# Thread: yet another theory of gravity

1. sortof a reverse centrifugal force?
doubt it. on that analogy, the wheel would need a sticky surface to grab the ribbon, or if you are thinking about a ribbon rotating around an axel, thats the air flow bending the tip and mass of the ribbon pulling it back (to tighten it) without the tail it would result in a slingshot. point being, any attraction this way would need its point stuck to the wheel and a tail to wrap it tighter.

but ye, on spin affecting gravity.
if we go into small scale on centrifugal force, if its random it would not really have a huge effect on the direction of the gravity, as the overall vector of the directions would result in a push. still, considering magnetism as partly homogenised spin of gravity (% of gravity that is homogenised vs nonhomogenised would equal the strength of the magnetic field) might be an option.

also the spin of a particle might be part of the creation of the emission, as energy is increased in the form of spin, increased rotation speed, the centrifugal force would exceed the external push to realease something.

i am still missing way too many parts of the puzzle.

2. In the 1860s Lorand Eotvos proved that the Earths spin effects gravity. After measuring the acceleration due to gravity it was found to be weaker when traveling east and stronger when traveling west. This was due to the coriolis effect caused by Earths spinning. He also showed that the effect changed with latitude as centrifugal force also came into effect.

3. hmm, interesting. how measurable the difference is? and was it proven to be directed directly downwards. or does it have a east / west directional component to it?

4. Originally Posted by yunthi
hmm, interesting. how measurable the difference is? and was it proven to be directed directly downwards. or does it have a east / west directional component to it?
answers here: Eötvös effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5. Originally Posted by yunthi
i promised myself that i wouldnt come back here, still im trying to understand gr so u fanboys maybe can explain it to me.

There is no actual "pulling", I only used this term to distinguish it from your push model so there is no confusion. Gravity is really space-time curvature. Again, this has been explained a number of times now. The resultant force is oriented inward, towards the source, so you can interpret it as a pull force. But the underlying nature of this gravity is space-time curvature.

so, assuming space time curvature is gravity. this has been shown as model of sheet bein pulled tight, earth sun other celestial bodies making it bend etc

why would bending result in gravity? if there was no push down or pull down on that model (0 gravity) nothing would be inclined to move anywhere, unless they have some inertia. even if the sheed had some bumps in them, without directional force, no matter would change its cource.

the sheet model assumes a gravity down. so what is that force

what is the force that binds. time,? curvature? energy?
maybe because the velocity isn't enough to leave the gravity field? and vice versa. the so called big bang was the inertia.

6. Originally Posted by curious mind
maybe because the velocity isn't enough to leave the gravity field? and vice versa. the so called big bang was the inertia.
No. Bear in mind that the sheet is just an analogy. It only serves to demonstrate the basic principle of curvature, nothing more. It is an illustration only, not a physical or mathematical model.
In reality space-time is not "stretched", there is no tension, no forces, nothing being "pulled" or "pushed", no "up" or "down". The curvature is simply an intrinsic geometric property of the space-time manifold, but since we are dealing with four dimensions this cannot be directly visualized.

Analogies like the above are always dangerous - one must understand exactly what it is the analogy is trying to illustrate, and, more importantly, where its limitation are.

Perhaps see this illustration as well, which attempts to add an additional dimension :

29805.jpg

7. but isn't it that mass creates curvature? and also more massive/denser objects have more curvature? and due to the earths velocity and distance to the sun, our orbit is what it is?

now, if something caused an drastic increase in our velocity, couldn't this make the earth leave its orbit?

8. Originally Posted by curious mind
but isn't it that mass creates curvature? and also more massive/denser objects have more curvature?
All forms of energy go hand-in-hand with curvature, not just mass ( note I avoid the term "cause" ). But essentially you are correct. The more energy, the more curvature.

now, if something caused an drastic increase in our velocity, couldn't this make the earth leave its orbit?
Yes, correct.

9. then i don't understand what the
No.
was for.

10. "no" inertia will not cause acceleration.

one of the major issues i have with gr is the lack of a center of the universe. the universe is expanding with increasing speed, and every point is sort of the center for it. if u take any point in universe, everything is moving away from that point. could say the universe is blowing up like a balloon.

the increasing speed is what catches my eye, this pretty much screams push, not pull. (or in gr's case, spacetime curvature)
dark matter the gr's solution to this afaik has no proof of its existense other than math saying there must be dark matter to make gr work.

edit:

In the 1860s Lorand Eotvos proved that the Earths spin effects gravity. After measuring the acceleration due to gravity it was found to be weaker when traveling east and stronger when traveling west. This was due to the coriolis effect caused by Earths spinning. He also showed that the effect changed with latitude as centrifugal force also came into effect.
reading the article it really seems logical to say its not the gravity thats influenced directly, but rather taking away the centrifulgal force from the earths spin (flying west = moving slower, sort of against the earths rotation)
while interesting read for sure i dont see the relation to gravity.

11. Originally Posted by yunthi
the increasing speed is what catches my eye, this pretty much screams push, not pull.
Before it started accelerating it was decelerating. Presumably that scream "pull" not push?

dark matter the gr's solution to this afaik has no proof of its existense other than math saying there must be dark matter to make gr work.
Not to make GR work (it is trivially included in GR which works with or without it) but to make our description of the universe that we observe work.

12. Before it started accelerating it was decelerating. Presumably that scream "pull" not push?
did not know that. but anyways, i can think of quite a few reasons why that would happen in a push model.
for example.big bang was not the beginning of the universe, but it was the beginning of most of the material within it, background gravity existed before it which would indicate material outside the big bang. on hindsight this actually makes sense as in why there was a big bang,

push gravity worked before big bang to gather a huge mass of matter into one giant black hole, which then after recieving enough enregy went nova. or after most of the surrounding mass had been pushed into it removing close up sources of gravity weakening the background gravity enough for the internal push to exceed external.

after the initial ignition as mass spreads out it cools down significantly(ill use cooling for the lack of better thought, could be just chain reaction slowing down due to distance between 2 atoms increasing resulting in less direct hits), enough to halt the chain reaction. but slowly the chain reaction would heat the material again and overcome the external push.

now, thats just one scenario which would explain that. but i certainly dont have enough info on the birth of the universe to make any claims of that being the case. just what could have happened.
still i think the first assumption propably holds true. as in background gravity existed before the big bang.

-edit: on second thought, id like to bring back also the proposition i made earlyer about stars providing more push than "inactive" mass like planets. due to high atomic activity. would also fit in quite well as stars were formed quite a bit after the big bang.

Not to make GR work (it is trivially included in GR which works with or without it) but to make our description of the universe that we observe work.
... exactly what is your point? that gr is plain math and separate from reality?
if you were to remove dark matter from the equasions, would gravitational calculations from gr still hold true? distance between galaxies and the increasing speed in which they move "away" from eachother?

13. Originally Posted by yunthi
... exactly what is your point? that gr is plain math and separate from reality?
if you were to remove dark matter from the equasions, would gravitational calculations from gr still hold true? distance between galaxies and the increasing speed in which they move "away" from eachother?
I was simply addressing your statement that about "math saying there must be dark matter to make gr work"

Which is the wrong way round. It is observation saying that the math must include dark energy to make it match what we see.

