Why isn't UA weakening

I just had a thought about dark energy and I didn't know where to put it but here goes anyway.

This video explains gravity with relativity and at the 1:15 mark it shows how if the sun were to suddenly disappear then an enormous gravitational wave would shove the earth out of orbit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pwh4wvXWRuA#t=91

Couldn't it be possible that a massive gravitational wave like that of the big bang would cause what we refer to as dark energy? The enormous mass from the singularity causes the universe to expand but the sudden absence of that center of mass caused an enormous trailing gravitational wave that accelerates the universe's expansion.

What you are seeing is not the wave "shoving" the Earth out of orbit, it is merely explaining how the Earth would switch from a closed orbit to to straight line trajectory, from a gravitational point of view. It's a very nice video.

To answer your question, the theoretical energy spectrum from Big-Bang gravitational waves has been studied. This is important for gravitational wave detectors (such as LIGO), since they want to obviously try to measure them. It turns out that the energy spectrum is way too weak to account for the Universe's expansion. Plus, as far as they can tell, the geometry of the Universe on large scales is flat. If G-waves were accelerating the expansion, this would not be the case, as you can see from the video.

It is a very nice question, though.

Quote from: rottingroom on October 12, 2013, 12:11:14 PM

I just had a thought about dark energy and I didn't know where to put it but here goes anyway.

This video explains gravity with relativity and at the 1:15 mark it shows how if the sun were to suddenly disappear then an enormous gravitational wave would shove the earth out of orbit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pwh4wvXWRuA#t=91

Couldn't it be possible that a massive gravitational wave like that of the big bang would cause what we refer to as dark energy? The enormous mass from the singularity causes the universe to expand but the sudden absence of that center of mass caused an enormous trailing gravitational wave that accelerates the universe's expansion.

What you are seeing is not the wave "shoving" the Earth out of orbit, it is merely explaining how the Earth would switch from a closed orbit to to straight line trajectory, from a gravitational point of view. It's a very nice video.

To answer your question, the theoretical energy spectrum from Big-Bang gravitational waves has been studied. This is important for gravitational wave detectors (such as LIGO), since they want to obviously try to measure them. It turns out that the energy spectrum is way too weak to account for the Universe's expansion. Plus, as far as they can tell, the geometry of the Universe on large scales is flat. If G-waves were accelerating the expansion, this would not be the case, as you can see from the video.

It is a very nice question, though.

I'm not sure how that debunks it but I'll give your criticism some careful consideration as I think more about this.

Quote from: rottingroom on October 12, 2013, 05:50:14 AM

Quote from: Pongo on October 12, 2013, 05:17:45 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 12, 2013, 03:02:24 AM

Why doesn't gravity weaken?

And why doesn't the magical force that is pulling everything away from everything else at an accelerating speed weakening?

Ok, both of you. The OP is about 'why UA doesn't weaken'. Why are you attempting to turn the argument around just because your own theories don't make sense?

By the way, reversing the argument doesn't even make sense. The force of gravity is dependent on the amount of mass a body has. In gravitation, there is no reason for gravity to weaken. It's so fallacious to assume that the weakness of UA pointed out in the OP and following comments also apply to gravitation.

In this universe, everything decays.  Yet the force of gravity has remained unchanged since it was discovered.  Why does it not make sense to question that (beyond that it's the accepted dogma, of course)?

UA is a fundamental force of the universe in FET, just as gravity is in RET.  It would be fatuous to the extreme to try to argue that UA must weaken at some point while gravity is allowed to stay at full strength forever.  I'm not "reversing" any argument; I'm using an example from your own theory to show that such a question is nonsensical.

And meanwhile, as Pongo points out, the expansion of the universe continues to expand in RET billions of years after its formation at an accelerating rate.  Duh, why hasn't it started to slow down?  As usual, REers are just being silly, accusing FET of being guilty of traits their own theory shares.

We're not constantly getting further and further from the centre of mass of the Earth. If we were we would expect it to weaken.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 12, 2013, 09:39:12 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 12, 2013, 05:50:14 AM

Quote from: Pongo on October 12, 2013, 05:17:45 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 12, 2013, 03:02:24 AM

Why doesn't gravity weaken?

And why doesn't the magical force that is pulling everything away from everything else at an accelerating speed weakening?

Ok, both of you. The OP is about 'why UA doesn't weaken'. Why are you attempting to turn the argument around just because your own theories don't make sense?

By the way, reversing the argument doesn't even make sense. The force of gravity is dependent on the amount of mass a body has. In gravitation, there is no reason for gravity to weaken. It's so fallacious to assume that the weakness of UA pointed out in the OP and following comments also apply to gravitation.

