There is no gravity

This may seem wild at first, but for me there is significant appeal to the idea that there is no gravity. This is very rough draft of the idea, but I want to write it down while it's still in my head.
Simply put, there is no force acting upon objects with mass, causing them to move, but rather, there's shifting of space itself causing the objects to appear to move. This actually sounds quite a lot like the the current view that mass bends space-time. My view is that it's not a single event of distorting the space-time, but a continuous process. In addition to stretching the space-time, there should be a portion of space-time being "consumed" by the mass. I'm not saying "object with mass" because I want to redefine what we call object as well. (Quite bold - I know). I view what we call particle as a knot of space-time. Name it folding up in a higher dimension if you will, but that know constitutes the mass, and it's the wrapping/further entangling of that knot that "sucks in" the surrounding space-time. The rate for single subatomic particle would be very small, but the combined effect of all the particles in a planet will give the distortion perceived as gravity. The overall distortion of the entire universe gives out what we observe as the expansion of the universe.
I'm yet to fit in the wave-particle duality, but thinking in the lines of unraveling the knot to ripples and then re-wrapping it again when/during interaction. Technically the ripples of the original knot would be acting upon another knot, which will either re-entangle in a new way and/or cause it to unravel thus creating some ripples.

Two key points I what to get clear for myself:
a) the stretching of ST (space-time) is ideal - infinite and has no resistance. This accommodates the the falling of an asteroid on the sun at great speeds, while keeping the planets in orbit. The speed of the falling asteroid is the speed of stretching - so yeah stretching is fast and a lot. Seems like the space the Earth is in now, was as far as   the orbit of mars a year ago. Or something of that scope.
b) the "consumption" of ST, is tiny. It only constitutes the "span" of what it took to make the knot for the particle. In other words the expansion of the universe is summary of the existence of all knots i.e. all mass. As this implies this is individual event on particle scale, but on universal scale it increasingly growing phenomenon.

c) the speed of stretching, two body stretching, and where the stretched material is?
 - stretch speed is small at the edge and gradually speeds up towards the mass center

 - stretch of two bodies related should be ...

there is really no proper analogy. Lets consider the Sun and the Earth - in some sense the Earth is like a marble moving in a straight line on a ice plane, while the ice plane is being constantly pulled in towards the sun, thus creating the circular orbit. But that's only the half of it because to get the orbit you need to illustrate the effect of the Earth. So more descriptive view of the combined effect is an infinite lake, with two holes in its bottom, through witch the water flows down. The whirlpools created upon the water represent the distortion of the ST by the massive objects. However this second view does not illustrate the combined motion of the two objects as a result of the distortion they create. It must look like a big whirlpool that catches in it's motion a smaller one that would have continued to move in straight line across if the big one wasn't there. The big one shouldn't be stationary either.
- the stretched ST needs to pile somewhere to make room for new stretching. i.e. the water falling through the whirlpool needs to get somewhere. For now let's assume that it gets infinitely compressed within the volume of the massive object or it's particles with mass - within the knots. At the edge of the knots, because if we let it further entangle the knots, that will make the particles more massive. That will mean there's a lot of  ST between the edge of a particle and it's core. If stretching ST constitutes gravity, wouldn't compressing ST constitute anti-gravity?

Размисли върху свободата*- Институт за пазарна икономика

Размисли върху свободата*- Институт за пазарна икономика

...
Съединените щати се наричат „земята на свободните”, но част от свободата е правото да се откажете или да си тръгнете. Данъците в повечето европейски страни са по-високи от тези в САЩ, но повечето европейци могат да откажат да ги плащат, като се преместят в държава с по-ниски данъци, защото те имат териториална данъчна система, където се облагат само тези доходи, получени в рамките на територията. За разлика от тях, САЩ е една от малкото държави с данъчна система в световен мащаб, където доходът на хората се облага, независимо къде е спечелен, което не позволява на гражданите да откажат да плащат данъци. Данъците отнемат свободата на хората да харчат резултатите от техния труд, както намерят за добре. Колкото по-висока е данъчната ставка, толкова по-малко е свободата, но възможността да откажете да плащате данъци изисква повече свобода.
Много от левите спорят, че населението трябва да има безплатно медицинско обслужване, жилищно настаняване, храна и т.н., ако са в нужда. Но за да бъдат дадени тези свободи, свободата на други хора да запазят продукта от техния собствен труд е намалена, тъй като те са принудени да работят, за да покрият разхода за подкрепата на други. Човек не може да има свобода без способността да даде съгласие за дори необходимите ограничения върху свободите си. В пряка демокрация като Швейцария, мнозинството трябва да се съгласи да бъде ограничавано в свободните си права. В представителна демократична система, свободите са често отнемани без съгласие. Свободата може да бъде съхранена, само ако повече хора разберат понятието и оценят неговата важност. Твърде малко време се отделя на свободата в училищата и политическите дискусии. Това, което не е разбрано, няма да бъде защитено.