GR works. It doesn't need dark energy to make it work. It describes a universe very similar to ours without dark energy. It turns out that there is something going on which can be represented in GR by adding an extra term for "dark" energy. So GR works with dark energy as well. And that happens to explain our observations.

It is not a "flaw" in GR that needs fixing, it is just that the universe turns out (once again) to be more complex and surprising than we expect.

14. and is there any proof of this dark matter than it must exist for the equasions to hold true.
the invisible undetectable with our current level of technology. other than the gravitational effects. (which would eqaully be explained by push gravity model)

i mean that kinda was the claim that if graviton has not been detected yet it is the magical unicorn of this forum.
the fact that they have not been detected yet being proof of their non existance.

15. is there any knowledge or explanation why dark matter has an opposite charge, or what causes the change in charge?

16. Originally Posted by yunthi
and is there any proof of this dark matter than it must exist for the equasions to hold true.
It is not needed for the equations to hold true. The equations work with or without it.

There are many strads of evidence for dark matter, and it can be ddescribed using existing theory.

which would eqaully be explained by push gravity model
Prove it. Mathematically. Or withdraw that claim.

i mean that kinda was the claim that if graviton has not been detected yet it is the magical unicorn of this forum.
Gravitons are hypothetical. Until we have a theory of quantum gravity we can't say much more about them. They may be "unicorns" or not.

the fact that they have not been detected yet being proof of their non existance.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

17. Originally Posted by curious mind
is there any knowledge or explanation why dark matter has an opposite charge, or what causes the change in charge?
It doesn't have opposite charge. Because it doesn't appear to interact via electromagnetic forces, it is probably safe to say it has no charge.

18. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by curious mind
is there any knowledge or explanation why dark matter has an opposite charge, or what causes the change in charge?
It doesn't have opposite charge. Because it doesn't appear to interact via electromagnetic forces, it is probably safe to say it has no charge.
eek, i was thinking about dark energy.

how can you know there's dark matter when there's no difference to 'normal' matter?

19. [QUOTE=yunthi;397825]sortof a reverse centrifugal force?

Hey, an opposite of centrifugal force, meaning centripetal force?

Why can it not be looked up on ,that Centripetal force, pulls all mass to the center, lighter mass is forced out of the way to make space for heavier mass, <more dense>.

As the centripetal force continues, more mass is drawn towards the center, gasses included, think about how the layers of the gases work in the atmosphere and buoyancy of the densities of gases, and how the dense layers are drawn towards the surface of our planet, and the lesser dense gases are on the outer diameter of the atmosphere such as He, and H.

Then we have dust on the surface layer more dense and so on.

Why is it not said that Protons with heavier mass than the electron, is also drawn to the center, that would explain the negative charge from the trailer the earth produces in lighting effects, as the electrons are drawn to the surface. Then also mass on the surface, Atoms , would also have their Protons drawn towards the surface, but also attaching them selves to the negative trailers, creating <Gravity>.

Speculation for you all to consider with your great minds and great maths.

20. maybe 'dark' matter radiates in a yet unknown/undiscovered frequency? is there any sign of light bending just outside/the edge of our galaxy?

21. Originally Posted by theorist
Speculation for you all to consider with your great minds and great maths.
Centripetal forces are oriented away from the rotating mass, not towards it.
Something for your to consider, with your complete lack of even basic physics knowledge.

22. Originally Posted by curious mind
eek, i was thinking about dark energy.
Dark energy doesn't have "charge" either.

how can you know there's dark matter when there's no difference to 'normal' matter?
Mainly from its gravitational effects: changing the orbital characteristics within galaxies and galaxy clusters; causing gravitational lensing. There are also all sorts of indirect observations that are consistent with the existence of dark matter.

And it is different from normal matter: it doesn't interact via electromagnetic force (and possibly others). That is why it is "dark".

23. it should be called dead matter instead of dark then lol. it has all the charactaristics of 'normal' matter but doesn't interact i.e. lifeless.

so if i were to travel in a spaceship through a (to me) empty space, i could actually crash into a dead planet/star?

24. Originally Posted by curious mind
so if i were to travel in a spaceship through a (to me) empty space, i could actually crash into a dead planet/star?
Dark matter does not (as far as we know) collapse to form solid objects such as planets. That is because it does not interact electromagnetically. Gravitational interaction is not enough to slow stuff down and allow it to accrete and form large masses.

Also, because it doesn't interact with normal matter you wouldn't crash into it. You would just fly straight through it without noticing. In fact, we are constantly flying through a cloud of dark matter in the solar system.

25. that sounds totally crazy. so there's gravity, which means there's mass. but i could pass through it without even noticing that i do?

i also didn't mean that it would form planets/stars, but rather it being dead ones. but that passing through dark matter without noticing is really over my head. or do clouds have gravity?

then again, even if they do, i can observe a cloud.

so dark matter is the ninja stealther of the universe?

26. Neutrinos, which also have mass, are able to pass through you and the earth. In fact, neutrinos can pass through light years of solid lead without even noticing. So it is not that unusual.

27. is it known why they are able to do it? and why wouldn't i notice it?

28. Originally Posted by curious mind
is it known why they are able to do it? and why wouldn't i notice it?
Because neutrinos interact very, very weakly with atoms.

29. is it like uv-light, but where as uv-light can cause i.e. skin damage which let's you noticing it without seeing it, it does nothing but pass through?

is it because it has mass unlike a photon? and so a photon can release all the energy to umm 'shine', but a neutrino uses it to keep its mass going?

30. Originally Posted by curious mind
is it like uv-light, but where as uv-light can cause i.e. skin damage which let's you noticing it without seeing it, it does nothing but pass through?

is it because it has mass unlike a photon? and so a photon can release all the energy to umm 'shine', but a neutrino uses it to keep its mass going?
Photons don't need to "release all their energy," so you seem to have a misconception stuck in your head somewhere. UV light interacts very strongly with matter, which is why UV does not pass through you. Most of this interaction is in the breaking of the chemical bonds of the molecules making up your skin. The short wavelengths of UV light possess energies sufficient to break such bonds. Longer-wavelength light doesn't, so it can penetrate more deeply (and radio waves penetrate even better). Very, very short wavelength light (x-rays) can possess so much energy that they can bash their way through the entire thickness of your body, breaking bonds all the way, and still have enough energy to keep on going.

As AlexG said, neutrinos are very different. They hardly interact with matter at all. The sun spews neutrinos at the earth all the time, and almost all of them pass right through.

31. with 'releasing its energy' i mean it can burn or shine/radiate. that's what light does afaik.

if a short waved uv-light reaches you it's high energy is used to burn your skin, so because of that interaction it can't just pass through you, or not? and you'll notice it for sure.

a photon is a particle without mass. and a neutrino is a particle with mass, right? which for some reason doesn't radiate/shine/give off heat, but if it can travel at c something must happen with its energy, or not?

and since it doesn't radiate/shine or whatever, it's hard to detect, like hunting a shadow with a flash light.

so

32. We are aware of particles (or objects) because of the way they interact.

A solid object like a table is held together by electromagnetic forces between the atoms. That is also why they feel solid.

Photons also take part in electromagnetic interactions. The reasons why photons of different energies are absorbed or pass through different materials are quite complex. But higher energy photons (e.g. UV or X-rays) will do more damage if they do interact because they have more energy and will break chemical bonds etc.

Protons and neutrons interact through the strong and weak nuclear forces as well so they can be involved in changes to the nucleus of atoms.

Neutrinos only interact via the weak force and then only very slightly. Therefore they rarely interact with atoms and just pass through matter.

Dark matter appears even less able to interact via the weak force (and not at all by any others - except gravity). Which is why it has proved difficult to detect directly.

33. so a neutrino doesn't pass through the atoms of the table, but through the electromagnetic forces between the atoms? and it can do that, without losing speed; where as for example, light slows down in water?

34. Originally Posted by curious mind
so a neutrino doesn't pass through the atoms of the table, but through the electromagnetic forces between the atoms? and it can do that, without losing speed; where as for example, light slows down in water?
My understanding is that the neutrino can pass through the nucleus of an atom as well with a low probability of interacting. And they will not be slowed because they do not interact.

35. oh yeah, i/ve done the mistake of thinking of an atom as a little ball again.

so, since it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic forces of/inside the atom, there's nothing disturbing it on its way? but the same time it has mass, velocity.

a photon has energy, velocity but no mass. and the shorter its wavelength, the higher its energy or interaction is? something tells me i worded the wrong again. but, is there something similar to the wavelength/photon relation in a neutrino?
like, different spin instead of wavelength?

36. Originally Posted by curious mind
but, is there something similar to the wavelength/photon relation in a neutrino?
Well, the wavelength of a photon depends on its energy. Neutrinos can have different energies.

Because photons have no mass and therefore always travel at the speed of light, a change in energy changes the wavelength.
Because neutrinos have mass, a change in energy changes the velocity.

37. i see, so a neutrino doesn't (always?) travel at c? because that's what i read.

but if they don't interact, what would/could cause a change of velocity of a neutrino?

38. Originally Posted by curious mind
i see, so a neutrino doesn't (always?) travel at c? because that's what i read.
They travel very close to c because their mass is so low. It used to be though they were massless, in which case they would always travel at c. It has only been known they have mass for about 15 years so you may have read something written before then.

but if they don't interact, what would/could cause a change of velocity of a neutrino?
Good question. Not much, probably. They can have a very weak interaction with electric fields (through a mechanism I don't understand ... the MSW effect) which I think can slow them down very slightly. Otherwise, I assume they keep the energy they were created with. (But this is hitting the limits of what I know about them...)

39. no it was an bbc article from last year, where they announced that neutrinos clocked at light speed in a icarus test.

looking up MSW-effect, didn't helped me to understand it more or to answer my question. but it showed neutrinos can change into another energy state, or not, depending on its flavor and/or range.
dude you should become a teacher, even if my understanding didn't increase by much, i always learn something new to close the gap a little from your explanations.

40. curious mind,

i see, so a neutrino doesn't (always?) travel at c? because that's what i read.
Neutrinos are presently believed to have at least some mass so accordingly their stead should also be below the speed of light, at least slightly.
(re: neutrinos) but if they don't interact, what would/could cause a change of velocity of a neutrino?

Accordingly neutrinos rarely interact with normal matter. Theory asserts that neutrinos (or any particle) would continue their speed unless interaction occurs. There are theoretical types of entities that neutrinos might interact with however. The first is Higg's bosons. Such interaction is theoretically needed for neutrinos to accordingly have mass. A second type of matter they might interact with is hypothetical dark matter. Dark matter is thought by many theorists to be omnipresent or at least very abundant. Neutrinos might seemingly but rarely interact with themselves or possibly with hypothetical dark matter, or possibly with virtual particles. They might interact with photons, or possibly also with any conceivable known or unknown field particulates or energies. Since neutrinos are so non-reactive with normal matter it would seem very difficult to detect any slowed-down neutrinos if any existed, to look for signs of neutrino interactions over great distances.

41. Originally Posted by forrest noble
The first is Higg's bosons.
Nit: The man is named Higgs, not Higg. It's not his boson(s), it's the Higgs boson.

42. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by forrest noble
The first is Higg's bosons.
Nit: The man is named Higgs, not Higg. It's not his boson(s), it's the Higgs boson.
Granted. Omit the possessive apostrophe

43. one of the keys i am missing at the moment would be, what is the positive and negative charge within atoms. a charge of what?

i mean electrons are supposedly negatively charged. but they are what essentially form electricity. a positive charge so to speak. im missing something here and it propably is very simple but i cannot seem to find an answer to this.
are they there just to simplify saying positive and negative attract each other?

i suppose in a push gravity model you could speak of positive and negative in a sense that negatively charged particle would gain mass from impact and a positively charged would lose more, (speakin in the idea of the chain reaction where an impact would cause the particle to release more sub particles)

44. Originally Posted by yunthi
i mean electrons are supposedly negatively charged. but they are what essentially form electricity. a positive charge so to speak.
Since you're aware that an electron is -ve what makes you think that the flow of electrons is +ve?

45. flow as in movement? flow that creates friction ad heat and magnetism. would negative create positive?

46. Yes, electricity is the flow of electrons (putting it simply).

Moving electric charges create magnetic forces.

Current through a resistance creates heat (and therefore also light). I wouldn't describe this as "friction".

So now you have two more forces to try and explain with your Magic Pushing Particles. And you need to explain how, when you turn a magnetic around, the Universal Flow of Magic Pushing Particles suddenly reverses direction.

When you have solved that (ha!) you can move on to the strong nuclear force and explain what "pushes" quarks together.

47. but what makes it negative? what is negative in it?

aside from that , i did post my initial thoughts on magnetism being homogenous spin, altho that is very much work in progress, much like everything within this theory really, reversing the spin would cause the directions to reverse as well.
quite simple if you think about it.

same with the strong nuclear force, quite simple within this model.

celestial bodies are attracted to each other thru shadow of the push particles, they overall tho are really spongy considering something very small like a neutron for example.
stronger than that gravity, would be the shadows of molecule structure, crystalline formation of the atoms.
and the dense matter of the core of an atom would create a much stronger shadow than that of the above.

on a sidenote ive given a gravity based propulsion some initial thought (within this model). considering a thick shroud of electrons, an arc if you will, tho in this case quite a bit of power would be needed in it to create any results. if the arc, or a field of arcs would be formed in front of an object (or rather 2 fields where the direction of the electron spray would be directed towards the side). would the fast moving electrons be enough to push aside a fraction of the gravity's push particles coming from the front of the vessel. thus creating a gravitational shadow. the gravity coming from behind the vessel would hit the vessel itself before the field.

propulsion fuel could be considered electrons in this case. any field of them actually impacting a gravity particle would need to be strong enough to change the direction of the gravity particle to the side of the vessel, the electrons would ofc be lost as well.
either way the beauty of this kind of design would be the lack of inertia, much like a plane falling from the sky, and the person inside feeling weightless, same would apply here.

not sure if enough of a shroud would be possible to create to have any effect but the thought is interesting nonetheless

48. Originally Posted by yunthi
but what makes it negative? what is negative in it?
What makes it negative? It has a negative charge. It is a fundamental particle. Some fundamental particles are charged. They have various other intrinsic properties (spin, mass, etc). That is just what they are.

