Gravity and space - Page 5

AntonioLao · 04-07-2005, 12:14 PM

correction: I mean H over S.

Guille · 04-10-2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

my equation for quantized space (H) is equivalent to the square of energy (zero-point energy) and must be integrated or added together to get the total energy of the universe

$H=E^{2}_0=\psi_{i}\times\phi_{i}\cdot\psi_{j}\times\phi_{j}$

where i=j=1,2,3,...,n

You mean that we must add the square of energy to something else, or to itslef?

Don't we get the total energy of the unvierse by the sum of all the energy amounts in the unvierse?

AntonioLao · **total energy -** 04-10-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GUILLE

You mean that we must add the square of energy to something else, or to itslef? Don't we get the total energy of the unvierse by the sum of all the energy amounts in the unvierse?

the zero-point energy is half a quantum $\frac{1}{2}\hbar$
the total of infinite zero-point energies is

$E_T=\sum^{\infty}_{i=1} H_i$

where

$H_i=\psi^i_1\times\phi^i_1\cdot\psi^i_2\times\phi^i_2$

davidgow77 · 04-11-2005, 12:47 PM

Antonio, please explain what you mean by zero point energy being half a quantum.

DG

AntonioLao · 04-11-2005, 02:01 PM

In quantum mechanics, the finite value of the ground-state energy level is called the zero-point energy. Its value is given as $\frac{1}{2}\hbar\omega_c$ where $\omega$ is the angular frequency of the wave function. I set it to unity so that the frequency of the wave function $\psi(x,t)$ is $\frac{1}{2\pi}$ . Maybe it's better to set the frequency to unity and the angular frequency to $2\pi$ for the zero-point energy?

Guille · 04-24-2005, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

$H_i=\psi^i_1\times\phi^i_1\cdot\psi^i_2\times\phi^i_2$

is the H the same H as your quantized space H?

AntonioLao · 04-24-2005, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GUILLE

is the H the same H as your quantized space H?

H is the sum of all small Hi

For discrete quantized space

$H=\sum^{\infty}_{i=1} H_i$

and for continuous space

$H=\int^{0}_{-\infty}\int^{\infty}_0 E^2_T dt dt$

But continuous space S is equal to cE. Therefore the ratio of H over S is the linear momentum of the universe.

$p=\frac{H}{S}$

Guille · 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

Therefore the ratio of H over S is the linear momentum of the universe.
$p=\frac{H}{S}$

that means that
p=E^2/cE

what ives p= E/c

but E/c=m

so p=m??

then the total linear momentum is qual to the total mass of the universe?

well, it doesn't look very strange, because it could explain that the total linear momentum of the universe is zero.

zeroca · 10:19 AM

I don’t try to prove anything, but I think that considering the gravity as the force of attraction was accepted by scientists for explanation of planets’ revolving on their own axis. We all know that revolving body casts away things placed on its surface because of angular momentum, but the Earth (as all planets) revolves on its axis and at the same time things placed on its surface aren’t cast away, but are falling down to the center of the Earth (as well as things, risen from its surface), so logically the force of attraction must exist between the Earth and things risen from its surface. How otherwise could have been explained phenomenon if not by existing attraction?

I myself believe that not attraction, but striving, or rather pressing, or consolidation of matter happens to the center of planet, and the mechanism of such concentration of matter is contained in its opposite process of expansion, which spreads from the center of the planet radially up to some distance, and mentioned processes of consolidation and rarefaction are parallel opposite processes, taking place simultaneously.

zeroca · 07:17 AM

Is the space among heavenly bodies homogenous, or heterogeneous? For instance what’s the difference between the spaces adjacent to the Earth and to the Moon?

According to my theory body is considered a unity of physical body together with the adjacent space (body presents itself a concentration, consolidation of matter to the center and space presents itself a rarefaction, expansion from the center radially). The adjacent space is organically bind to bodies (for instance the adjacent space of the Earth spins along with the Earth).

