Notices
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 700
Like Tree39Likes

Thread: yet another theory of gravity

  1. #1 yet another theory of gravity 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    so... we know that atoms if u try to push em together closeup, they push eachother away, u need a fusion reactor to do that and a lot of heat. a way to collide em in almost light speed to get em to really hit eachother. thus weve more or less proven a strong force eminating away from atoms.

    the theory i'm proposing is that this is what gravity in essence is, every atom in the universe pushing others away.


    now, to make that work it would have to be something very small and something that effects only the cores of atoms. constantly bombarding the cores of every atom from all directions. possibly being a chain reaction as they are bombarded, the cores would release the same amount of matter/ energy resulting in gravity.

    in essence gravity in space would be a force that effects every atom in our bodies from all directions with the same amount of force.
    on a celestial body a planet sun or black hole, part of this gravity would hit the said celestial body leaving a shadow in the direction of our bodies. what we percieve as a force pulling us down would be a force pushing us down while a lesser force partially blocked by earth is pushing us up, leaving the, in earths case, 1g force.
    the bigger the mass, more of the gravity would hit it instead of traveling clean thu.

    in this idea a black hole would be one large mass too dense for any gravity to penetrate.


    another derivation of this theory might be molecular structures.
    in essence atoms pushing eachothers away so they cannot collide, and gravity pushing them together due to lesser gravity from the counterpart atoms direction, the said shadow. thus leaving them in a point of balance, try to pull em away the gravity of universe pushes them together, try to move em closer and as they go closer to eachother the internal force would keep them apart.

    the strongest molecular bonds would then be created by atoms that have large mass so they leave a big shadow, but emit low amounts of the gravity outwards from the atoms themselves.


    what all this would be in effect:
    there is no infinite gravity, it would be limited to the exact weight of the universe, and could be calculated by for example size of earth in relation to the size of atom cores inside it, and the result being 1g. a black hole would have a gravity of that said weight minus the gravity it emits itself.

    as gravity travels at the speed of light, trying to go faster than speed of light we would bump into wall of gravity. basicly movign faster than gravity so nothing would hit us from behind but frontal gravity would be the weight of the universe so to speak, also no molecular bonds would hold since the forces pushing atoms together would be out of balance

    proof, none other than the fact that universe is expanding instead of collapsing as it should.

    thoughts or proof either way if im wrong or right would be appreciated


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    How would you test this ?
    Does it make any predictions that distinguish it from the established theory of gravitation ( being general relativity ) ?
    What about a mathematical formalism ?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    This idea of "pushing gravity" was shown to not make any sense centuries ago. Le Sage's theory of gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    there is no infinite gravity
    There is no infinite gravity in current theories; it would require infinite mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    testing might be more or less impossible, since the resulting gravity vectors would be exactly the same, cept instead of 1g down it would be 10'000'000-9'999'999=1g (wild guess)down

    suppose there would be fluctuations in the force of gravity this way, but since earth is moving within the universe, it would balance out some of it, (moving away from one source of gravity to reduce its effectiveness moving towards lesser source to compensate for it)

    still im not a pro, just a common dude with a lonely and sometimes repetitive job leavign alot of freetime for my mind (not complaining mind u) thats why im here, incase some smarter peeps know something i dont
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    hmm, indeed seems like the same idea, ill read it thu for sure. thx
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    If gravity pushes in on a body, then there must be pressure differentials around any moving body. I am not aware that such differentials in gravity have ever been observed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    were talking about the effect of all the atoms in the universe, versus the effect of atoms inside a body, the body would be microscopic in effect. ur not feeling the movements of a bacteria crawling on ur skin either.

