Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke

Thread: Was le sage almost correct ?

  1. #1 Was le sage almost correct ? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Kings' Lynn, norfolk, U.K.
    Posts
    9
    Athough the most widely accepted theory on gravity seems to be the warping of space time by bodies with mass, I am very uneasy with this concept.
    While considering the subject I came up with a theory of my own which I later discovered to be vaguely similar to that of le sage. With the advances in modern science has anyone revisited his work and managed to correct the obvious mistakes he made ? If so, could anyone point me in the right direction to find out more ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    We revisit it here every couple months or so. It never improves. Try the Wikipedia article.
    Le Sage's theory of gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Kings' Lynn, norfolk, U.K.
    Posts
    9
    Ive been there and done that but didn't really find it helpful. Le Sages theories are basically flawed, which has quite rightly led to their dismissal. In my humble opinion the essence of what he believed seems to be correct , whereas the mechanism by which it works is fundamentally incorrect. As a newcomer to this , (or any other forum,) I seem to have missed the start of the debate and am out of sync with the general consensus. Having said that I have read with interest the posts of other members and have found nothing that discredits my own opinion on the subject. Even Einstein had trouble understanding what he called the cosmological constant. and later admitted that it was his greatest mistake. With the advantage of hindsight and advances in science I feel it is time to reappraise the evidence offered to us.
    I find the theory of mass distorting the very fabric of space very plausible, yet for it to do that is to admit that space has substance albeit of an as yet unknown genre. There are multiple theories as to what this substance consists of dark matter/ energy etc and the properties of this unknown and presently undetectable stuff are a mystery to mankind. Until we have conclusive proof of what gravity actually is then no doors should be closed to those seeking answers.
    I'm hoping to find a person or persons to debate this subject with, because I am having great difficulty in disproving my own theory on this subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by contrarotational logic View Post
    Athough the most widely accepted theory on gravity seems to be the warping of space time by bodies with mass, I am very uneasy with this concept.
    That doesn't make it any less true. GR now has a century's worth of experimental, observational and theoretical evidence under its belt.

    With the advances in modern science has anyone revisited his work and managed to correct the obvious mistakes he made ?
    No, because it is a waste of time. Push-gravity is not a viable model. Gravity neither pushes nor pulls.

    I seem to have missed the start of the debate and am out of sync with the general consensus.
    The general consensus is well summarized in the Wikipedia article :

    "This mechanical explanation for gravity never gained widespread acceptance, although it continued to be studied occasionally by physicists until the beginning of the 20th century, by which time it was generally considered to be conclusively discredited."

    Having said that I have read with interest the posts of other members and have found nothing that discredits my own opinion on the subject.
    So what is your own opinion on the subject ? I should warn you though, there have been a number of threads on this topic, and they all ended up pretty much the same...

    Even Einstein had trouble understanding what he called the cosmological constant.
    Not sure what this has to do with Push-Gravity. I don't see the connection. Like I said, under GR gravity neither pushes nor pulls.

    I find the theory of mass distorting the very fabric of space very plausible
    That is pretty much the exact opposite of what you said in your OP.

    yet for it to do that is to admit that space has substance albeit of an as yet unknown genre.
    I don't get this either. GR is a model which is formulated using the maths of differential geometry - why does space have to have a substance for this to be true ?

    There are multiple theories as to what this substance consists of dark matter/ energy etc and the properties of this unknown and presently undetectable stuff are a mystery to mankind.
    Please not another Aether theory. Please not. Sick to death of it !!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Kings' Lynn, norfolk, U.K.
    Posts
    9
    Its called the "THEORY" of GR !!!! admittedly it's by far the best one and its a case of so far so good, which hopefully remains the case. There was a lot of sweating going on concerning the validity of the standard model in the lead up to the probable discovery of the Higgs boson.( and its associated field.) Not finding it would have been far more interesting than actually finding it. There are a lot of skeptics out there so the likely results at least lead to them being silenced and the likelihood of the Higgs being a reality but lets not delude ourselves and say that we fully understand the properties of this field, should it exist, or even if it is no more than just a constituent part of a more complex field. I will now start by saying that having read with amusement some of the posts rubbishing the phenomenon of two boats being pushed together by water ( there was one post that ridiculed it to the point of saying that it didn't exist.) my motto has always been, If in doubt , find out. I can assure whoever it was that posted the remark that if two boats get too close to each other then they most certainly do get pushed,in some cases very violently together. Being an information ferret and after encountering this phenomenon first hand many years ago, I researched it and came up with the answer. which is, that water is acted upon by atmospheric pressure which in turn pressurizes the water when two objects such as boats pass close to each other in the water then the portion of each boats hull that is below the water shields the other boats hull from much of this pressure, this leads to an area of low pressure between the two hulls and as a result the force being exerted on the outermost side of each hull is greater than that on the side of each boat that is facing the other boat. although the pressure per square inch is not great when multiplied by the area of the hull it is acting on, then it becomes substantial. Somewhat like the principle used in a hydraulic ram. If you ask experienced skippers about this phenomenon they almost invariably refer to it as being "pulled onto" instead of "pushed onto," which is in fact what is happening. I am using this fact as an example of push versus pull ! its relevance will be disclosed at a later date, as Ive had a hard day and am now going to bed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Atmospheric pressure? Surely you jest.