So the space has direction and if according to definition of force the latter presents itself a field, then we can say that adjacent spaces of planets are fields, those begin from the centers of planets and spread from these centers radially up to some distance, where they merge into one-another without boundaries (as they are rarefactions by their nature), but in the area of touching, (of merging) they have opposite directions.

I’d call all planets or all heavenly bodies stationary, stable bodies; but any of their small consisting parts, or bodies, placed within adjacent spaces of stationary bodies – non-stationary, unstable bodies: for instance the Earth or the Moon are examples of stationary bodies, but little pebble on the surface or in adjacent space of any of these planets – an example of non-stationary, unstable bodies.

So, the whole space of universe can be divided into only stationary bodies, i.e. into planets with their own adjacent spaces, or rather it can be divided into merging to one-another spaces, each of which have different directions of expansion and are “bearer of physical bodies within themselves”.

The non-stationary bodies can be easily united with one-another or they can easily be united with stationary bodies, but two stationary bodies can’t practically be united with each other (For instance: two pebbles are easily brought to each-other closer or the pebble from the Moon can be brought to the Earth, but the Moon can’t be brought near to the Earth). Why?

What can be the main characterizing criterion of space besides direction? I think that since adjacent space of planet spreads radially from the center up to some distance, so the distance can be considered the main criterion of it (i.e. with the term - distance I mean the radius of sphere).

I think as well that the mass of body is directly proportional to the distance of spreading of space: the more is the mass of planet, the further its adjacent space spreads.

Let’s call the sum, the unity of furthest, ultimate points of adjacent space to the planet, (i.e. to stationary body) a space boundary. As one can guess, it has spherical form.

What’s difference between localizations inside and outside of space boundary?

The matter, which’s placed within the space boundary is “pressed”, concentrated by space towards the center of planet (as consolidation of matter and expansion of space are parallel opposite simultaneous processes – different consisting processes of nothing), but the matter placed outside the space boundary, is attracted by the same space (for instance: the matter of the Earth is pressed to the center by the space adjacent to it [I repeat: consolidation of matter and expansion of space are parallel opposite simultaneous processes and they cause each-other], but the matter of the Moon is attracted by the space of the Earth).

What prevents planets from falling on each-other?

I’ll summarize the subject briefly:
-matter isn’t attracted by matter;
-planets aren’t attracted by each-other;
-the spaces adjacent to planets, i.e. their own spaces “push down” to their centers the matter placed within space boundary from outside to inside, (from all sides to the centers), and that causes the consolidation of the matter around the centers, but the same space attracts the matter, placed outside the space boundary. (For instance: the space adjacent to the Earth attracts the matter of the Moon, but the space adjacent to the Moon attracts the matter of the Earth).
-different directions of neighboring spaces (e.g. of the Earth and of the Moon) prevent the mentioned planets from approaching to each-other, i.e. adjacent spaces of two neighboring planets serve as a barrier against getting them closer.
-I.e. space as a field causes concentration of matter placed inside this expansion to the center, but attraction by it of matter placed outside of this expansion, might be possible reason of planets’ revolving around each-other.

The colors are used only for demonstrational purposes

1. Blue arrows: direction of expansions for both planets (they are opposite each-other in the area of touching);
2. Gray and yellow arrows: concentrations of matter to the centers;
3. Red lines: space boundaries;
4. Yellow space attracts yellow matter; (the directions of expansion in the first case and direction of concentration of matter in the second aren't opposite each-other and somehow coincide);
5. Gray space attracts gray matter; (the directions of expansion in the first case and direction of concentration of matter in the second coincide);
6. Yellow expansion causes gray consolidation (the direction of expansion and direction of concentration of matter are opposite);
7. Gray expansion causes yellow consolidation (the direction of expansion and direction of concentration of matter are opposite);
8. Yellow and gray adjacent spaces and their opposite directions prevent planets from approaching.