    oh and about the moving, the distance to all the atoms in the universe, well most of em are lightyears away so to feel any effect ud have to move a large distance in a very short time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    This idea of "pushing gravity" was shown to not make any sense centuries ago. Le Sage's theory of gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    skimmed thu that, not in all of its detail, but this was the only line i found against it
    Kant pointed out that the very existence of spatially extended configurations of matter, such as particles of non-zero radius, implies the existence of some sort of binding force to hold the extended parts of the particle together. Now, that force cannot be explained by the push from the gravitational particles, because those particles too must hold together in the same way. To avoid this circular reasoning, Kant asserted that there must exist a fundamental attractive force. This was precisely the same objection that had always been raised against the impulse doctrine of Descartes in the previous century, and had led even the followers of Descartes to abandon that aspect of his philosophy.
    tho this differs in a sence that im theorising the gravity to be the force that binds things together in atomic level for the exat same reason it does so on human sized level, particles leaving shadow which attracts other particles due to the lack of opposing force. an idea saying that subatomic particles are solid , perhaps bound together in collisions with another kindof subatomic subparticle collisions, dunno hey.

    either way i dont really find anything against this other than some dudes sayin sun revolves around earth and torch u if u claim otherwise.

    just seems more logical that even subatomic particles follow pooltable logic, instead of having some invisible rubberband tying up 2 atoms to eachother actross the galaxy.
    that or addign dark invisible matter to the equasion just because there must be dark matter or they dont hold true
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    ahh, now i see it, the issue of heating up due to the bombardment, i dont really see this as an issue since, heat in essence is the speed of movement in particel, not really a form of energy just kinetic movement. the point.
    Partially based on the calculations of Darwin, an important criticism was given by Henri Poincaré in 1908.[42] He concluded that the attraction is proportional to , where S is earth's molecular surface area, v is the velocity of the particles, and ρ is the density of the medium. Following Laplace he argued that to maintain mass-proportionality the upper limit for S is at the most a ten-millionth of the Earth's surface. Now, drag (i.e. the resistance of the medium) is proportional to Sρv and therefore the ratio of drag to attraction is inversely proportional to Sv. To reduce drag Poincaré calculated a lower limit for v = 24 · 1017 times the speed of light. So there are lower limits for Sv and v, and a upper limit for Sand with those values one can calculate the produced heat, which is proportional to Sρv3. The calculation shows that earth's temperature would rise by 1026 degrees per second. Poincaré noticed, "that the earth could not long stand such a regime." Poincaré also analyzed some wave models (Tommasina and Lorentz), remarking that they suffered the same problems as the particle models. To reduce drag, superluminal wave velocities were necessary, and they would still be subject to the heating problem. After describing a similar re-radiation model like Thomson he concluded: "Such are the complicated hypotheses to which we are led when we seek to make Le Sage's theory tenable".
    He also stated that if in Lorentz' model the absorbed energy is fully converted into heat, this would raise earth's temperature by 1013 degrees per second. Poincaré then went on to consider Le Sage's theory in the context of the "new dynamics" that had been developed at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, specifically recognizing the relativity principle. For a particle theory he remarked that "it is difficult to imagine a law of collision compatible with the principle of relativity", and the problems of drag and heating remain.
    seems almost a valid reasoning to forget this, other than the fact that it assumes all the bombardment being one directional and increasing the speed within particles (thus increasing heat) but if u think of the opposing force slowing the atom down its not that impossible, the gravity would hit the atom transferring its kinetic energy to the atom, while other gravity from the other side does the same, resulting in not so much heat, the collisions would cause the mass to grow but the whole point of the theory was that the atom cores are the source of gravity, the energy for it must come from somewhere, why not gravity from other atoms. so the theory about it being a chain reaction of gravity hitting atom cores and causing them to release it stands.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    hmm, finished reading the article, interesting read for sure , most of the proofs either way seem to forget something everytime, like the said thermodynamic issue above.
    Although it is not regarded as a viable theory within the mainstream scientific community, there are occasional attempts to re-habilitate the theory outside the mainstream, including those of Radzievskii and Kagalnikova (1960),[61] Shneiderov (1961),[62] Buonomano and Engels (1976),[63] Adamut (1982),[64] Jaakkola (1996),[65] Tom Van Flandern (1999),[66] and Edwards (2007)[67]
    A variety of Le Sage models and related topics are discussed in Edwards, et al.[68]
    seems like the idea is not shown to be completely
    shown to not make any sense centuries ago
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Can it predict the precession of Mercury, gravitational effects on light, etc?
    Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    It can't explain gravitational collapse either, or the behavior of charged or rotating black holes. And what about gravitational time dilation ?
    And how does it explain this :

    gravitational lensing images - Google Search
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    were talking about the effect of all the atoms in the universe, versus the effect of atoms inside a body, the body would be microscopic in effect. ur not feeling the movements of a bacteria crawling on ur skin either.

