User talk:Rob Benham

A theory of gravity with links back to Isaac Newton.
Given that General Relativity is arguably the most tested hypotheses ever, we must accept it abutting the high Sigma stops. Yet we find new gravitational concepts being introduced on an almost routine basis and this seems strange and potentially counterproductive because of the occasional gem being lost in the dross. This week a side-topic in New Scientist suggested 'A model of how wave forms of quantum systems collapse reveals a way they could create gravitational fields, and perhaps even reconcile two pillars of physics. . ."

Over time the hypotheses get ever-increasingly complicated while intriguingly simplistic outline models earn almost automatic rejection. Perhaps the most important problem in science today simply can not have a simple answer; Ockham's razor not allowed.

Before Newton handed back the concept of an æther-driven gravity back to his Creator, he imagined some kind of force or field flowing towards our planet (which vaporised away at the surface). I wonder if he was the first. He certainly wasn't the last.

A reviewed paper by an Antipodean PhD really didn't seem to go anywhere. The appropriately qualified American reviewer 'Wondered where all this spacetime is going.' I've wondered that for 40 years, but it is perhaps secondary to just how such an inflow of a spacetime field/fabric would impart a coupling energy. Certainly a secondary small mass introduced alongside an already falling mass would need to retain its frame, yet at the same time be subject to the local 'coupling energy' and acceleration. Modern thinking along the lines of Higgs/fields/particles seems to open the door to endless possibilities.

Gravity is at measurable scales a smooth one-way flow that seems to have no relationship to the 'real forces'. It's absurdly weak, yet quite relentless but my suggestions as to where such a spacetime is going are radical to say the least. Should a 'quantum foam' be found to be flowing into every particle of matter/energy,it might be feeding the energy we'd always assumed was just part of the Universe: not such a free lunch after all but a constant balanced supply. I hesitate to suggest, but I will anyway, that it's even conceivable that the Universe is changing scale as well as expanding. When you think of the rejection Georges Lemaître got for suggesting the universe was expanding, the notion is no more absurd.

Should it be proved that spacetime were so proactive in the creation of the small proportion of our universe that we perceive as matter then it would not be at all surprising to find an accumulated inflow of say, a galaxy, may account for the very different motion observed in its rotation.

I suppose the concept of spacetime flowing into matter and seeping into the reality from whence it came is going a tad too far.

Rob Benham (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)