    Besides, what the hell does the boat story have to do with le sage [sic] and GR?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by contrarotational logic View Post
    I am using this fact as an example of push versus pull ! its relevance will be disclosed at a later date,
    1. This boat movement has nothing to do with atmospheric pressure. Where did you get that idea from ?!
    2. This entire thing has no connection whatsoever to gravity

    Why don't you spare us the preliminaries, and get straight to the point of this thread ? It's obvious that you are going to propose yet another mechanical model of push-gravity, probably based on some sort of aether, or perhaps field, pushing and pulling on matter to make it look like gravity. We've had all that countless times before. It is thus also obvious which way this thread is going to be heading in the end, so let's get it over with.
    This completes a nice half-dozen of Push-Gravity threads since I joined this forum.

    Its called the "THEORY" of GR !!!!
    You mean the experimentally very well verified theory of GR.
    Hey, if your gripe is with GR, then why don't we discuss that one instead of a such nonsense as push-gravity, which was rightly abandoned by mainstream science a century ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Kings' Lynn, norfolk, U.K.
    Posts
    9
    I was just messing about and checking to see who was awake.......I'm dissapointed not to see any mention of the Casimir effect as this is indeed the real cause of the boats coming together. Newton saw the apple fall to the ground and asked why? I myself came damned close to colliding with another vessel when the boat I was steering veered violently towards it (and the larger vessel moved to a lesser extent towards me.) I also thought, why? So I researched it and found it to be a result of the casimir effect. I cant give you the name of the author of the particular book on the subject that I read, as it was a very long time ago, but with the WWW I can't imagine it being too difficult to find his work. (It has diagrams with all the silly little arrows for anyone who can't grasp it.) Anyway....this lead to the obvious question of "Why should the Casimir effect and gravity be the cause of such similar events as in bringing objects together and the smaller being influenced to a greater extent than the larger,
    At this point the "as yet unproven" Higgs field comes into play. Its a known unknown so no one can be certain of its properties (should it turn out to be fact,) but if it exist in the form that is proposed then it brings a new player into the game. Einstien proposed the cosmological constant as the mechanism that stopped the universe from collapsing in on itself, but by his own admission got it wrong. Le sage took a swipe at it but also got it wrong. Although I can understand hostility to the subject I think Its only logical to make the assumtion that space is far from empty, or to be more precise the space between the objects with mass in our universe is far from empty. If our universe turns out to be finite, as I believe then what lies beyond its outer reaches is open to speculation. but getting back to the matter in hand, What is this stuff that fills our universe? In my humble opinion its zero point energy, From what little we know about it we have discovered that it can physically push matter with mass towards other matter with mass, somewhat like the casimir effect its just being done by stuff we cant see and dont fully understand, ( the term dark matter/energy springs to mind.) I'm rather busy with other matters at the moment , but will gladly share my thoughts on how I believe the jump from ZPE to gravity takes place. I apologize for my last post, I was just trying to stir up a hornets nest and get a meaningful debate going.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by contrarotational logic View Post
    I also thought, why? So I researched it and found it to be a result of the casimir effect.
    The Casimir Effect has nothing to do with boats; it is only effective over very small distances, to the tune of maybe 50nm or so. It does not effect macroscopic objects like boats.

