# Maybe fields (like gravity) invert when you get too close?

• June 16th, 2010, 06:32 PM
kojax
Maybe fields (like gravity) invert when you get too close?
I'm thinking of the Schwartzchild radius.

I'm starting to think that, if you got past the event horizon of a black hole, the field would invert and become repulsive instead of attractive, pushing you back to the event horizon. There's no way to be sure about this specific prediction, because outside observers can never observe anything to get past the event horizon (because time stands still there.)

But.... what about a repulsive field? What about the positive electric field that surrounds a proton? I imagine it would also have a Schwartzchild radius of some sort, and from the perspective of another proton, time would be super fast at that radius, not super slow. So... if a proton gets past the Schwartzchild radius of another protons electric field, maybe it inverts?

This is my theory of the strong and electromagnetic forces. I think that maybe the same field creates both forces. It would also be the reason why the strong force doesn't drop off according to an inverse square rule. My thinking is that this part of its behavior is also inverted. Once you get past the inside of the Schwartzchild radius of the field, it should get weaker as you get closer to the center, instead of getting stronger.

Feel free to tear this apart. I'm just beginning to study nuclear physics now, and I always like to start my studies with a tentative model, which I will then continue to adjust until I get it right.
• June 18th, 2010, 07:11 AM
LeavingQuietly
Re: Maybe fields (like gravity) invert when you get too clos
Quote:

Originally Posted by kojax
I'm thinking of the Schwartzchild radius.

I'm starting to think that, if you got past the event horizon of a black hole, the field would invert and become repulsive instead of attractive, pushing you back to the event horizon. There's no way to be sure about this specific prediction, because outside observers can never observe anything to get past the event horizon (because time stands still there.)

But.... what about a repulsive field? What about the positive electric field that surrounds a proton? I imagine it would also have a Schwartzchild radius of some sort, and from the perspective of another proton, time would be super fast at that radius, not super slow. So... if a proton gets past the Schwartzchild radius of another protons electric field, maybe it inverts?

This is my theory of the strong and electromagnetic forces. I think that maybe the same field creates both forces. It would also be the reason why the strong force doesn't drop off according to an inverse square rule. My thinking is that this part of its behavior is also inverted. Once you get past the inside of the Schwartzchild radius of the field, it should get weaker as you get closer to the center, instead of getting stronger.

Feel free to tear this apart. I'm just beginning to study nuclear physics now, and I always like to start my studies with a tentative model, which I will then continue to adjust until I get it right.

Well, it cannot inverse so much that it would've exploded.

Second remark:

The density would stabilise, after oscillating a while.

Third remark:

Time would not stand still, length would not be contracted. It would've been immensely hot inside.

Fourth remark:

It really would've had a charge... Has it?

That's all I felt like posting in this one post, you can reply, maybe I come back to it.
• July 2nd, 2010, 03:55 AM
gravityguru
sounds right to me. ive been playing with ferrofluid here lately that i purchased online. i bet a black hole looks exactly like a magnets field. in my opinion, magnetism is caused by a flow of particles. think of the magnet as a vacuum, sucking particles in one side and spitting them out the other. a black hole is doing the same thing. when i drop something heavy, that is non-magnetic, into my ferrofluid, it moves with the ferrofluid but gets pushed to the outside once the field is strong enough. with a black hole, the particles are moving (call it aether, if you want) faster than the speed of light. light emitted would still be heading into the black hole because the medium in which light travels is moving faster than light. it is equivalent to wind traveling faster than the speed of sound. sound would still be moving in the direction of the wind. time does not change. it ticks at exactly the same speed everywhere. changing the field of gravity, even around atomic objects, will cause them to act at slower and faster rates. clocks tick differently in space because the gears(per say) are ticking slower/faster. time is still ticking the same though.

damnit. I did it again. im rambling. sorry for the long post.

think of a hurricane. the wind super accelerates entering the cone of the hurricane. if the particles start getting too close for comfort, than any larger masses, atoms, would be smashed/ripped apart into aether particles.
• July 2nd, 2010, 05:37 AM
Harold14370
Think about what you are doing. How do we even know there are black holes? Well, we think we know there are black holes because Einstein's theory of relativity predicts them, astronomical observations are consistent with that theory, and we have observed radiation of the type that should be coming from the region of a black hole, consistent with the theory of relativity.