In this universe, everything decays.  Yet the force of gravity has remained unchanged since it was discovered.  Why does it not make sense to question that (beyond that it's the accepted dogma, of course)?

UA is a fundamental force of the universe in FET, just as gravity is in RET.  It would be fatuous to the extreme to try to argue that UA must weaken at some point while gravity is allowed to stay at full strength forever.  I'm not "reversing" any argument; I'm using an example from your own theory to show that such a question is nonsensical.

And meanwhile, as Pongo points out, the expansion of the universe continues to expand in RET billions of years after its formation at an accelerating rate.  Duh, why hasn't it started to slow down?  As usual, REers are just being silly, accusing FET of being guilty of traits their own theory shares.

We're not constantly getting further and further from the centre of mass of the Earth. If we were we would expect it to weaken.

That only changes the focus of the question.  It does not answer it.

I've got a point to say here... Gravity is a function of mass and distance, and it does get weaker farther away from it's source and is proportional to mass. It is conservation of energy, something that can NEVER be broken. Lets take two large masses in a closed system in a vacuum. If you add the rest energies, potential energies (from gravity) and kinetic energies over a time interval it is mathematically impossible (not to mention physically) for energy to be lost in a closed system. This results in energy always being conserved, and thus is the reason why gravity doesn't get "weaker". If gravity got weaker, then there would be a drop in potential energy, and the energy would have to go into the kinetic energy of the object or the rest energy of the object. If the object is stationary, the gravitational force getting "weaker" would literally cause the object's potential energy to be converted into mass. See what I am saying here? If you want to disagree, then provide an example where energy is not conserved. 

*Note: Mass is not always conserved, but total energy is. Don't make the mistake of confusing the two.

Actually potential energy is negative, and usually refers to the energy needed to get away. Here it would tend to zero thus violating conservation of energy.

I've got a point to say here... Gravity is a function of mass and distance, and it does get weaker farther away from it's source and is proportional to mass. It is conservation of energy, something that can NEVER be broken. Lets take two large masses in a closed system in a vacuum. If you add the rest energies, potential energies (from gravity) and kinetic energies over a time interval it is mathematically impossible (not to mention physically) for energy to be lost in a closed system. This results in energy always being conserved, and thus is the reason why gravity doesn't get "weaker". If gravity got weaker, then there would be a drop in potential energy, and the energy would have to go into the kinetic energy of the object or the rest energy of the object. If the object is stationary, the gravitational force getting "weaker" would literally cause the object's potential energy to be converted into mass. See what I am saying here? If you want to disagree, then provide an example where energy is not conserved. 

*Note: Mass is not always conserved, but total energy is. Don't make the mistake of confusing the two.

Vacuum energy fluctuations is an example of where total energy is not conserved.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 11, 2013, 09:15:43 PM

Shouldn't UA bee orders of magnitude weaker then it used to be.
After all 1. We'd be getting further and further from the source so the force from it would be weaker. Using the formula for relativistic time dilation we get the earth would be roughly 10^1000000000 light years away and doubling in distance every 16 months. By the inverse square rule the strength of UA should half every 8 months from that effect alone.
There's also the effective redshift. As the earth gets faster and faster, less and less energy from the UA would hit the earth.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in the FE model, the UA, or aetheric wind, for a more eloquent term, is a field that is expanding. It is not in the form of electromagnetic radiation, so redshift does not apply because there is no frequency to begin with, it is an expansion of some kind of exotic energy, maybe it is negetive energy that is causing a positive energy surplus to appear elsewhere in the universe.

I am curious to how you used the Lorentz transformation for time dilation to calculate distance, when the relativistic formula for time dilation is as follows:

If someone's constantly throwing balls at you them the frequency (and power) of the impacts will get less if you move away from them.

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 12, 2013, 11:08:20 AM

Gravity does get weaker. Now about UA? Does it get weaker? How is it formulated? Shouldn't we be worried about actually IMPROVING this theory?

UA gets weaker at exactly the same rate as gravity, as they are two theories describing exactly the same phenomenon.  Of course we should be worrying about improving the theory - we should always be worried about improving the theory - but claiming it is impossible because there is an aspect of it that has yet to be explained is not a constructive way to go about doing that.

UA would half in strength in under a year.

Actually potential energy is negative, and usually refers to the energy needed to get away. Here it would tend to zero thus violating conservation of energy.

You know I meant gravitational potential energy haha.

Vacuum energy fluctuations is an example of where total energy is not conserved.

We aren't sure if this is true actually. You can't isolate a system (to get a closed system) to study a vacuum, because it would have to be isolated in a vacuum (lol).

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 12, 2013, 11:51:39 PM

Vacuum energy fluctuations is an example of where total energy is not conserved.