    At this point the "as yet unproven" Higgs field comes into play.
    Err, I think you missed something here - the Higgs is no longer unproven ( with high probability ) :

    New particle fits description of elusive Higgs boson, scientists say - CNN

    Its a known unknown so no one can be certain of its properties
    We understand its properties and the Higgs mechanism quite well :

    Higgs mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In my humble opinion its zero point energy, From what little we know about it we have discovered that it can physically push matter with mass towards other matter with mass,
    No it can't. Zero point energy, being the lowest energy state of the quantum vacuum, cannot perform any work, such a pushing matter.
    I am still not sure what this has to do with gravity.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Kings' Lynn, norfolk, U.K.
    Posts
    9
    Dont ever take the wheel of a boat at sea or you will be in for a serious shock when you pass within metres not nano metres of another vessel (or even a large buoy,) But then what do I know, I only work on boats.
    High probability, means exactly that , High "probability" I'm pro Higgs so I don't want to dispute its existence, I would dispute however that you or anyone else knows If it is a stand alone part of what we call dark matter/ energy or if there are other aspects to the field, If you do know , then why has all that money been spent on the LHC when all that was needed was for someone to ask you. The ultimate goal for the team at CERN is to discover what dark energy is, until that time comes we can only theorise..... I have to go out now, but will be back shortly.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by contrarotational logic View Post
    Dont ever take the wheel of a boat at sea or you will be in for a serious shock when you pass within metres not nano metres of another vessel (or even a large buoy,) But then what do I know, I only work on boats.
    Easy now. No one disputes the reality of boats being pushed together at close range; all I am saying to you is that it has nothing to do with the Casimir Effect, or atmospheric pressure.

    High probability, means exactly that , High "probability" I'm pro Higgs so I don't want to dispute its existence,
    Neither do I. However, independent verification will be necessary before final confirmation is obtained. That is just the way science works.

    I would dispute however that you or anyone else knows If it is a stand alone part of what we call dark matter/ energy
    It has nothing to do with dark energy, and it does give dark matter ( whatever it actually is ) its mass.

    If you do know , then why has all that money been spent on the LHC when all that was needed was for someone to ask you.
    The LHC experiments where intended to determine the exact mass of the Higgs boson. We only knew the approximate range of energies it was to be expected in, but didn't know its exact mass. Now we know.
    As for the other properties of the Higgs, those are pretty much determined by the maths of SM, so no surprises here. Did you actually read the Higgs Mechanism article I referenced ?
    Also, you should not forget that the search for the Higgs was only part of the CERN agenda - the accelerator was not built only for the Higgs search.

    The ultimate goal for the team at CERN is to discover what dark energy is
    No, not sure where you got that idea from. CERN concerns itself solely with particle physics, it doesn't have anything to do with dark energy :

    CERN - The LHC experiments
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Kings' Lynn, norfolk, U.K.
    Posts
    9
    Maybe I got the idea that CERN were working towards their goal of discovering what dark matter/ energy is, simply because their spokesman went on tv and said so. How foolish of me to misunderstand the plain english he used. I cant quote him word for word, but the gyst of what he said when asked...... Was the probable discovery of the higgs really worth the billions of pounds it had cost? His reply was..... "yes it was as it was another step towards discovering what dark energy/matter really is, which was in fact their goal.) Not the exact words he used maybe, but there was absolutely no way anyone could misinterpret the statement he made. I know that everone is entitled to their opinion, however self opinionionation and the arrogance that often accompanies it is hardly fruitful in any discussion. I beg to differ on the matter of zero point energy being insignifigant. A single molecule of hydraulic oil under pressure and acting on a hydraulic ram amounts to diddly-squat, but put a few litres of it under the same pressure into the very same ram and you have got some serious power. which is the same effect that can be realized with ZPE,
    Interestingly I just googled zero point energy, and strangely enough the words casimir effect and gravity were glaringly obvious in the theories, which makes me feel much less alone, as the theories were being proposed by reputable scientists holding posts in serious establishments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Kings' Lynn, norfolk, U.K.
    Posts
    9
    Going off at a tangent......But still on the subject of gravity, I have no formal education and science is just one of my interests, I seldom use books or the internet to get answers because working things out for myself is how I get my pleasure. in this instance I have hit a brick wall. So I am looking for a quick fix. I have managed to work out how astronauts orbiting the earth become weightless but am struggling with weightlessness while in a geo-stationary orbit. Can anyone help me with this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by contrarotational logic View Post
    I have managed to work out how astronauts orbiting the earth become weightless but am struggling with weightlessness while in a geo-stationary orbit. Can anyone help me with this?
    Why do you think a geo-stationary orbit would be different?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    59
    Because he's a carrot cruncher.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by contrarotational logic View Post
    Maybe I got the idea that CERN were working towards their goal of discovering what dark matter/ energy is, simply because their spokesman went on tv and said so.
    Well, without having seen that interview myself, let's just leave it at this : dark matter was not mentioned in the original design reports of the LHC, but as being a particle accelerator it may one day help us to understand the nature of that dark matter, through observations ( and perhaps new discoveries ) of fundamental particles.
    It has nothing to do with dark energy, however, since this is not a phenomenon related to particle physics.