    oh and about the moving, the distance to all the atoms in the universe, well most of em are lightyears away so to feel any effect ud have to move a large distance in a very short time.
    That doesn't make any sense. I am talking about bodies of macroscopic size, e.g. the earth. If gravity was due to pressure inwards from the rest of the universe, than the movement of the earth would mean that "gravitational pressure" is actually higher in the direction of movement. This would lead to the earth loosing kinetic energy, slowly spiraling towards the sun. This is obviously not happening, and neither is it happening for any other known body in the solar system.
    On the mathematical side of things - if I was to formulate this in terms of gravitational flux, then for any given point within a volume V an equal number of flux lines would converge and depart. This means



    and therefore gravity would not have an inverse square law in the Newtonian limit. This is contrary to observational evidence. Or am I missing something here ?? And how do you explain the fact the gravitation gets weaker when you go away from a body anyway if the source of the gravitation is outside the body ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    gravitational lensing, ill have to give that some thought.
    about losing kinetic energy, we are moving within the galaxy away from its center so to speak afaik, thus the force from the middle is higher than the force towards the edge. and while its not significant the sun would have some gravitational pressure aswell, could be just enough for us to not plunge into it. every atom in the universe.

    ill give it some thoght aswell but thats what i can come up with in 5 min ^^
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    gravitational lensing, ill have to give that some thought.
    about losing kinetic energy, we are moving within the galaxy away from its center so to speak afaik, thus the force from the middle is higher than the force towards the edge. and while its not significant the sun would have some gravitational pressure aswell, could be just enough for us to not plunge into it. every atom in the universe.

    ill give it some thoght aswell but thats what i can come up with in 5 min ^^
    Add gravitational time dilation, gravitational waves, orbital precession and the Thirring Lense effect to the list. Also, here's another problem with the maths :



    What this means is that the work carried out when going from point A to point B in a gravitational field is no longer independent of the path taken - clearly in total contradiction to observation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    after giving some thought to the geravitational lensing, the answer seem more simple than i originally presumed, as stated above the black hole would be a mass with 0 gravity goin thu it so the only vector remaining would be towards it. lack of gravitational push from the black holes or any large masses direction would result in the same outcome as direct gravity from the mass.

    been playing with a thought of photon being a golfballsawed in half in shape, rotating along its axel so that it would be more aerodynamic from one direction in comparison to the other, that would leave it with a spiral patternt instead of a wave tho. mebbe its a stick with ends vibrating. ah well, needs refining
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    as stated above the black hole would be a mass with 0 gravity goin thu it so the only vector remaining would be towards it
    Only true for uncharged, stationary black holes, and even then it wouldn't really make sense since the physical size of the BH is tiny in comparison to its large gravitational effects. In fact the singularity is treated as a point-like object ( quantum effects aside ), so there wouldn't be any "shielding" effect possible.

    been playing with a thought of photon being a golfballsawed in half in shape, rotating along its axel
    Photons are not spatially extended little "balls", nor do they have angular momentum. They have quantum mechanical spin, but that's not the same thing.

