Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: What's wrong with this gravity concept?

  1. #1 What's wrong with this gravity concept? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    It goes like this:

    ----------
    What if we suppose there are high energy gravitons flowing in all directions through space, which pass through matter, but also push it?

    The density of any object decides how much of the flow is blocked by it in every direction, and how much passes through. Denser objects block the flow more.

    A single dense object in the middle of space blocks the same amount of flow in every direction, and therefore doesn't move.

    Two dense objects in space, however, open up a common area between them.
    ---------------

    Mostly I just want to see if people can readily shoot this concept down, or if it might be a viable theory. It kind of makes sense, but it's also limited in a lot of ways.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Never thought of it that way 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3
    Sounds like you are defining the area inbetween them by what isn't there - these dense objects, and that makes sense to me. I probably didn't understand it the way you meant it, but that's my crack at it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: What's wrong with this gravity concept? 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It goes like this:

    ----------
    What if we suppose there are high energy gravitons flowing in all directions through space, which pass through matter, but also push it?

    The density of any object decides how much of the flow is blocked by it in every direction, and how much passes through. Denser objects block the flow more.

    A single dense object in the middle of space blocks the same amount of flow in every direction, and therefore doesn't move.

    Two dense objects in space, however, open up a common area between them.
    ---------------

    Mostly I just want to see if people can readily shoot this concept down, or if it might be a viable theory. It kind of makes sense, but it's also limited in a lot of ways.
    The issue is that you aren't really saying anything. I'm not trying to be critical but your words need to be defined:

    What are you referring to as a 'graviton' (lots of debate)? high energy? 'area' between objects. 'passes' through, etc.

    The devil is in the details. What in string theory or otherwise is meant by 'passes through'..is this some spatial movement or series of subatomic quantum events? 'area'...as in? What's an area?


    Your view of gravity is explained in three domnsions and isn't really explaining but is observation. Newton 'observed' the effects of gravity but he didn't explain...even quantum theory shows that Eistein with Relativity only observed gravity without explanation. It's akin to Mendel doing his 19th century breeding experiments on the colours of peas....he could observe a macro level of phenomena but couldn't explain what was happening without a concept of the gene and DNA within.

    saying "Two dense objects in space, however, open up a common area between them" is like Newton saying drop two objects of different masses and they will hit the ground at the same time. These are observations of events and not explanations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Yeah, I'm not to committed to this idea, anyway..... but it makes for good practice to try and refine it. Basically I'm just trying to come up with a theory of gravity that uses only repulsive forces.

    Suppose we say these particles which I choose to call "gravitons"
    have the following traits:

    1) They fill space pretty evenly throughout.

    2) They are always moving at the speed of light

    3) In any given area of space, there will be an approximately equal distribution of gravitons moving in every direction.

    4) When they pass through an object that has mass, some of them are blocked, and some make it through.

    4A) The amount of blockage is determined by the density of the object.
    4B) The gravitons which are blocked accelerate the object.

    5) They don't interfere with each other.

    6) The only way they interact with matter is by accelerating it.

    By this theory, if an object with mass is alone in space, it will be pushed an equal amount in all directions, which means it doesn't get moved at all.

    If two objects with mass are near each other (Object A and Object B), some of the "gravitons" that would normally have been hitting Object B from the direction of Object A, don't make it to Object B, so Object B is being pushed from all sides but one. Object B also blocks some of the gravitons that would have been hitting Object A.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman StarMountainKid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    61
    Interesting theory. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that we are held on the surface of the earth by our body density blocking gravitons as they strike us from space. I have some questions:

    Why are some gravitons blocked by matter and some pass through?

    What happens to the gravitons that are blocked? Do they have new trajectories (bounce off matter), and what is the effect of this?

    How do they interact with matter?
    I think if these gravitons exert a force on the molecular, atomic or quantum scales, their effect would be measurable by experiment.

    Also, if they don't interfere with each other, what happens when two gravitons collide at the speed of light?

    How do you explain angular momentum? For instance, the rotation of stars and planetary systems created from non-rotating gas clouds?
    "Where are you going?" "I go where it is changeless." "How can you go where it is changeless?" "My going is no change."
    http://www.youtube.com/user/starmoun...d?feature=mhee
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    kojax,
    may I ask, respectfully, what is wrong with the exisiting theories of gravity, that makes you feel a new one is required? Now that is largely a rhetorical question, for we know that they are not faultess. However, I am intrigued as to what makes you feel that you can offer something useful in the form of some loose (as jellyologist has pointed out) verbiage.
    And there we come to what is wrong with your theory : - no math.

    [And a small pretty please plea - would you object horribly to calling it a wild speculation, or an ad hoc hypothesis, rather than a theory. Theories are things of substance and elegance and character. This is not. ]
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •