pushing gravity

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Sir_Zerp</i>
<br />I’m looking for ideas, comments, suggestions, and even harsh criticisms to my ideas.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Others here may have more time for web site evaluations than I do. There are so many thousands of them now that the task is daunting and never-ending. We have a page on our web site with suggestions for both fee-based and free feedback. See metaresearch.org/publications/PMRS/PMRS.asp

Another approach is to become familiar with the standard literature before expecting feedback on your own writing, because most of that feedback would consist of reading suggestions anyway. You should get the 20-author book "Pushing Gravity" and/or our "Gravity" CD, read the relevant papers or chapters, see how these influence your own thinking, then come back to discuss areas you want to criticize in these published works or areas where you think you have a better idea. That way, your readers start from a known reference framework instead of having to learn your concepts and definitions from scratch.

I would make one obvious suggestion of possible general interest here. You tend to give "space" magical properties, something that is fashionable in today's physics because of the now-falsified geometric interpretation of general relativity. But in deep reality physics, the term "space" refers to the three dimensions that measure extent. This at least has the virtue of being well-defined. And as such, space is a concept, not a material, tangible entity that can be curved or "eaten". In relativity, we now prefer to say that light is bent by refraction in a space-filling "light-carrying medium" called "elysium", not by a "curvature of space". See metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/spacetime.asp

Likewise, your concept of "eating space" to explain gravity should be replaced by the standard concept of "absorbing gravitons". That latter has a well-defined, classical meaning. The former consists of loosely defined words strung together. You would be hard-pressed to define in detail what it means to "eat space". -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
[You would be hard-pressed to define in detail what it means to "eat space". -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well Absolute Tom, no I would not.

Space in my conjecture is defined as the average number of neutral particles between any two points in the universe.

If the average number of netural particles decreases between those two points; then the amount of space between those two points has decreased.

You are right that my conjecture could be put into a standard framework but that causes indirect problems. The best way to think out of the box is to ever go into the box in the first place.

As a lowly undergrad I am now just getting to see the insides of the box.

This is the reason I wrote the conjecture before I fully understood the subject. Yes, that is a very funny statement but it also a true one from my viewpoint.

Anyway, I don't want anyone to grade it, but just to think about the framework I laid out on top of page five.

Thanks for Your Time,

Michael

Zerp's Universal Law --- Dude, The Hot Side Faces Away From the Gravity Well ---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Sir_Zerp</i>
<br />Space in my conjecture is defined as the average number of neutral particles between any two points in the universe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If you mean neutral quantum particles, then most of what we call space doesn't exist by your definition because it is a vacuum and contains no neutral particles.

I guess "hard-pressed" is in the eye of the beholder. -|Tom|-

TVF, Are you saying empty space does exist? I was told there is no such thing as space with nothing and even a cubic meter of space has at least a proton or two.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Are you saying empty space does exist? I was told there is no such thing as space with nothing and even a cubic meter of space has at least a proton or two.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This last part is wrong. There are lots of cubic meters in the universe that contain no protons. And even if there was a proton or two in a cubic meter, the space between these protons is still "empty" (meaning devoid of quantum particles).

This is a different issue from the question of what "empty" means. A pure vacuum devoid of quantum particles still contains something unknown that we call "vacuum energy" (or "zero-point energy"). Vacuums also transmit photons and gravitons. So a vacuum cannot be a true void. But my reply was addressing Sir_Zerp's claim that "empty space" could contain neutral (quantum) particles, which is clearly not the case. -|Tom|-

Tom, do you equate the "vacuum energy" with a sea of "virtual particles" as some do?