    You have not provided an explanation for the other phenomena mentioned in post 15.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    my knowledge of black holes is quite limited, as said most of this comes from pure logic. just thought i had stumbled into something of significance in my idle thoughts.

    askin ppl to think what could cause a particle to attract another, maybe u will end up with the same conclusion. while unexplained things are what im looking for, im also looking for other intelligent ppl. to search for ideas on why they would be possible aswell. pls try and come up with an answer for them yourselves or a specifics into the issues with them. as my knowledge into the matter is limited.

    back to the point.
    rememberin the article linked by strange mentioned that le'sage fixed his assesment of the gravitation speed into something much faster, could be to minimize the effect of speed.
    for what i know the earths rotation is slowing down slowly, didnt find anything about earths year if it would indeed slow down.if it did, would it be enought for us to measure in a year? 10 years, 100? what i did find is the fact that earths path is not a fixed one, its wobbling. what significance this has, havent thought that far yet
    again giving it some more thought, a tad more research. might come up with something better later

    In fact the singularity is treated as a point-like object ( quantum effects aside ), so there wouldn't be any "shielding" effect possible
    on singularity, isnt this a matter of debate weather they exist, what their size is etc, afaik all we can tell about them is that they have huge gravity, but seein them is another thing. they are treated as point like object. afaik there are no method of observing a point like object in such a distance, we can only observe the effect of one, thus we dont know if it is a point like object, thats another theory.
    mine is, its a celestial body, small in size but very dense. large enough to make a shadow. and a large shadow would fill in as a possible source of that phenomenon. well that wouldnt be a singularity in its term, but neither would the phenomenon be caused by one.

    not saying this is the case, but it is a possibility. mind u there are loads of unknows why what happens as much unexplained phenomenon in the conservative theory of gravity as this. say what causes gravity. what other could cause particles lightyears away to be attracted towards eachother, attracting another particle over great distances would mean there is a force extending over lightyears, over the whole galaxy, from each atom to another. so either way it would go there would be the same force.

    edit: for the rest, ill need to do some studying before i can give any answers. patience pls
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    Photons are not spatially extended little "balls", nor do they have angular momentum. They have quantum mechanical spin, but that's not the same thing
    as said i just toyed with the thought, didnt give it much weight either, just thinkin about wave nature of them and how a gravity might be able to affect them in general.

    for gravity in my theory to affect them, they would need to have mass, even a tiny one, subatomic. and for there to be a waveform it would need to be in a flux, either a change of its form or a have a rotation the only things that would keep the wave constant in wavelength. a ball was first thing that popped to mind but its purely a guess, something that would answer it but not the only answer.

    either way u say that a photon is not a ball, how do you know this? can u show me a picture of one?

    (oh, as u propably have noticed, english is not my native tongue, could also be mistaken in names of particles as they arent a part of standard english education ^^)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    And how do you explain the fact the gravitation gets weaker when you go away from a body anyway if the source of the gravitation is outside the body ?
    that one im happy to answer. since that is within the original thought. so consider urself standing on earth, the amount of gravity coming to you unhindered is from sides and up 180 degrees in total. the gravity coming from below is partially blocked by earth. now move urself higher, ull start seeing a bit more space to the sides and below, as u move higher the amount of gravity from below grows, as more of it is unhindered. vectors / + \ = - or o> would become o- (really high level ascii art right there, hope its understandable)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    gravitational time dilation... the fact that time would move at a different speed. sounds all fancy an stuff, but in reality, everything happens at the same time. atleast thats what i think, the fact that an atomic clock would show faster decay or more radiation at different altitudes, in different amounts of gravity, i think partially supports the theory. energy is being bombarded into an atom at different volumes. thus the decay caused by it would be different. (remember the thermodynamic issue)
    without knowledge into atomic clocks, bigger shadow and less gravity would slow down the atoms decay.(which way does the atom clock work, am i right?)
    since its not bombarded as much. but since for example earth would only reduce the gravity by a very small margin the difference on earths surface would be marginal.
    Last edited by yunthi; January 29th, 2012 at 06:09 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    what would time be incase of atoms anyways, would they move slower. would they react slower or faster. would an atom moving slower mean its time is slowed down. if there is an area in space where all atoms move slower, i dont still think it means time itself is moving faster or slower, only the matter inside it. there is only present time, past is history and future is yet to come, there is no star trekkin backwards or forwards in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    gravitational waves
    quoted from wikipedia... that was quite a bit easyer to answer than i thought.
    Gravitational waves cannot exist in the Newtonian theory of gravitation, since in it physical interactions propagate at infinite speed.
    so u defended the newtonian theory with an argument that makes it impossible? or am i gettin this wrong?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    As an example of the Lense–Thirring effect consider the following:
    Think of a satellite rotating around the Earth. According to Newtonian Mechanics, if there are no external forces applied to the satellite but the gravitation force exerted by the Earth, it will keep rotating in the same plane forever (this will be the case whether the Earth rotates around its axis or not). With General Relativity, we find that the rotation of the Earth exerts a force to the satellite, so that the rotation plane of the satellite precesses, at a very small rate, in the same direction as the rotation of the Earth.
    first thought into this was actually the magnetic field of earth, might not have anything to do with gravity, but magnetism is another thing that has been puzzling me, how does that work anyways. ill post something after i get some answers into this one but im guessin this will keep my mind buzy for a while.