49. quite simple if you think about it.
Yeah, apart from the small issue of it being wrong.

50. I am puzzled why someone who seems to have missed the school on the day "electricity" was covered (and presumably most other aspects of the modern world) seems to think they can come up with a new scientific theory....

51. u seem to misunderstand the question. either that or the answer is too obvious.

im not asking if the bible says the charge is negative so it is. i was there present when we were told the charge is negative.

my point is, is there such a thing as a negative charge. a negative energy, other than in math. much like negative speed. if you move you move, be it any direction. the speed might be negative from a reference point, but as far as the particle is concerned, if it move its speed is a positive one.

52. The term "strawberry" was already in use.
It's a naming convention.

53. You mean why is it negative rather than positive?

Historical reasons. When electricity was first being investigated, it was thought that there was an accumulation (charge) of electricity when, for example, you rub certain materials (*). That was therefore described as a "positive charge" of electricity. When we learnt more and discovered the electron as the particle that carries electric charge, it was found that the "positive charge" was actually a reduction in the number of electrons, rather than an excess of electrons. Rather than rewrite all the text books, swapping "positive" and "negative" in descriptions of circuits, batteries, etc. it was easier to describe the electron as having a negative electric charge rather than a positive one.

Note that in semiconductors, we also have positive charge carriers. These are "holes" in the crystal structure where an electron is missing. They behave just like positively charged particles.

(*) Such as amber; the word electricity comes from electrum which is Greek for amber.

54. Originally Posted by yunthi
The point is the charge is quantized; charged elementary particles ( setting aside quarks for now ) carry exactly one unit of charge. Considering an electron's charge to have negative sign is merely convention; you could flip everything around and say that electrons are positive, and protons are negative and so on. All laws of physics would still work as they do now. What physically distinguishes negative charge and positive charge is simply the way they interact, but which sign to use for which is merely convention. The important point, if you compare these two particles, is just that the charges are opposite in sign, but equal in magnitude.

55. Originally Posted by yunthi
my point is, is there such a thing as a negative charge. a negative energy
There is such a thing as negative charge. There is not (as far as I know) such as thing as negative energy (*). Charge is not energy.

(*) Except as a mathematical abstraction; in the same way there is negative money (I have a lot of that in the bank right now).

56. Originally Posted by Strange

There is such a thing as negative charge. There is not (as far as I know) such as thing as negative energy (*). Charge is not energy.

(*) Except as a mathematical abstraction; in the same way there is negative money (I have a lot of that in the bank right now).
Actually, charge is energy, but it is the magnitude of the charge that determines the magnitude of the energy involved, not the sign.

57. so in essence its negative only in name and an analogy of waveform could be used as in up and down, and still reach the correct answer. but for the sake of simplicity + and - is used?

58. Originally Posted by yunthi
so in essence its negative only in name and an analogy of waveform could be used as in up and down, and still reach the correct answer. but for the sake of simplicity + and - is used?
I don't know what your "analogy of waveform" means.

Yes, the names positive and negative are arbitrary conventions. They could have been called aardvark and strawberry. For example, the three valued "colour charge" of quarks are, arbitrarily, called red, green and blue. They just needed three terms to name them and chose those.

Although, the use of positive and negative is not completely arbitrary. They were originally intended to describe an excess (positive) and deficiency (negative) of electricity. It just turned out that the original assumption of what caused those was the wrong way round.

Also, positive and negative charges are opposites. That is nicely captured by the terms "positive" and "negative" in a way that, say, "cheese" and "klaxon" wouldn't.

59. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Actually, charge is energy, but it is the magnitude of the charge that determines the magnitude of the energy involved, not the sign.
Hmmm.... there is (potential) energy associated with the electric field ... but not with the charge itself?

60. So now you have two more forces to try and explain with your Magic Pushing Particles. And you need to explain how, when you turn a magnetic around, the Universal Flow of Magic Pushing Particles suddenly reverses direction..
further thought into this gives a much simpler answer. the newtons law

to every action, there is always an equal and opposite reaction

reversing the original action will reverse the direction of the reaction.

while my first answer would in in its basic form mean the same thing, its much more limited in it. what ever causes magnetism, that should cover it.

61. Originally Posted by Strange
Hmmm.... there is (potential) energy associated with the electric field ... but not with the charge itself?
Well, I was thinking GR, not classical physics. In GR you can have an energy-momentum tensor for a single point charge ( see for example http://arxiv.org/pdf/math-ph/0105029.pdf ), but whether the energy is associated with the charge or the accompanying field is a largely academic question since there are no charges without fields and vice versa. The point is simply that if there are charges present, then there is energy associated with that.

62. Ah, interesting. I should have realised that, I suppose, from the fact that charge is an important parameter in black hole solutions.

63. a possible breaker to my theory.

logically thinking. drag should be an issue in a push gravity model. and has been one of the main issues here i think.
and even if it is a minimal one. it still should amount to something. my solution to drag is that a solar system has a counterforce to the drag which keeps us rollin. so far so good.

but.

im thinking this might actually be measurable. there still exists the possibility of internal balancing force, the rotation of earth which would recieve heat from sun and release it along the path behind like a huge low power/m2 thruster, but even that should have an effect altho opposite

and the effect should be distance between moon and the earth when moon is directly in earths wake. or in front of earth. while drag should in my theory have a minimal effect (considering full power of gravity would be that of a black hole of which only 1g shadow is formed by earth) and the same minimal reduction should apply to drag. still there should be that minimal effect.

either, if:rotation of our sun is the cause of the drag counterforce, then by being in earths wake, drag would be reduced in moon, but not the counterforce. resulting in a very minor but still possibly measurable distance change between earth and the moon.
if the counterforce would be rotation of the earth, then moon being directly behind earth , earth should push moon away , if only a hint.

the measure should propably be within centimeters max possibly only millimeters or smaller (considerign both powers would be small in comparison to masses of earth and moon, and the occurrance happens while beign very close to the point of balance), but either way it might be something measurable.

if i remember correctly, there was some dish in moon that is used to measure the distance between earth and moon by reflecting a laser from it. the statistics for such an occurrance might be already available just ignored considering the minimal amount of the change for a relatively short and rare period of time.

64. Originally Posted by yunthi
logically thinking. drag should be an issue in a push gravity model. and has been one of the main issues here i think.
and even if it is a minimal one. it still should amount to something.
It is certainly not minimal. See the calculation in post #88 on my other thread about why PG does not work, to see how big of a problem it actually is :

Why Push Gravity Does Not Work

65. You completely do not understand gravity. The gravitational constant is defined by the internal structure of the Einstein-spacetime components and the density of the fundamental spacetime composed of the moving pieces of space. The Einstein-spacetime components transform the chaotic motions of the pieces of space in the fundamental spacetime, into the divergently moving jets. This causes that gravitational force is inversely proportional to square of distance from a source/mass. Moreover, there is the upper limit for the gravitational interactions in approximation 2*10^36 m. The pieces of space are the non-Principle-of-Equivalence "particles" i.e. they have inertial mass but they are the gravitationally massless particles. Whereas the Einstein-spacetime components are the Principle-of-Equivalence particles. They are the neutrino-antineutrino pairs.