    I beg to differ on the matter of zero point energy being insignifigant.
    I did not say it was insignificant, I only said it does not push or pull matter because you cannot perform any work with it - see post 9. Since the topic of this thread is LeSage's Push-Gravity, it has no connection to the topic at hand.

    which is the same effect that can be realized with ZPE,
    Once again, zero point energy is the lowest energy state of a vacuum. You cannot perform any work with it.

    Interestingly I just googled zero point energy, and strangely enough the words casimir effect and gravity were glaringly obvious in the theories, which makes me feel much less alone, as the theories were being proposed by reputable scientists holding posts in serious establishments.
    Would you like to provide a reference please, so that I can formulate a specific response ? A general referral to Google searches does not do much good, especially so since there is a huge amount of crack pottery going on in this subject matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by contrarotational logic View Post
    But still on the subject of gravity, I have no formal education and science is just one of my interests, I seldom use books or the internet to get answers because working things out for myself is how I get my pleasure.
    Ok, please do not take this the wrong way, and in no way do I intend to be disrespectful or anything, but - the whole subject matter of ZPE, gravity, quantum effects etc etc is highly specialized and very complex, so if you have no formal science education and do not wish to research the topics involved, how do you ever purport to come to grips with this subject matter. Really sorry, but boats bobbing around on water will not help here, and neither will the fact that you can't figure out why an astronaut in geostationary orbit would be weightless. Great minds spend years and years studying the maths and physics involved in gravity and quantum physics, just to understand the models behind ZPE, quantum physics and GR. It is a very complex topic indeed.
    Don't be insulted, but this is the reality of it.

    Another thing : you still have not told us what your own theory/model/hypothesis actually is. If you could present your idea it would be easier to have an informed discussion. Also, thus far I see no connection to LeSage's Push-Gravity, as mentioned in the thread title.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; July 15th, 2012 at 05:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Short answer : no, LeSage was not almost correct. LeSage was completely wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by contrarotational logic View Post
    I find the theory of mass distorting the very fabric of space very plausible, yet for it to do that is to admit that space has substance albeit of an as yet unknown genre.
    Note that it is spacetime which is affected by mass, not just space. And this does not imply that space-time is made of "stuff" but simply that its geometry (how we measure distances and time) are affected by the presence of mass and energy (among other things).

    There are multiple theories as to what this substance consists of dark matter/ energy etc and the properties of this unknown and presently undetectable stuff are a mystery to mankind.
    You seem to be mixing things up rather badly here.

    Until we have conclusive proof of what gravity actually is then no doors should be closed to those seeking answers.
    Science doesn't deal in "conclusive proof". We have a very good theory of gravity at the moment. No doubt it will be improved/replaced in future. We can be pretty sure that that will have nothing to do with "pushing".

    Quote Originally Posted by contrarotational logic View Post
    Its called the "THEORY" of GR !!!!
    I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. Unless, perhaps, you don't know what the word theory means in science: it means it is a consistent and well tested explanation. What more do you want?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Is this correct?
    By soliton66 in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 29th, 2010, 12:26 AM
  2. IS THIS CORRECT ?
    By BARCUD in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 23rd, 2008, 02:53 PM
  3. Isn't this correct?
    By scientist91 in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 25th, 2007, 04:37 PM
  4. would i be correct in saying...
    By wallaby in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2006, 03:24 AM
  5. Are you politicaly correct?
    By Natashka in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 8th, 2005, 01:07 AM
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
  •