We aren't sure if this is true actually. You can't isolate a system (to get a closed system) to study a vacuum, because it would have to be isolated in a vacuum (lol).

Not so. To wit: Casimir effect.

Quote from: Almostaphysicsmajor on October 13, 2013, 06:11:55 PM

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 12, 2013, 11:51:39 PM

Vacuum energy fluctuations is an example of where total energy is not conserved.

We aren't sure if this is true actually. You can't isolate a system (to get a closed system) to study a vacuum, because it would have to be isolated in a vacuum (lol).

Not so. To wit: Casimir effect.

Sorry, but how does the Casimir effect relate? Not too familiar with it.

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 13, 2013, 07:35:47 PM

Quote from: Almostaphysicsmajor on October 13, 2013, 06:11:55 PM

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 12, 2013, 11:51:39 PM

Vacuum energy fluctuations is an example of where total energy is not conserved.

We aren't sure if this is true actually. You can't isolate a system (to get a closed system) to study a vacuum, because it would have to be isolated in a vacuum (lol).

Not so. To wit: Casimir effect.

Sorry, but how does the Casimir effect relate? Not too familiar with it.

Give it a google sometime, it is quite fasinating. It is a measurement of vacuum fluctuations. In essence, the violation of energy conservation (tempered by the uncertainty relation), produces a measurable force.

Which is bananas, man!

Quote from: Almostaphysicsmajor on October 13, 2013, 07:40:22 PM

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 13, 2013, 07:35:47 PM

Quote from: Almostaphysicsmajor on October 13, 2013, 06:11:55 PM

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 12, 2013, 11:51:39 PM

Vacuum energy fluctuations is an example of where total energy is not conserved.

We aren't sure if this is true actually. You can't isolate a system (to get a closed system) to study a vacuum, because it would have to be isolated in a vacuum (lol).

Not so. To wit: Casimir effect.

Sorry, but how does the Casimir effect relate? Not too familiar with it.

Give it a google sometime, it is quite fasinating. It is a measurement of vacuum fluctuations. In essence, the violation of energy conservation (tempered by the uncertainty relation), produces a measurable force.

Which is bananas, man!

Oh yeah! Those virtual particles. What is the most bananas is that it is actually a negetive energy :l I do believe the Wikipedia page stated that the second law of thermodynamics is not broken, but I would need to see an explanation for this.

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 13, 2013, 08:37:46 PM

Quote from: Almostaphysicsmajor on October 13, 2013, 07:40:22 PM

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 13, 2013, 07:35:47 PM

Quote from: Almostaphysicsmajor on October 13, 2013, 06:11:55 PM

Quote from: SeekerOfTruth on October 12, 2013, 11:51:39 PM

Vacuum energy fluctuations is an example of where total energy is not conserved.

We aren't sure if this is true actually. You can't isolate a system (to get a closed system) to study a vacuum, because it would have to be isolated in a vacuum (lol).

Not so. To wit: Casimir effect.

Sorry, but how does the Casimir effect relate? Not too familiar with it.

Give it a google sometime, it is quite fasinating. It is a measurement of vacuum fluctuations. In essence, the violation of energy conservation (tempered by the uncertainty relation), produces a measurable force.

Which is bananas, man!

Oh yeah! Those virtual particles. What is the most bananas is that it is actually a negetive energy :l I do believe the Wikipedia page stated that the second law of thermodynamics is not broken, but I would need to see an explanation for this.

I'm pretty sure it's because the particles are coming into existence and going out of existence at the same rate, so the net energy difference is 0.

But I'm not a physicist so I may be totally off.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 12, 2013, 11:34:08 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 12, 2013, 09:39:12 AM

Quote from: rottingroom on October 12, 2013, 05:50:14 AM

Quote from: Pongo on October 12, 2013, 05:17:45 AM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 12, 2013, 03:02:24 AM

Why doesn't gravity weaken?

And why doesn't the magical force that is pulling everything away from everything else at an accelerating speed weakening?

Ok, both of you. The OP is about 'why UA doesn't weaken'. Why are you attempting to turn the argument around just because your own theories don't make sense?

By the way, reversing the argument doesn't even make sense. The force of gravity is dependent on the amount of mass a body has. In gravitation, there is no reason for gravity to weaken. It's so fallacious to assume that the weakness of UA pointed out in the OP and following comments also apply to gravitation.

In this universe, everything decays.  Yet the force of gravity has remained unchanged since it was discovered.  Why does it not make sense to question that (beyond that it's the accepted dogma, of course)?

UA is a fundamental force of the universe in FET, just as gravity is in RET.  It would be fatuous to the extreme to try to argue that UA must weaken at some point while gravity is allowed to stay at full strength forever.  I'm not "reversing" any argument; I'm using an example from your own theory to show that such a question is nonsensical.