Recapitulation
Many initial conditions applied in the Push Gravity are correct.

66. Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski
You completely do not understand gravity. The gravitational constant is defined by the internal structure of the Einstein-spacetime components and the density of the fundamental spacetime composed of the moving pieces of space. The Einstein-spacetime components transform the chaotic motions of the pieces of space in the fundamental spacetime, into the divergently moving jets. This causes that gravitational force is inversely proportional to square of distance from a source/mass. Moreover, there is the upper limit for the gravitational interactions in approximation 2*10^36 m. The pieces of space are the non-Principle-of-Equivalence "particles" i.e. they have inertial mass but they are the gravitationally massless particles. Whereas the Einstein-spacetime components are the Principle-of-Equivalence particles. They are the neutrino-antineutrino pairs.

Recapitulation
Many initial conditions applied in the Push Gravity are correct.
Word salad with dressing, utterly devoid of any meaning whatsoever.

67. Less than zero.

You are proving that you are the most incompetent person on this Forum. Where are scientific arguments? Do you think that wise readers cannot see that you are dishonest? Only dunces assume that you are right because they, similarly as you, completely do not understand physics. Are you a self-taught? Your posts suggest that it is true.

68. Wow. No sooner do I note how crackpots like to spew their nonsense over every vaguely-related thread than ... another one does it. It must be something to do with spring.

I wonder if there are any psychological studies of the mass behaviour of cranks in different seasons?

69. You are proving that you are the most incompetent person on this Forum.
If you say so

Where are scientific arguments?
If science is presented I will employ scientific arguments. If not, then why bother ? It would be much like throwing pearls in front of a sow...

Do you think that wise readers cannot see that you are dishonest?
Wise readers will be able to make up their own minds, I am sure.

Only dunces assume that you are right because they, similarly as you, completely do not understand physics.
So you are calling everyone here dunces ? That won't make you many friends here, I'm afraid.

Are you a self-taught?
Yes. And everyday I am learning a little more, all of which is real science.
Are you taught in a reputable institution ? Think carefully how you answer this, in light of what you have presented on this forum.

70. Your posts show that you are unable to write about physics. There is lack of scientific arguments. Dunces? You and Markus still write the nonsensical posts. Probably it is to increase the number of your posts.

For you, it is most important that the counter of your posts is going. Congratulations! All can see that you and Markus compromise yourself.

Origin of Gravity leads to the lacking part of ultimate theory. Most important are following questions: Why electromagnetic interactions are much stronger than gravity? Why we cannot detect gravitons and gravitational waves? Are they in existence? We cannot unify gravity with the Standard Model. It suggests that existence of the gravitational waves, which follows from the General Theory of Relativity, is the incorrect interpretation. The incorrect interpretation follows from the fact that the GR is the incomplete theory because for radius equal to zero we obtain infinite density i.e. singularity.

71. Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski
for radius equal to zero we obtain infinite density i.e. singularity.
Just choose a different connection on your space-time, and there are no more singularities. Basic differential geometry, really

72. i sortof tend to agree with sylwester, atleast when it comes to push gravity models.

1.
The gravity particles are thought of classical particles with classical interactions. This notion is inconsistent with current understanding of particle physics – there is no particle which could have all the characteristics required by PG without violating one or more physical laws.

were talking about changing current understanding of physics here.

2. The particle flux filling all space must be perfectly isotropic and of very high density. No known form of radiation of particle flux has these characteristics to the degree required by the theory

isotropic? hell no. my theory proposes balance and averages for example, our speed in the universe being a balancing stat against the flux. and ye no KNOWN form of radiation. much like dark energy and dark matter have not been discovered as particles in gr. the fact that we have not found it yet is no proof. otherwise you could just say electricity did not exist before electron was found.

3. The neutrino. Modern proponents of PG often posit the neutrino as the mediating particle of the theory. This has been conclusively disproved by Richard Feynman in 1995 [1].
i did not propose neutrino as the source, im thinkin its too large for this purpose.

4. Transparency of matter. With increasing mass the change in gravitational shielding becomes mathematically less then the sum of the shieldings of the two bodies. To overcome this one has to place an extremely high lower bound on the flux density of these particles. This is inconsistent with experiments conducted to detect such flux energies [2]

ive asked about these experiments, link to one pls?. as far as ive tried to come up with what you could measure it with, my mind is blank considering the sensitivity needed. again, the full force equals the power of a black hole, (and even that propably a tad below the full force) where earth only creates 1g worth of shadow. the difference is astronomical, mind the pun. a ton of mass would have its measure skewed by a speck of dust landing on it by a fairly large margin considering the accuracy needed.
to make mass "weightless, you would need a shadow of a full earth hanging above ours. quite a feat if you ask me.

actually the mass would have its own gravity which would pull any scale towards it aswell.

5. Drag. Any mechanical model of PG necessarily creates a drag force, or else there would be no interaction between the particles and a massive body. In order to reduce the amount of drag to levels consistent with observation, the speed at which these particles move must be in the region of 10^17 m/s, which is many orders of magnitude higher than the speed of light.

for a push gravity model the speed of light is not a limit that can not be exceeded, that limit comes from gr, and what we have observed so far. outside gr there is not really much that would limit the speed as such. my guess is that the speed of light is the max "escape velocity" of an atom. anyways that too is besides the point, as my theory in its current form is searching for a counterforce to drag instead of ignoring it. the immense transparency of mass in general does make the number small

6. Heat energy. If the particles of PG really move at superluminal speeds, which is in violation of basic physical principles, they would impart a heat energy onto any massive body sufficiently high to instantly incinerate any form of normal matter.

heat... vibration of an atom, if you bang a ball on a string u set it in motion, could call this vibration. what happens when u bang it with equal strength from both sides? the kinetic energy is transferred to the hammers on the opposing sides and the ball itself stays motionless. this is consistent with my original proposal of atoms beign the source of gravity. (altho now i think of it more as a chain reaction rather than a source)

i did explain this one before, consider it more a pressure than a single impact. constant pressure does not create heat
moreover, my model for example does not recognise energy, sure i've used the word before as well, but just for the sake of clarity. there is no energy, only particles and movement of them.
heat = vibration. constant pressure is not vibration.

7. Aberration. In any mechanical model of gravity, the gravitational force can only act with finite speed, creating an aberration effect. Such an effect has not been observed.

gravity would travel at a speed of light ? no idea what ur talking about here?

8. Sources of gravity. As we know today, and as is experimentally well verified [3], all forms of energy are a source of the gravitational field, not just mass. This is not explainable by PG.

there is no "energy" in my model, just particles and their movement. any particle would be a source of a gravitational shadow. this is very much explainable in my model

9. Time dilation. PG has no consistent mechanism to explain the well verified phenomenon of time dilation.

time dilation experiments only facts are that the decay rate of atoms changes with gravity / speed. no proof of actual time dilation has been shown.
time dilation itself is a result of gr. does not exist here.