Now, it looks like you want to toss out the theory of relativity and come up with a different explanation of what happens in a black hole. No. If you toss out relativity you don't have a black hole. There is no Schwartzchild radius. You have to start from scratch and come up with your own theory to explain the astronomical observations.
• July 2nd, 2010, 05:47 AM
LeavingQuietly
Thank you Harold, I find your comment encouraging; It's like there actually is a such a thing as tossing out special relativity.

I'll ask some physicians if my own version of speeds relative to light is correct.

But then again, I'd expect that any theory could be tossed away eventually.
• July 2nd, 2010, 11:10 AM
Arcane_Mathematician
Quote:

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Thank you Harold, I find your comment encouraging; It's like there actually is a such a thing as tossing out special relativity.

I'll ask some physicians if my own version of speeds relative to light is correct.

But then again, I'd expect that any theory could be tossed away eventually.

You may want to ask Physicists, not Physicians.
• July 2nd, 2010, 11:41 AM
Harold14370
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
Quote:

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Thank you Harold, I find your comment encouraging; It's like there actually is a such a thing as tossing out special relativity.

I'll ask some physicians if my own version of speeds relative to light is correct.

But then again, I'd expect that any theory could be tossed away eventually.

You may want to ask Physicists, not Physicians.

A physician may be better qualified in this case.
• July 2nd, 2010, 12:19 PM
LeavingQuietly
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
Quote:

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Thank you Harold, I find your comment encouraging; It's like there actually is a such a thing as tossing out special relativity.

I'll ask some physicians if my own version of speeds relative to light is correct.

But then again, I'd expect that any theory could be tossed away eventually.

You may want to ask Physicists, not Physicians.

Thank you.

For above post stop.

• July 2nd, 2010, 02:40 PM
Arcane_Mathematician
Quote:

Originally Posted by Harold14370
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
Quote:

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Thank you Harold, I find your comment encouraging; It's like there actually is a such a thing as tossing out special relativity.

I'll ask some physicians if my own version of speeds relative to light is correct.

But then again, I'd expect that any theory could be tossed away eventually.

You may want to ask Physicists, not Physicians.

A physician may be better qualified in this case.

I think a Psychiatrist would be most qualified in this case.
• July 2nd, 2010, 02:55 PM
LeavingQuietly
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
Quote:

Originally Posted by Harold14370
Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
Quote:

Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
Thank you Harold, I find your comment encouraging; It's like there actually is a such a thing as tossing out special relativity.

I'll ask some physicians if my own version of speeds relative to light is correct.

But then again, I'd expect that any theory could be tossed away eventually.

You may want to ask Physicists, not Physicians.

A physician may be better qualified in this case.

I think a Psychiatrist would be most qualified in this case.

-Shut up. End of swear-pouch.
• July 2nd, 2010, 06:36 PM
TheBiologista
Get back on topic please. I will remove any further off topic remarks.
• July 4th, 2010, 02:52 AM
LeavingQuietly
Re: Maybe fields (like gravity) invert when you get too clos
Quote:

Originally Posted by kojax
Maybe fields (like gravity) invert when you get too close?

1. Fields like gravity could for instance be proportional to the gravity of the medium which it is in.

Like water for instance.

But it's just a belief I have.

2. the closer gravitational matter is, the higher will the gravitomagnetism become, is that possibly the reason for some higher force then gravity on close range. It is easy to prove that there would be gravitomagnetism due to the unceirtainty principle at low ranges of particles.