    What this means is that the work carried out when going from point A to point B in a gravitational field is no longer independent of the path taken - clearly in total contradiction to observation.
    could u elaborate this one a bit?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    oh ye, almost forgot.
    There is no infinite gravity in current theories; it would require infinite mass.
    what i think i meant to say was that there is a maximum gravity, and it could possibly be calculated, a black hole wouldnt be able to produce more gravity than this, regardless of its size (other than leaving a larger area of 0 counterforce)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    gravitational time dilation... the fact that time would move at a different speed. sounds all fancy an stuff, but in reality, everything happens at the same time. atleast thats what i think, the fact that an atomic clock would show faster decay or more radiation at different altitudes, in different amounts of gravity, i think partially supports the theory. energy is being bombarded into an atom at different volumes. thus the decay caused by it would be different. (remember the thermodynamic issue)
    without knowledge into atomic clocks, bigger shadow and less gravity would slow down the atoms decay.(which way does the atom clock work, am i right?)
    since its not bombarded as much. but since for example earth would only reduce the gravity by a very small margin the difference on earths surface would be marginal.
    No, time dilation has nothing at all to do with with atoms being "bombarded" at different levels. Where did you get that idea from ? It is a measurable effect of the curvature of space-time, and it effects all types of clocks, not just atomic ones. Mathematically it depends only on the mass generating the field, and geometry of space-time in the vicinity of that mass. I would recommend you have a read here :

    Gravitational time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Let me know if you have any questions after that. It is clear though that this phenomenon is not explainable in your model, because you do not account for relativistic effects.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    what would time be incase of atoms anyways, would they move slower. would they react slower or faster. would an atom moving slower mean its time is slowed down. if there is an area in space where all atoms move slower, i dont still think it means time itself is moving faster or slower, only the matter inside it. there is only present time, past is history and future is yet to come, there is no star trekkin backwards or forwards in it.
    Wrong, refer previous post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    gravitational waves
    quoted from wikipedia... that was quite a bit easyer to answer than i thought.
    Gravitational waves cannot exist in the Newtonian theory of gravitation, since in it physical interactions propagate at infinite speed.
    so u defended the newtonian theory with an argument that makes it impossible? or am i gettin this wrong?
    You are getting this totally wrong. I don't defend Newtonian gravity at all, I defend General Relativity. Newton's theory is only an approximation for weak gravitational fields. That's what I am trying to tell you - your model might be able to explain certain aspects of Newtonian dynamics, but you will never be able to account for relativistic effects. I give you another example - frame dragging :

