding the way gravity works ( as an acceleration field) in equivalence, so that gravity affects light (according to Einstein's redshift equation) - as it must do to deal with Olbers paradox. The physics is mutually supportive i.e it works out. The next step would be to move on to an explanation of gravity - given the clues that gravity is essential to an infinite universe, and it's primary reason for existence is to deal with light energy.

Spacetime

Einstein however, took a different path from this point. Instead of seeing that gravitational redshift could deal with the light problem of Olbers paradox to allow an infinite universe. He saw in the principle of equivalence the potential to construct a theory that would allow a finite universe of a certain type. Einstein's theory is based on the assertion that a light beam always travels in a straight line through space, even when a field of gravity bends it. He thus enforced the interpretation that a field of gravity is curved space. He used some complex maths to make space and time into a context of spacetime that in an ultradimensional context could be curved enough to form a sphere like object, that would give the circular impression of an eternity and infinity of time and space, and yet be finite in quantity.

If there's a reason why Einstein went off in this direction it may not be just because it seemed to provide some agreement with the assumption of the time that the universe was finite, but also because it might seem to moderate the implications of Relativity. If you describe, from equivalence, a field of gravity as a context of accelerating space, then it emphasizes the idea that space is abstract. It could not be a material like thing if it was ever accelerating into an object from around it.. Space as an abstract context with no fixed background agrees with an infinite universe. But Relativity showed that the material object and it's context of spacetime were all bound up together, so the relativistic distortions that apply to a context of space and time translate to real physical distortions in the reality of the object. The implication is that real objects must, in essence be equally as abstract as the contexts of space and time, or, alternatively, that spacetime is equally as real as the material object and therefore can be described as something that can be warped, like a fabric.

The problem with the theory is that it actually does nothing to deny an infinite universe outside this ultradimensional shape, or to stop the light from outside entering it (only the light from inside theoretically getting out). Also it required a certain amount of masss in the Cosmos in relation to it's size to work out, but there was not enough. Finally it did not provide a step towards the explanation of gravity. That spacetime/ the shape of the cosmos is now seen to be possibly 'flat', or not even have a shape, implying an infinite universe, may mean that the notion of curved spacetime is redundant, or that it was never applicable. By dispensing with the idea of spacetime one returns to the descrption of accelerating space in a gravity field and space being abstract (and thus infinite) - but with the implications of Relativity being that material objects are equally, essentially abstract, ie not like nothing - but like ideas. This will be the basis of a theory of everything.

Mark J Bridger 12 March 2010

The Atherians (a story)

Once upon a time there was a world called Ather where people lived and had a discussion about what shape it was. It looked pretty lumpy but there was the view that overall it was flat. Some had the view that overall Ather was round and pointed to big round boulders to explain and also to the big round shape of Luna in the Night. These people were called the 'Lunatics'. The Flat-Athers generally ruled the Day (when you couldn't see Luna) because you could see the world was flat and the Lunatics' idea seemed way too big and far fetched to be acceptable. Then one day one of the clever Lunatics worked out a theory to explain how it could work out that the world was flat after all - and that kind of won the argument for the Fllat-Athers once and for all - even though few people understood this explanation of how the world could be flat. Still there were some Lunatics who said that Ather was round - but they were thought a bit mad and unconvincing because everybody could see that Ather was flat and these Lunatics were not smart enough to understand full Flat-Ather theory.

But the Atherians still don't know for certain, the shape of their world.

Mark J Bridger 12 March 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.235.194 (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

An Explanation of Gravity starting from the Conservation of Energy Principle

By Mark Bridger

Energy conservation, the first principle or law of the universe, may be considered the best guideline for whether a theory is sound or complete, yet there are scenarios in which it appears not to apply. In particular, the general scenarios of the red-shift or blue shift of light radiation due to a gravity field or a Doppler effect, from relative motion. Where there is a red-shift /reduction of frequency the energy has been reduced, and a blue-shift, increased, so, seemingly, energy is not conserved and the first law does not apply.

If the law did apply to Doppler shift then the overall red-shift of the light in the Cosmos, from a deduced expansion, meaning an overall reduction of the light energy in the Cosmos, would have to be balanced by the addition of some energy - but then the accelerating expansion itself may be seen as the immediate expression of that energy (dark energy).