Thoughts on management

The most significant difference of the managerial position compared to any other is that the success of the manager is measured ONLY by the results, and not by the amount of work it took to achieve them!
The manager is the person that does anything it takes to achieve the goals. It doesn't really matter what the provided resources are. If the manager falls short of the goal due to insufficient resources, it will be his fault that he was unable to convince the higher management that the goals require more resources.
I think that the true manager requires a very specific mind set, which will allow the manager to comprehend the entirety of a process, thus ensure that any shortcomings are addressed and handled in time.
Being a manager is like being a commander of a battle unit - above all it requires character. Although a manager functions like a a mediator as being set in in the middle of the two sides - top and bottom, she should not allow to be perceived as mediator because that will compromise her positions.

Being a manager is about making decisions that transcend a specific idea. If there are contradictory decisions, there will be a disaster not longer after.

Stalling a decision might be worse than making a wrong decision, because you will be uncertain and week in the eyes of your subordinates. That holds true even in the most calm and noncompetitive environments - the whole "measuring" happens on subconscious level.

(work in progress)

Cosmology (part 1) Failed

I've been reading some articles about the current cosmology theories, and it seems that there are some unexplained phenomenon that are taken for granted. I haven't done any "homework" on this i.e. I haven't read additionally to check the pros and cons of the theories I will talk about, so you can approach this article as just allowing my imagination to run wild for a bit.


We judge that the universe is expanding based on the observations we make of distant objects in space. Hubble detected that light of all astral objects has a red shift, and the further they are, the bigger the shift. That leads to the conclusion that all objects in the universe are moving away from each other, thus the universe is expanding.
In fact we should stress that the objects appear to be moving away due to the red shift, but in fact they do not have any velocity. It's the space that changes! The distance between the objects change without relative movement of the objects themselves. It's like if space springs into existence - "pours into reality". If you take 1 meter of distance and measure it again after few billion years, you will fined that it's now more than a meter. This creates the red shift, as the same thing applies for the space defined by wavelength of light.
To some extend this might explain the "foam" structure of the mapped universe. The space expands underneath our feet, while gravity causes the matter to clump together, instead of being evenly dispersed in space.

Here is the logic that drives the conclusion:
We capture wave with frequency F, which we expect to be a higher value. The further away the observed object, the lower the measured F, compared to the expectations. If the wave phase speed, i.e. the speed of light, has not changed, that the wavelength has. Because:
w = v / f
where w=wavelength[m],f=frequency[Hz] and v=phase speed[m/s]
f = v / w
for f to get smaller, with constant v, the w should get bigger. And since w

wavelength of a sinusoidal wave is the spatial period of the wave – the distance over which the wave's shape repeats

, that will call for the distance increase.

One additional side we should consider is why don't we involve time in that logic. If the spatial dimensions could be expanding, why cant we involve time? As it's interlinked with space, it should equally expand over time - what used to take one second, might be a bit more after a millennia has passed.
In fact that cannot be avoided if we allow for spatial dimension expansion:
before: c = 3x10^5 km/s => c = 3x10^8 m/s as 1km=1000m
change: 1km = 1010m
after : cover 1010m with speed 3x10^8 m/s => you will need same increment in [s]

You can try it the other way around:
Let t measure time between two repetitions of the sinusoidal wave, expressed by the frequency f:
f = 1 / t[s] (by definition)
To make f smaller we need to have time t increase. Again we need to relay that concept towards the notion that the speed of light remains the same. The speed is measure in m/s:
lets say that before expansion one second is in 1000 ms, and after the expansion it is 1010ms.
so before the expansion light covers 3x10^8 m/s <=> 3x10^5 m/ms -- that will be our constant speed. Now if we check the expanded time - the light needs to cover distance 3x10^8 m with the same speed while running for 10ms more. Now that can only be achieved if the distance in [m] itself has increased.

We will get back to this line of thought a bit later.


In this context the search for the "dark energy", which counters the gravitation to make our view of the universe match the observations, seems a bit odd. At least to me it does.
It assumes that space by it's nature is static, and there is some underlining force that causes it to stretch/expand. What if space's natural state is ever expanding on it's own? Wouldn't that also match the inflation theory? My concept isn't much different, the main difference is that it accepts the expansion as natural property of space, and not some mysterious force that opposes gravity and drives celestial objects apart.
The expansion of space is countered by gravity, so the space expansion in regions with gravity should be pushed outward. The object linked in gravity pair would have the distance between them expanded, but the gravity will pull them together, so the expansion will not emerge in-between them, but towards the objects outside of the gravitational interaction.