10. Deflection of light. PG cannot explain deflection of light rays while at the same time avoiding aforementioned problems with drag.

i dont see the problem?

11. Thermodynamics. The flux of particles in PG would be many orders of magnitude more energetic then mass at rest. However, not transmission of energy is observed, even though there must be a form of interaction with ordinary matter. This leads to a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

see 6

12. Perpetual motion. Due to shielding effects the existence of PG would make it possible to construct a perpetual motion machine. Again, this is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
just saying. pop a dradle in space and watch it spin pretty much forever. the reason we do not have perpetual motion on earth is friction.

13. Binding energy. Binding energy of elementary particles contributes to their gravitational energy, which is not explainable by PG.

no such thing as energy, simply mass pushed together by gravity.

14. Origin. There is no consistent explanation as to where those particles come from, why their flux never varies, why the field is perfectly isotropic, or why the total energy never decreases even if the universe is expanding.

lack of consistent explanation of their origin. ooboy, considering the amount of denying it goes around no wonder such a thing has not been given proper thought. while i dont have all the answers im sure there is one, i may come back to this later.
why it never decreases?
this is still quite vague in my mind but i have given it some thought as well, for some reason the matter is springy in my head, and as outside pressure diminishes , im thinkin some spare particles on atoms might go free as needed escape velocity becomes lower. this would give balance for quite some time. could be a factor in atomic decay.
either way how do we know it has not decreased? as long as balance is maintained.

15. Mathematics. The mathematics of PG are not self-consistent, and do not produce the correct results. [4]

just because we have not solved the puzzle does not mean it can not be solved.

16. Frame of reference. PG would create an absolute frame of reference, which means that the Theory of Relativity must be false. This is in contradiction to experiment and observation.

much like newtons model works just fine on earth in most cases.

17. Large scale structure. Due to the necessary isotropy of the PG medium, over very large distances the net forces would cancel out. This does not explain the large scale structure of the universe.

uniformity is far from necessary, as said our speed of movement would cause less particles from one side to hit harder, balancing out the difference.
cancel out? why would it?

18. Non-existence. No flux field or particle stream as needed by PG has ever been observed by experiment or observation.
observation? gravity is the effect of it.
other than that, as said in my model it would be much smaller than an atom and has pretty much uniform effect (note effect coming from balance) . say, what would you use to measure temperature if it was the same everywhere, fire would not heat anything nor pressur ewould not make any difference. everything nice an cozy 24c.

in order to measure something you need something to measure it against. a film detecting hte particles would turn black in an instant making it seem it was black since its cration.

were talking about possibly millions of hits / atom /sec zoomign around at light speed (or possibly higher?). how do you detect just one? - beats me
(not the numbers above are purely a guess, just to make a point)

73. point being your understanding of a push gravity model is severely lacking considering the issues you are posing on it.
most of that comes down to,

we have not measured it yet
or it is in violation with gr

while push gravity model can indeed be wrong and proved wrong. the issues above are far from conclusive.

for example e= mc2 can very well hold true in push gravity model as well, while for completely different reasons.

take the lightspeed on that, as maximum speed for mass. if all known sources of propulsion travel at the speed of light (or below). the speed of light then becomes a wall due to that. propulsion force needed to accelerate mass would grow exponentially as we close in on the speed of the propulsion force. e=mc2

ofc a push gravity model where gravity is the force holding molecules together atoms together. it would be pretty much impossible to close in on that speeds while retaining the structure.
any molecular bonds held together by gravity would break as we close in on the speed of gravity severely unstabilising the source of the stability.

74. point being your understanding of a push gravity model is severely lacking considering the issues you are posing on it.
Yeah, so everyone keeps saying, but no one can define for me what exactly PG is supposed to be. I have yet to see a single piece of maths defining the dynamics of the theory; no field equations, no equations of motion, no continuity relations, nothing. All that is ever presented is personal theories, words words and more words, and plenty of excuses why proper maths cannot be done. This thread is no different - 674 posts to date, and not a single piece of maths.
I will therefore only address the one model that has some formalism behind it, and that is LeSage push gravity. That I have addressed in the calculation provided, which is pretty conclusive until someone can show exactly how and why it is false.

How about you simply address the calculation for drag, as this was the context for the link. All the other specific points have been extensively discussed on the other thread - I see no point in going over them again here, especially considering that some of your answers are completely different than the ones given by bill alsept. Ah well. Personal theories...

for example e= mc2 can very well hold true in push gravity model as well, while for completely different reasons.
I don't think I mentioned E=mc^2 anywhere...?

75. no u didnt, i did. actually that post went over the limit of characters it can have so it is a bit dislocated.
there are a few things i left out due to it. that was a part of an answer to 16. that relativity must be wrong if pg is right. point was that mathwise it may very well be atleast very close to the truth even if push gravity did become a leading theory. and some of it can be used directly

76. this will take a while:
Accepting for the moment that all these rather daunting requirements are met, and accepting the combined rationalizations regarding the densities and sizes of weighty particles, there are still some serious problems for shadow gravity, many of which can be traced back to the finite speed of the ultra-mundane particles. As a macroscopic body moves (relative to the frame with respect to which the ultra-mundane flux is isotropic) it will naturally encounter more particles on its leading face than on its trailing face, resulting in a net drag on the body. Quantitatively, if a series of equally-spaced ultra-mundane particles with speed vg are impinging on a stationary opaque object from two opposite directions, the object will be struck by particles at the same rate on both sides. (How all the independent ultra-mundane particles acquired this particular speed is not explained.) However, if the object moves with speed v in one direction along this axis, the rate of encountering particles on its leading face is increased in the ratio (vg + v)/vg, and the rate of encountering particles on its trailing face is decreased in the ratio (vg - v)/vg, so the original force balance F – F = 0 becomes
to reiterate the entire comment and not taking anything out of context

(How all the independent ultra-mundane particles acquired this particular speed is not explained.)
my thoughts on this are along the lines of both fusion from stars and possibly escape velocity related. mind you, a push gravity gravity does not infact need to be uniform in speed either. gravity would simply be anything that moves anything and creates a shadow from source to behind any target. most likely tho most of it would consist of a certain type of, suppose you could call it radiation.

so far the math looks legit. no objection.