    Frame-dragging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    This incorporates a number of subtle but important phenomena, which I don't think are explainable in your model. General Relativity equates a body's gravity with curvature in space-time itself; in that picture all phenomena like time dilation etc etc are a natural consequence of the changes in geometry around a massive body, and follow directly from the field equations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    oh ye, almost forgot.
    There is no infinite gravity in current theories; it would require infinite mass.
    what i think i meant to say was that there is a maximum gravity, and it could possibly be calculated, a black hole wouldnt be able to produce more gravity than this, regardless of its size (other than leaving a larger area of 0 counterforce)
    Wrong. A black hole's gravitational field depends directly on its total mass - there is no upper limit.
    How do you even explain the formation of black holes in the first place in your model ??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    As an example of the Lense–Thirring effect consider the following:
    Think of a satellite rotating around the Earth. According to Newtonian Mechanics, if there are no external forces applied to the satellite but the gravitation force exerted by the Earth, it will keep rotating in the same plane forever (this will be the case whether the Earth rotates around its axis or not). With General Relativity, we find that the rotation of the Earth exerts a force to the satellite, so that the rotation plane of the satellite precesses, at a very small rate, in the same direction as the rotation of the Earth.
    first thought into this was actually the magnetic field of earth, might not have anything to do with gravity, but magnetism is another thing that has been puzzling me, how does that work anyways. ill post something after i get some answers into this one but im guessin this will keep my mind buzy for a while.



    What this means is that the work carried out when going from point A to point B in a gravitational field is no longer independent of the path taken - clearly in total contradiction to observation.
    could u elaborate this one a bit?
    You say the gravity is a force pushing from outside onto a body, so it comes from all directions in space. Image this as force-lines; for every point in space force lines come from all directions and go in all directions. Now, if there is a shielding effect from a mass in the vicinity, then some lines in some directions are stronger than other lines in other directions; this is like a little "vortex" being formed. In the language of mathematics this is expressed as rot F = 0 ( F being the flux function of the field ). Look at "curl of a vector field" in any maths textbook for a deeper explanation.
    What this means is basically that the work performed ( energy ) when going from point A to point B actually depends on the path taken ! This is contrary to observational evidence - in weak gravity fields like the earth the work performed depends only on the difference in height between the points, but not on the path taken.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    Originally Posted by yunthi
    gravitational time dilation... the fact that time would move at a different speed. sounds all fancy an stuff, but in reality, everything happens at the same time. atleast thats what i think, the fact that an atomic clock would show faster decay or more radiation at different altitudes, in different amounts of gravity, i think partially supports the theory. energy is being bombarded into an atom at different volumes. thus the decay caused by it would be different. (remember the thermodynamic issue)
    without knowledge into atomic clocks, bigger shadow and less gravity would slow down the atoms decay.(which way does the atom clock work, am i right?)
    since its not bombarded as much. but since for example earth would only reduce the gravity by a very small margin the difference on earths surface would be marginal.



    No, time dilation has nothing at all to do with with atoms being "bombarded" at different levels. Where did you get that idea from ? It is a measurable effect of the curvature of space-time, and it effects all types of clocks, not just atomic ones. Mathematically it depends only on the mass generating the field, and geometry of space-time in the vicinity of that mass. I would recommend you have a read here :

    Gravitational time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Let me know if you have any questions after that. It is clear though that this phenomenon is not explainable in your model, because you do not account for relativistic effects.
    being bombarded with gravity, is what my model basicly is, (even if it isnt my model dammit) 0 gravity (altho 0 gravity wouldnt be 0 gravity but a composition of high gravity but ye. lets talk 0 gravity), whatkindof watch do you want used here, low altitude mechanical watch would run slower due to the wheels grinding against eachother with bigger pressure.

    point being which one is more likely, that time is distorting itslef or that the instrument ur measuring it with is affected. i do find that scientists need to find a 13th geometrical dimension but im proposing there really is only 3 ( in terms of reality) occams razor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    ok, gravitational waves, apologies for the previous one. as said english is not my native language. and it is sometimes hard to read the scientific text in it. + my inferior knowledge in the effects anyways, again as said, most of this comes from logic.

    back to the point, gravitational waves, if indeed gravity has a travel time and were looking at a twin neutron star, for sure it would make waves just as well as any other theory, the resulting gravitational vector would be identical regardless of the origin, be it --------------->O<-------------- = o<- or direct o<- (bad piece of ascii art but for that to be true the affected matter would need to be on the right side of the O to get that resulting vector)

    for sure there will be slight differences in gravitational fields, waves from celestial bodies hiding behind others shadows.

    what is the issue with this anyways?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    frame dragging effect,
    Linear frame dragging
    the difficulty of obtaining an experimental verification of the effect means that it receives much less discussion and is often omitted from articles on frame-dragging
    Static mass increase
    It is also a tiny effect that is difficult to confirm experimentally
    these are calculated and rationalized with the general relativity in mind, a test with le'sages model in mind might prove different results in some ways. different interpretations. for now unless it really becomes an issue ill ignore these
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    How do you even explain the formation of black holes in the first place in your model ??

    my knowledge of black holes is quite limited


    havent given this one much thought, but one possibility comes to mind off the bat, a black hole is formed when a star with high mass dies, its used up all its fusion fuel so to speak. a star during its life span emits a very large amounts of energy right. so if its energy would be all used up. would it have the internal force left to keep it from collapsing.

    another derivation of this theory might be molecular structures.

    in essence atoms pushing eachothers away so they cannot collide, and gravity pushing them together due to lesser gravity from the counterpart atoms direction, the said shadow. thus leaving them in a point of balance, try to pull em away the gravity of universe pushes them together, try to move em closer and as they go closer to eachother the internal force would keep them apart.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    Wrong. A black hole's gravitational field depends directly on its total mass - there is no upper limit
    .

    a fact that afaik has no proof, that is just picked up from general theory of gravity, because it must be so to fit the theory. as said the weight of the universe could possibly be calculated, do that and point me a black hole that has larger gravity than this, and you have proven this theory to be invalid
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post

    low altitude mechanical watch would run slower due to the wheels grinding against eachother with bigger pressure.
    Nonsense. Gravity acts only in one direction ( towards the center of the mass ), so if the above was true you would get different readings according to how the clock is oriented. Obviously not happening.
    Also, it doesn't matter what type of watch you are using; a digital one without mechanics would read the same time dilation. Time dilation has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of watch being used to measure it. Why ? Because it is an effect of space-time itself, just as GR says.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    You say the gravity is a force pushing from outside onto a body, so it comes from all directions in space. Image this as force-lines; for every point in space force lines come from all directions and go in all directions. Now, if there is a shielding effect from a mass in the vicinity, then some lines in some directions are stronger than other lines in other directions; this is like a little "vortex" being formed. In the language of mathematics this is expressed as rot F = 0 ( F being the flux function of the field ). Look at "curl of a vector field" in any maths textbook for a deeper explanation.
    What this means is basically that the work performed ( energy ) when going from point A to point B actually depends on the path taken ! This is contrary to observational evidence - in weak gravity fields like the earth the work performed depends only on the difference in height between the points, but not on the path taken.
    for every point in space force lines come from all directions and go in all directions.
    close but no cigar. the origin would be atoms, the mass of the universe but ye, close enough

    Now, if there is a shielding effect from a mass in the vicinity, then some lines in some directions are stronger than other lines in other directions; this is like a little "vortex" being formed.
    i dont see how this would become a vortex, unless u only looking at left + roght and 2 balls in different levels shielding the other from the beams(a picture i saw yesterday). there would only be one composite vector and that would be towards the shadow, mebbe it would help if u look at them as a pie chart with a slice taken away size of the celestial body ur tryin to couple it with.

    when going from point A to point B actually depends on the path taken
    hell yea walk in circles and ull do more work than walkin directly from point a to point b. just kiddin...
    im not seein the extra work. unless ur talkin about the vortex.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    ok, gravitational waves, apologies for the previous one. as said english is not my native language. and it is sometimes hard to read the scientific text in it. + my inferior knowledge in the effects anyways, again as said, most of this comes from logic.

    back to the point, gravitational waves, if indeed gravity has a travel time and were looking at a twin neutron star, for sure it would make waves just as well as any other theory, the resulting gravitational vector would be identical regardless of the origin, be it --------------->O<-------------- = o<- or direct o<- (bad piece of ascii art but for that to be true the affected matter would need to be on the right side of the O to get that resulting vector)

    for sure there will be slight differences in gravitational fields, waves from celestial bodies hiding behind others shadows.