Let's dig a bit around the interaction between light and gravity. Even if light has relativistic mass, it is not directly affected by gravitational force itself. Instead it's affected by the space-time curve created by the gravitational fields. For what I understand the relativistic mass matters when working with different frames of observation. Now let's get some details on the curvature well created by gravity in all the pretty videos we have seen. The representation there is not replacing gravity entirely out of the picture, it just changes the perspective.
1. The space-time is represented by rubber sheet that is stretched - that is to represent two aspects of the medium - (a) it's stretchable, and (b) it has resistance/tension.
The tension is required so that it underlines that the medium would change back to it's original state when it's not under the effect of another object.
2. The medium has no friction - the velocity of the objects is affected by the medium itself.
3. The objects i.e. stars, planets and black holes, are pressed towards the rubber sheet - and that is done via our normal notion of gravity pressing down.
4. The amount of pressure of the object on the sheet is equivalent to it's mass.
5. The rubber sheet is perfectly stretchable - it will not lose stretchability even if it's already significantly stretched. That allows for the objects to form steep slopes of the gravitational wells.
So we still need notion of gravity to make this work, and we have only replaced the gravity of one of the objects with the space-time distortion - the gravitational well.
Now if we follow these rules for light, it shouldn't bend at all as it's not affected by gravity directly. It will follow the space-time curve, as it cannot escape out of it, but would keep it's direction. Just like the space-time is restored to it's normal state away from the gravity well, the light ray will keep it's original direction. Imagine it as another line of the medium grid.
Now how can we fix all that to make the light bend as we do observe?
What if we allow for the medium to expand/flow on it's own.
Imagine pretty much the same thing, but allow for the rubber to expand slowly at every point, and for it to drip down inside the gravity wells. That will create a constant flow of medium towards the center of the gravity well. The light will be carried/dragged along as it passes through the medium, which is being pulled "under its feet".
Let me put it in a bit different way - start with the empty space-time with network of with a grid of lines for reference. Imagine how space-time distortion changes if our gravity centre starts with zero mass and then accumulates more and more. Simply the stretching of the grid lines will be more and more. Now imagine the two things together - constant undergoing warping of spacetime and the ray of light passing through. At some small time intervals, the ray will get distorted not only by the curved spacetime, but also by the increase of the that curvature. This change over time allows the exit direction of the light ray to be at a different angle to the entrance one. We know that the mass of the objects causing the gravitational lensing does not increase (at least not that fast), but we see that this change in the curvature is what accounts for the lensing effect. So we should view the gravity not as a bowling ball on a trampoline, which is static, but rather as a liquid falling into an circular drain. The spiral effect is also present, but it's motion is much less compared to the vertical motion of the water falling through the drain. So the surface representing the spacetime is constantly fed into the gravitational centre.
When working with this picture, we still need to account for:
1. For this to work in proper scope we need the medium to be special liquid that has high viscosity, which becomes lower and lower as closing on the centre of gravity. This is very important because it needs to represent the same dependence as the gravity law:
(a) the closer the objects the stronger the effect
(b) this also accounts for the masses, as not only the object we have as a centre of the reference frame will cause low viscosity, but also the object "falling" towards it. When it has higher mass it will cause it's own affect on the viscosity thus increasing the interaction effect.
2. the objects velocity - the faster the object moves, the less time it spends under the influence

Have to account for circular orbits - is that a failure? This causes the whole concept to crumble, as any constant flow of spacetime will be unable to account for circular orbits.
Not quite. Don't forget that objects are not pinned to spacetime, but could actually move through it. The "resistance" to the spacetime flow is momentum the object has in the outward direction. The orbiter object has to have momentum tangential to the orbit curve. The path traced on the spacetime fabric being consumed, is a straight line matching that momentum. (It's hard to visualize because we need a fabric gradient that preserves the perspective in both locations - deep in the well, and out of it.



So we have something like the continental plates on earth - ocean floor is recycled at the submerging points, and new one is created at the central ocean rifts. In our case spacetime is created constantly on it's own, even with a small margin, while the gravitational wells recycle it.

Let's take one step further and add time to the picture. We kind of said that space expands over time to stretch the light waves. That's why it takes billions of years to cause significant red shift. Let's view this as time being defined by the stretch of space. IF space(time) expansion is the underlining the notion of time, then the expansion is quite small, compared to the cosmic scale. Since it takes billions of years for light to get observable red shift we can try to estimate the space(time) expansion that occurs in one second. We are bound to get a very small value. Small enough to enter the realm of quantum mechanics? If I had the time, I'd make a research on the scales and make a rough estimation, but I have a feeling that this would be something on scale of string theory, rather than the quantum theory.

added on 18, Mar, 2011:
The Hubble Constant - the expansion rate - has been calculated with a three percent margin of error. The constant is 73.8 kilometers per second per megaparsec. A parsec is 3.26 light-years, and a megaparsec is a million parsecs. So we have 3.26 million light-years, and a light-year is 31 trillion kilometers. 3.26 million * 31 trillion = 1.0106e+20 km. So every 1.0106*10^20 km between two objects, every second adds 73.8 kilometers between them.
Let's round the 73.8 to a 100 and drop from km to m. 10¹⁷ m gives 100 m, so 10¹⁵ m gives 1 m. The size of hydrogen nucleus is 1.75×10⁻¹⁵ m. In other words - every meter expands with a half of hydrogen atom core size every second.



(to be continued)