The momentum transferred to an object by each ray of flux must be large enough to account for gravity, which implies that F in the above equation is not negligible. Since we do not observe any appreciable drag on (for example) the planets in their orbits around the Sun, we must impose some further restriction on the model to minimize this effect. To minimize the drag we must assume the speed vg of the ultra-mundane particles is extremely great. Thus, we find once again that a natural consequence of the model must be nullified by setting one of the parameters to an extreme value.
this i think is where you start going wrong on the assumption that this makes is that the force left behind by the impact is derived directly from speed and amount, while it is unknown what will really happen or what can happen.
few possibilities include,
1. that the minute particle simply breezes thu nuclei punching a hole in it, in that sense a faster particle might even give less force to the target nuclei with increased speed. this would need nuclei to a kind of a liquid type that repairs itself after each impact. i consider this possibility unlikely one tho. considering im proposing gravity to be the force that keeps atoms together as well, this behaviour would propably result in annihilation.
2, the possibility of again the newtonscradle tabletop toy analogy the more energy you pop on one side the more energy is released on the other side of the ball. chain reaction of it.
3. similar to the above, if there already were particles within the atom with some potential energy, nudging those with one graviton particle might result in a release of multiple graviton particles. escape velocity so to speak. this could also be part of the decay process.

while that is somewhat flimsy, im sure there are other possibilities with this. point being since we do not know we can not simply say this one thing will happen.

math is blind. and in this case you are only thingking about the stopping power of the impact while ignoring the possibility of the impact having a different effect at different speeds or amounts.

it really is gettin too late and i must get some sleep, ill continue this at a later date

77. Originally Posted by yunthi
no u didnt, i did.
It is not clear what you are referring to.

this will take a while:
That's fine, at least you are making an effort, which is appreciated.

this i think is where you start going wrong on the assumption that this makes is that the force left behind by the impact is derived directly from speed and amount, while it is unknown what will really happen or what can happen.
In the absence of any PG proponents presenting real maths in the form of field equations and equations of motion, I have no choice but to go with the most likely scenario, which is one of classical mechanics. If you have a different suggestion you are welcome to present it, but you do need to put it into mathematical form so that we can make some actual calculations and see what happens in the real world. Only then can one have a meaningful discussion about this thing.

78. In the absence of any PG proponents presenting real maths in the form of field equations and equations of motion, I have no choice but to go with the most likely scenario
and this is exactly what it comes down to.

why pg can not work.
most likely scenario

most likely is not an absolute that it can not work.

no u didnt, i did.
It is not clear what you are referring to.
I don't think I mentioned E=mc^2 anywhere...?
that

what you get for doing this too late ^^

79. most likely is not an absolute that it can not work.
First and foremost you need to nail down exactly what "it" is, i.e. you need to develop an appropriate formalism.
At the moment there aren't any absolutes, because every proponent of PG has his/her own model. There is not one PG model, there are many disparate ones. The only one of all of those which has some form of formalism behind it is LeSage's model, which is why my arguments are based on that.

Fact is also that no one has as per yet managed to present a PG model that actually works, is physically plausible ( i.e. does not violate any fundamental physical principles ), and gives the correct numbers in accordance with experiment and observation. There are PG models which claim to fulfil one of these criteria, but not all of them at the same time. Current mainstream models of gravity are not perfect and complete ( far from it, in the absence of a model of quantum gravity ), but at least they don't violate known physics and have a formalism behind it, and hence make testable predictions. That is really what we are looking for.

80. ill continue with the math you posted later today propably, for now ill just say that:

this might be semantics and wordplay. but again this comes down to: while a working pg model might not be presented as of this day. and it might be impossible to make one. the evidence against them i think is inconclusive to say.
pg can not work.
in that sense to say there can not be a pg model that works is simply wrong.

i can admit that mine is very much work in progress, far from complete. and i have a lot to study before i can finnish with a full theory. and it is not without its issues still. but i feel as if the proof against my theory is still inconclusive.
there seems to be multible possibilities where most of those issues can be explained. both in theory and hopefully in the future by math.

i have not ignored the math part completely either, but to complete any i do need quite a bit of extra info. moreover finding the accurate studies and hard facts within interpretations of the meaning of them is proving difficult. and not only for the fact that english is not my native language. (being taught english by tv, music, computer and magazines) terms used in physics are sometimes timeconsuming to translate.
i am looking at the calculations as well but the progress is slow. do not exect anything too soon.

81. in that sense to say there can not be a pg model that works is simply wrong.
Yes, but in the same way it is just as wrong to say that PG is a viable model, because, not having such a fully formulated and tested theory, we simply don't that.

I'll let you work away at it so.

82. actually misread that the first time. i was thinking amount of impacts and their "energy". for which this would be true.
but for it to be an accurate measure of drag in a push gravity model it is missing the possible modifier for matter interracting differently at different speeds and amounts.
for the lack of better symbol for it ill just call it mi, short for matter interraction modifier. which may or may not change with the amount and speed of the impacts.

drag = mi((vg +v/vg)F - (vg-v/vg)F) = mi2Fv/vg

should take that into account.
(how the hell do you do the math in a browser reply window anyways?)

seems a minor difference but it might become a key factor in solving a working pg model.

83. To treat this more fully, let r denote a measure of the spatial density of the ultra-mundane particles absorbed by ordinary matter, defined such that rUdt equals the quantity of mass accretion by a sphere of a given radius from a given direction in an increment of time dt, where U is the relative speed between the ultra-mundane particles and the sphere along that direction. For a massive sphere in orbit around some center of mass with another body we will consider just the radial and tangential flows as shown below.
The radiation density from the bottom (i.e., from the direction of the other orbiting body) is reduced by the factor (1-k) where k is a small number representing the fraction of the flux that was intercepted by the neighboring body. (Note that, since the gravitational constant does not change appreciably with distance from the Sun, we know that k for the Sun must be no greater than one part in a hundred million, i.e., 10-8). Beginning with a mass m and speed v, the orbiting body will absorb in an increment of time dt ultra-mundane particles with momentum in the horizontal direction equal to [r(vg-v)dt]vg and –[r(vg+v)dt]vg. The mass accreted from particles in the horizontal direction is equal to the quantities in the square brackets. In addition, during this same increment of time, the object will accrete from particles in the vertical direction quantities of mass equal to [r(vg)dt] and [(1-k)r(vg)dt]. Letting u denote the horizontal speed of the object at the end of this increment of time, the conservation of momentum requires
...

this part changes with different push gravity models, but at its current form, in my theory the sun would have a push effect as well as a shadow. a balance so to speak. tho the push effect from the sun would greatly decrease with range for a simple reason of the (missing a few words in english here, so ill call it: ) surface area in a ball with a radius of the distance from sun (u get the idea from that well enough?) a small factor but one nonetheless.
also that image is missing the possible counterforce. (of which there atm are 2 candidates, rotation of the sun providing a push along the orbit and the possible heat and/or other radiation released along the orbit behind mass due to rotation, there may be others as well.)

84. Originally Posted by yunthi
but for it to be an accurate measure of drag in a push gravity model it is missing the possible modifier for matter interracting differently at different speeds and amounts.
The are several problems with this :

1. In classical mechanics, which is what the original calculation is based on, there is no physical justification for matter to be interacting differently at different speeds
2. Adding such a factor introduces an additional degree of freedom into your model, which isn't present in reality. Gravity is determined by the energy of the source only ( i.e. mass in Newtonian gravity, and the energy-momentum-tensor in GR ), and needs no other factor to be calcuable.
3. This degree of freedom would not be a constant, but a function of velocity and momentum; this will make the resultant field non-conservative, which is contrary to experiment and observation

also that image is missing the possible counterforce.
Again, this is based on the LeSage model, which contains no "counter force".