And meanwhile, as Pongo points out, the expansion of the universe continues to expand in RET billions of years after its formation at an accelerating rate.  Duh, why hasn't it started to slow down?  As usual, REers are just being silly, accusing FET of being guilty of traits their own theory shares.

We're not constantly getting further and further from the centre of mass of the Earth. If we were we would expect it to weaken.

That only changes the focus of the question.  It does not answer it.

It does answer it, if FET was correct we'd be getting further and further away from the source.

I'm pretty sure it's because the particles are coming into existence and going out of existence at the same rate, so the net energy difference is 0.

But I'm not a physicist so I may be totally off.

You may Not be a physicist, but that actually is an excellent hypothesis. Upon entering existance there would be a total energy greater than beginning, upon leaving it would go back to equilibrium. And, it is to my knowledge that the two happen simultaneously. That way it wouldnt violate conservation of energy.

Is there an edge to the Universe?

The answer is most definitely: yes.


#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Spotlight Episode:Is There An Edge To the Universe? Through The Wormhole


Even this research is based on the conventional CMBR explanation; Maxwell's original equations provide a much deeper understanding of the entire phenomenon.


Then the UA acceleration must have an orbit in the shape of a circle (or an ellipse), with no explanation whatsoever about its origins, its source of energy, and the reason why such a contraption would be created in the first place, since there are better demonstrations which explain the origin of the law of acceleration.

That explains little. Because wouldn't that mean once we circle back it would hit us from the front or something.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 13, 2013, 09:37:13 PM

I'm pretty sure it's because the particles are coming into existence and going out of existence at the same rate, so the net energy difference is 0.

But I'm not a physicist so I may be totally off.

You may Not be a physicist, but that actually is an excellent hypothesis. Upon entering existance there would be a total energy greater than beginning, upon leaving it would go back to equilibrium. And, it is to my knowledge that the two happen simultaneously. That way it wouldnt violate conservation of energy.

In reality, the situation is much more complicated. In the vacuum, you can have a particle-antiparticle pair (like, electron-positron) that is created and shortly thereafter annihilates. But before it does, the electron can emit and absorb a virtual photon. But before the photon is re-absorbed guess what, it can turn into an electron-positron pair. You can keep going with this, to higher order quantum loop corrections. You can go forever. And all orders in principle contribute to the energy. Fortunately, the amplitude decreases with continued higher loops, allowing perturbation theory to yield a convergent result.

And that result is what is called the VEV (vacuum energy expectation value), which is nonzero. The vacuum has a non-zero energy due to violation of energy conservation. It CAN be violated, nature just follows very specific rules about how it does so.

The vacuum energy is very, very weak though, correct?

Also the centrifugal forces would be massive if we we're going in a circle.

And it still hasn't been answered.

If the bottom of the flat earth were mostly iron (or some other magnetic substance) and the source of UA had electromagnetic properties, then the earth would be pushed away by UA, but the source itself would be pulled along for the ride by electromagnetic attraction.

If the bottom of the flat earth were mostly iron (or some other magnetic substance) and the source of UA had electromagnetic properties, then the earth would be pushed away by UA, but the source itself would be pulled along for the ride by electromagnetic attraction.

That violates conservation of momentum.

Quote from: Alchemist21 on October 22, 2013, 11:46:25 AM

If the bottom of the flat earth were mostly iron (or some other magnetic substance) and the source of UA had electromagnetic properties, then the earth would be pushed away by UA, but the source itself would be pulled along for the ride by electromagnetic attraction.

That violates conservation of momentum.

That violates conservation of just about everything.

Quote from: Alchemist21 on October 22, 2013, 11:46:25 AM

If the bottom of the flat earth were mostly iron (or some other magnetic substance) and the source of UA had electromagnetic properties, then the earth would be pushed away by UA, but the source itself would be pulled along for the ride by electromagnetic attraction.

That violates conservation of momentum.

How?  I imagine it being like someone wearing a bookbag the wrong way (on their front side) then trying to push the bookbag away, pushing themselves forward in the process.

Quote from: 11cookeaw1 on October 22, 2013, 08:16:56 PM

Quote from: Alchemist21 on October 22, 2013, 11:46:25 AM

If the bottom of the flat earth were mostly iron (or some other magnetic substance) and the source of UA had electromagnetic properties, then the earth would be pushed away by UA, but the source itself would be pulled along for the ride by electromagnetic attraction.

That violates conservation of momentum.

How?  I imagine it being like someone wearing a bookbag the wrong way (on their front side) then trying to push the bookbag away, pushing themselves forward in the process.

Try that, just using your arms, and see how far you can get.