If the law applies to gravitational red-shift then it might mean that the red-shift reductions of energy of radiation leaving an object could be counter-balanced by the blue shift increases of energy of light that is received by an object - but that implies that the gravity field / space around the object can function as an energy bank into which the outgoing light deposits some energy and the incoming light withdraws some energy. As there is not necessarily a balance between incoming and outgoing light, especially with a star for example, then this bank would have an infinite credit/deposit facility. On this basis we can say that in Gravitational red-shift, energy conservation appears superficially not to apply, given the possibility of an infinite energy bank in space.

If the universe is infinite, and our Cosmos is surrounded by infinite other cosmoses /sources of radiation, then we might have a problem, according to a certain line of reasoning from Olbers, in receiving a calculable infinite amount of radiation. The gravity from that infinite mass however, would red-shift it’s light to the extreme, making it invisible. In so doing it actually maintains the conservation of energy principle for light in an infinite universe because the Olbers line of reasoning would break the balance between the energy received by the average position in space and that emitted by the average position in space, which must be equal. In vanishing the theoretical light from the infinity, gravitational red-shift maintains the balance. We can now say that the conservation of energy principle re light applies, thanks to gravitational red-shift, in an infinite universe, whilst appearing not to have to apply to specific scenarios of gravitational red-shift - given that space can provide an infinite energy bank. If that sounds a little confusing, it’s because there is one more step of reasoning to go, involving another look at:

The equation for Gravitational Red-shift, which is:

F’/ F = 1 - GM / csquared R

…where F’ is the frequency of the shifted light, F is the frequency of the original light, G is the Gravity constant, c is the speed of light, M is the mass of the object and R is it’s radius.

As I first said, the light from an infinite surrounding universe would be red-shifted to it’s infinite extreme to render it invisible - but not to lose it altogether. The light is coming from an object of both infinite radius and infinite mass, but volume (containing mass) increases cubically with radius, so the mass value may be the dominant infinity, so M/R becomes infinite. According to the equation that means an infinite universe yields (negative) infinite frequency radiation, which would be equally as invisible and immeasurable as zero radiation, and yet redefines space as a field of infinite energy. This then actually provides the infinite energy bank required for gravitational red and blue shifts, but it also provides the background energy implied/required by much of physics, up to and including the possibility of infinite space-sharing realities, aka the multi-verse.

With this background context of infinite frequency, all purpose infinite energy, the existence of any particular reality is under threat, so we can assume or hypothesize that the laws of physics that describe our reality are there to perform the function of maintaining it’s consistency and order, against a background of possible chaos. (This would be the basis of our unifying ‘theory of everything‘).

We see that in spite of the order given to our reality by it’s physical laws, there remains a creeping tendency to disorder that we call entropy. Without the physical laws, we can imagine that entropy or disorder would engulf a reality in a matter of moments, to become part of the infinite energy background. Suppose for a moment that only one of the laws existed; the conservation of energy law. Now if you have a small object of mass/energy, the way it would then give in to entropy would be to lose a bit of it’s mass energy to kinetic energy, so it would get an impulse of movement. With more impulses of movement in any random direction, each time losing a bit of it’s mass energy, the object would fritter away all it’s energy, and existence, without really getting anywhere, which means energy has been lost. To stop this and maintain the conservation of energy principle, there has to be another law; that the consistency of the object must not be lost by this random movement. This would mean that every impulse of movement of the object must be accompanied by the input of some energy, to maintain it’s consistency. To see this another way, see the object of mass as a composition of energy in (standing) wave patterns. When an object ‘moves’, then relative to it’s original position, it moves away, so it would suffer a small Doppler effected reduction of it’s frequencies/ the stretching of it’s waves. But these wave patterns describing the consistency of the object and it’s particles should not be reduced (so easily), so energy has to be input to preserve the consistency of the object as it ‘moves’. This necessary application of energy to move the object is Inertia.

When in a gravitational context or moving only according to Gravity, no application of energy seems to be required for the impulse of movement or acceleration, but here the movement is defined as being ‘towards’ something. So the same degree of theoretical Doppler reduction of energy that goes with a movement ‘away’ from a position is redressed by the theoretical Doppler increase that goes with moving ‘towards’ something.

In principle the object could move freely in any direction, with it’s mass energy marginally reducing to an impulse of kinetic energy with each movement, but only when it’s movement is defined as being directly towards things is it’s mass energy/consistency theoretically restored/maintained. In the other scenarios where the object does not always move ‘towards’ things, the consistency of the object / reality dissipates and is lost to the multi-verse.