85. mm, im bored again.
for a while there i got annoyed of the le sage junk. im not le sage and this is not his theory. either way

there is no physical justification for matter to be interacting differently at different speeds
non-newtonean fluids ? (just an example of stuff interacting differently at different speeds)

2 the freedom is needed atm, there is a reason why i didnt do the math before, because i dont have a clear idea on what the possible counterforce is, either that or matter interraction difference. it is there to include every possibility.

also, le sages model contains no counterforce. but mine propably does. the thing is, every planet rotates around the sun the same direction, most of the planets rotate the same direction (with the 2 exceptions, while one rotates very slowly and another decelerating = has acceleration to rotate the same direction). while this can be just a coincidence, i doubt it.

a simple but a very expensive test would do the trick, a satellite launched somewhere far from points of gravity, hold it in place, not sure what kind of thrust would be needed to stay at a prefixed distance from the sun, propably expensive, if the satellite encounters acceleration towards a counterclockwise rotation then there exists a counterforce to the drag.
this should also give us a value of the counterforce acceleration, which could be used to calculate drag, with the added info of density of a celestial body, its total mass and speed (in a balanced state)

edit: and ofc distance from the sun which id presume to be the source of the counterforce. should be stronger at close range

86. Gravity arises from a universal ether. Quantum mechanics needs to be discarded. How could "spinning atomic nuclei" have originated? How likewise orbiting electrons in neat lattices? -Space came first. Oscillations of spatial points led to yin-yang point pairs (via oscillational fatigue) and distruption of spatial symmetry leading to vibrational forces (as derived from the oscillational.) Elemental etheric vibrating units resonating via vibrational "nodes" which interlock represent a uniform, orderly, universal type of resonance for gravity (attractive force via these interlocking nodes of vibration), and Time (vibratory rate can vary like Time does, witness slowing of atomic clock), and aggregation of elemental units into larger particle-capacity units like photons, protons, and atoms. -How could "solid particles" which "spin" have arisen and produced an orderly process resulting in matter, organized cosmic systems? High-velocity etheric electronic units describe curvilinear paths and came before nuclei, which are aggregative slower units which sort-of sit inside the atom in reaction to the electronic forces.

88. PhDemon: I am open to valid criticism. At least I don't have it oozing from every orifice.

89. At least I don't have it oozing from every orifice.
Just from your fingertips when you post.

90. PhDemon - "Oozing from every orifice" did not call for a "how's that?" response from you. It refers not to your comments but to concensus theory about cosmic forces and quantum mechanics and how things originated - to first cause (and Time and Gravity.) Standard theory IS full of it there.

91. Moderator Warning:

@Anteski - Your proposals appear to take no account of well substantiated observations and experiments. Unless you can provide solid evidence for even a small part of your claims, or a properly reasoned arguments that is not based upon contrived invention, then this thread will be moved to the Trash Can. Also, please do not respond to provocation by other members.

@Others - Regardless of how bereft of science these posts may be you will cease attacking the poster. This is not a comedy club, where heckling is expected, or a schoolplayground, where immaturity provides an excuse.

92. My theoretic model is admittedly outside traditional scientific methodology in which theory is based on prior proven evidence. I do have a test procedure for demonstrating an etheric form of energy in a system designed to show decreased density within the system. I only lack a sponsor with deep pockets to do the test. I cannot reveal the source for the information. If anyone can find me a sponsor for my procedure to prove an ether exists (or not) I'll shut up.

93. @Anteski - Your proposals appear to take no account of well substantiated observations and experiments. Unless you can provide solid evidence for even a small part of your claims, or a properly reasoned arguments that is not based upon contrived invention, then this thread will be moved to the Trash Can.
kinda unreasonable, considering this is not his thread... and its not about his theory.

94. ah, thx for the clarification ^^, no argument against that here. doesnt seem to have anything to do with the topic other than being about gravity itself.

edit: on a sidenote im currently studying the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly as a possible side-effect of the counterforce(to drag). think i touched the topic earlyer but more or less forgot about it. still the flyby anomaly does sound like a logical effect for the theory.

considering the theory consist of everything providing a push as well as a shadow, while this should be lower on a more or less inactive matter such as what is found on earth, it would still have some. and again the rotation of the planet should strengthen the push to the direction of the rotation, weaken it against it.

95. bumped into some (weird) interesting articles about electrogravitic propulsion. most of it seems quite illogical and the talk about breakin the laws of thermodynamics and newtons law of energy conservation seem unlikely. still the base tests seem to be actually relatively close to what i had in mind for gravity based propulsion. with a few significant differences, mostly in reasoning behind it rather than the methods.

first off, i wouldnt call it antigravity propulsion. within this theory it would rather be tapping into the force of gravity so it would be gravity propulsion not antigravity.
second there is talk about breaking the laws of thermodynamics and newtons law of energy conservation, which would also be wrong, no energy would come from nothing, but rather tapping into existing power of gravity to provide the propulsion.
a minor difference but still something that allows for the laws to be preserved.

the idea within my theory would be to provide a gravitational shield in front of the craft, which would block a portion of gravity coming from the front of it, also from the back but the gravity coming from behind the vehicle would hit the vehicle itself before bumping into the shield. and as the shield is something that has very little mass it self (but high energy) / is refreshed constantly instead of being a solid one, the fact that the craft produces a shielding effect on the shield it self is not an issue (as if it was a solid one it would be pushed towards the craft with the same force as the craft is pushed towards it.

either way again very much work in progress, tho might be something i could test.

96. yes. my thoughts as well, still if the phenomenom exists my point is, it doesnt have to break the laws.

im considering building one of the lifters personally, as it seems to be one of the few tests that would be possible at home. still safety is a concern so i wont do it lightly.
one thing that i fail to find any info on is the fact that within my theory there should be no feel of inertia within one, it should feel like falling to the direction of the shield at the same speed as the craft around you. that would be the effect of a gravity based drive.

97. As long as we are issuing moderator warnings, I'll warn Yunthi about turning this thread into a personal blog. If no one else is interested in your push gravity hypothesis, just let it lie. I'd strip out the Anteski nonsense into a separate thread from this nonsense, but it's just not worth the time.

98. fair enough

99. Originally Posted by yunthi
first off, i wouldnt call it antigravity propulsion. within this theory it would rather be tapping into the force of gravity so it would be gravity propulsion not antigravity.
I think the Harry Potter method is far more likely to succeed : a swish, a flick, and a hearty shout of "WINGARDIUM LEVIOSA !!!!"...and off it floats. Practical anti-gravity

100. You talk of atoms pushing each other away there is some truth to this, as well as atoms that are attracted to one another. The natural magnetic fields that are produced/present in every atom vary in magnetic potential as the electron/electrons circle the atomic nucleus with respect to the protons/neutrons charge.

Alike charges repel and dislike charges attract.

Foundation/relation to gravity. The centre of gravity of any combined mass has a particular magnetic property & atomic weight etc. related to 'Einstiens Theory Of Relativity'.

Bodies of mass and there fore magnetic fields smaller than the say the earths mass which is greater in magnitude smaller atomic bodies wiil be attracted to the larger mass/magnetic properties of the earth.

Interesting post.

Dave

Page 7 of 7 First ... 567
 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement