How We See things

Very often I find how we reach a conclusion depends on how we see things. As an example, some time ago this woman director of a gene testing lab had occasion to test what she was told were sasquatch samples. Her conclusion was, the animal in question was a hybrid of human and ape. Later I got to see copies of some of the notes, and came to the conclusion that a final, polished report would have been a lot better.

And then, some time later, something struck me. In those notes gorilla genes were mentioned a lot. That got me to thinking, and it occurred to me that the sasquatch is not descended from the same line as lead to Man, but Is actually more closely related to the gorilla. May even be more closely related to the gorilla than any other ape.

Even more recently I noticed a problem with our conclusion that gravity warps space-time.

Take object A, a mass of 1 million metric tons in space. Then object B, a mass of 1 metric tons goes by. We see the trajectory of B change to describe a curve, in current thought, because space-time is curved in just that fashion at that distance from A.

However, were B to be travelling at a slower momentum, the curve would be more pronounced. At a faster momentum, less pronounced. I expect physicists would explain it as the actual curving of space-time also depends on the velocity of the smaller mass. I see a problem with that.

it complicates matters.

Much like engineering, science works on a basic principle. The KISS principle


Keep it simple, stupid.

Or, as I like to put it: The simplest solution that answers the question is usually the best (my emphasis)

What’s going on as B passes A by?

B is being affected by two forces. First is B’s velocity as it travels through space. Remember that an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an external forces. Second is A’s gravity, which pulls on B. It is this external force that alters B’s Trajectory. B’s path is affected by both forces, and so B’s path curves. If B moved faster the curve would be less because the forward motion would take B further. If B moved slower the curve would be greater because forward motion for B would be less.

No need for space-time to curve, B’s trajectory is influenced by two forces; B’s velocity and A’s gravity.

Which means, if I may extrapolate, is that the basic forces; gravity, electromagnetic, weak, and strong; don’t curve space-time. Indeed, they may have no real effect on space-time, instead working through a mechanism we don’t yet know about. Or maybe there  really are photons and gluons and stuff like that.

And that leads to more questions. Such as, are photons massless, or are photons at the right mass to move at the speed of light, while gravitons have even less mass, and so can move at a higher velocity.

Or maybe space-time is bent, but only in one direction, towards the mass in question. So that B does indeed fall down the resulting slope, while at the same time moving along its regular path. Think of it this way, mass does not curve space-time, mass depresses space-time.

What do you think?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s