The next question is how can an object be defined as always ‘moving towards’ when moving toward one direction will be moving away from another? Well, in an infinite universe, the context of space is not absolute, such that the object may accelerate it’s surrounding space toward itself, hence the equivalence of a gravitational field to a field of acceleration. So with space accelerating at it, and into it, from all sides, the object is defined as moving towards things. In summary, objects do Gravity to maintain their consistency, their realness, their place in reality, against the tendency for the consistency of things to dissipate. The more massive an object the higher order of energy it possesses, then the greater the tendency/probability of dissipation, therefore the more gravity it must have to maintain it’s consistency. And the farther away the object is from somewhere, the less significant it becomes as an improbability or order, so the gravity diminishes.

 The Expansion of the Cosmos

If one were hoping for a certain singular reason as to why the Cosmos appears to be expanding, possibly in an acceleration, from this Explanation of Gravity then one may be disappointed.

There’s the possibility that the ‘dark energy responsible for the acceleration’ is an immediate expression of the energy lost to light by the red-shift of the expansion, from a direct application of the conservation of energy principle.

Then we have the possibility that the Cosmos, in being surrounded by the mass of an infinite universe, is gravitationally pulling itself apart, at a rate proportional to it‘s own collective mass (with subdivisions of the mass pulling themselves apart at proportionately smaller rates - hence the forming of localized gravity patterns or ‘clumping’ with the expansion.).

And then there is another reason for red-shift. Thinking of the Cosmos as a gravitational object, as a whole, it would be accelerating space towards itself, from outside, like all other objects (in the principle of equivalence). Nearer the middle of the Cosmos the vector of this acceleration diminishes. The vector increases as you go towards the outside of the Cosmos but then diminishes again as you go further away from the Cosmos. This means, the further you look out to the visible objects within our Cosmos, the greater the acceleration of their space towards us. That acceleration of space past these objects means, from our viewpoint, their light would be red-shifted, increasingly with distance. This gravitational cause for red-shift would diminish if/as the Cosmos expanded as it is dependent on the mass / size /density (whilst an accelerating expansion at the same time causes an increase of Doppler caused red-shift). As for how much mass there is the Cosmos, ‘dark matter’ may form a major part. So what is dark matter?

Quantum Reality and Dark Matter.

If the background of space has infinite frequency energy, then that presents a problem for the derivation of a reality made up of finite energy values. In principle the only way a finite amount of energy could be derived from a context of infinite energy is to have it come from a point of space and time. A reality can then be made up of finite energy quantities derived from points of space and time that, to be realistic, must be separated by minimal gaps of space and time, so there should be, in a reality, a minimal distance and a corresponding minimal amount of time. Think now of the object as being described by points of energy (of any value). The more points that describe the object the more real or probable it may be considered. And the more real/ probable it may be, the less it needs the function of Gravity to apply. Suppose then that whilst there might be a minimum distance and time gap in reality there may also be multiples of those values, ie a harmonic range of nearly minimal distances and associated time gaps ( the ratio between the distance and time gap remaining the same, equating with the speed of light, so sharing the same reality). This range of gaps could be associated with a range of descriptions of matter. The smallest gap matter would be the most real, being described by more points, so it needs the weakest Gravity ( the Gravity constant being derived from the minimum distance and time value). Bigger gaps would describe ‘less real’ forms of matter that require more Gravity. In the expansion of the Cosmos these different grades of matter would separate out with their different rates of Gravity. With different minimum time and distance values they will also have different Planck constants which means their light quanta/ photons would not be exchangeable, so these forms of matter would be dark to each other. Also with different minimum distance and time values, the parameters that describe their atoms and particles are different. The degree of realness also has a bearing on the relative stability of these forms of matter, which would put a limit on the range, with big gap /strong gravity/less stable matter quickly compressing itself to reform as more stable smaller gap forms. There would be an optimum type of matter of gentle but not too weak Gravity and optimum stability for slow chemistry. That I would guess is our ‘ordinary’ matter. At this point the theory explaining Gravity is moving toward an explanation of all physics, which is of course where it should be heading. Returning to Gravity alone, this explanation now shows why the problem of a gravitational singularity does not exist. The smaller your minimum distance value the weaker the Gravity constant becomes, so Gravity disappears altogether in a singularity. And if the matter object became infinitely compressed then it would merge with the infinite frequency background that space has, meaning it would disappear.

Mark J Bridger 16 March 2010