    what is the issue with this anyways?
    The issue is that in your model gravitational waves wouldn't occur. How could they ? And I am not talking about twin system - a rotating bar of mass just by itself would emit gravitation waves under GR. Any change in mass generates gravitational waves. Can your model explain that ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    frame dragging effect,
    Linear frame dragging
    the difficulty of obtaining an experimental verification of the effect means that it receives much less discussion and is often omitted from articles on frame-dragging

    Static mass increase
    It is also a tiny effect that is difficult to confirm experimentally
    these are calculated and rationalized with the general relativity in mind, a test with le'sages model in mind might prove different results in some ways. different interpretations. for now unless it really becomes an issue ill ignore these
    How convenient.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    Wrong. A black hole's gravitational field depends directly on its total mass - there is no upper limit
    .

    a fact that afaik has no proof, that is just picked up from general theory of gravity, because it must be so to fit the theory. as said the weight of the universe could possibly be calculated, do that and point me a black hole that has larger gravity than this, and you have proven this theory to be invalid
    Wrong again. It follows directly from a solution to the Einstein equations, the Schwarzschild Metric. The weak field limit of this metric is Newtonian gravity, so this is well verified. The entire theory of GR is well verified experimentally.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    Nonsense. Gravity acts only in one direction ( towards the center of the mass ), so if the above was true you would get different readings according to how the clock is oriented. Obviously not happening
    i find having to adjust my watch roghly 4 sec / year ^^

    Also, it doesn't matter what type of watch you are using; a digital one without mechanics would read the same time dilation. Time dilation has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of watch being used to measure it.
    afaik its only been measured with atomic clocks. as far i could see from the articles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    You say the gravity is a force pushing from outside onto a body, so it comes from all directions in space. Image this as force-lines; for every point in space force lines come from all directions and go in all directions. Now, if there is a shielding effect from a mass in the vicinity, then some lines in some directions are stronger than other lines in other directions; this is like a little "vortex" being formed. In the language of mathematics this is expressed as rot F = 0 ( F being the flux function of the field ). Look at "curl of a vector field" in any maths textbook for a deeper explanation.
    What this means is basically that the work performed ( energy ) when going from point A to point B actually depends on the path taken ! This is contrary to observational evidence - in weak gravity fields like the earth the work performed depends only on the difference in height between the points, but not on the path taken.
    for every point in space force lines come from all directions and go in all directions.
    close but no cigar. the origin would be atoms, the mass of the universe but ye, close enough

    Now, if there is a shielding effect from a mass in the vicinity, then some lines in some directions are stronger than other lines in other directions; this is like a little "vortex" being formed.
    i dont see how this would become a vortex, unless u only looking at left + roght and 2 balls in different levels shielding the other from the beams(a picture i saw yesterday). there would only be one composite vector and that would be towards the shadow, mebbe it would help if u look at them as a pie chart with a slice taken away size of the celestial body ur tryin to couple it with.

    when going from point A to point B actually depends on the path taken
    hell yea walk in circles and ull do more work than walkin directly from point a to point b. just kiddin...
    im not seein the extra work. unless ur talkin about the vortex.
    Ok, how much do you actually know of vector field analysis ? It is going to be difficult to continue this discussion if you are not even familiar with the basic concepts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    The entire theory of GR is well verified experimentally.
    most of these verify the resulting vector, not the source of it. the resulting vector is exactly the same. shadow of a planet or gravity of the same planet
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    Nonsense. Gravity acts only in one direction ( towards the center of the mass ), so if the above was true you would get different readings according to how the clock is oriented. Obviously not happening
    i find having to adjust my watch roghly 4 sec / year ^^

    Also, it doesn't matter what type of watch you are using; a digital one without mechanics would read the same time dilation. Time dilation has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of watch being used to measure it.
    afaik its only been measured with atomic clocks. as far i could see from the articles.
    Do you ? Perhaps you should get a new watch...
    The earth has a weak field, the effect here is tiny, but not zero. That's why you need atomic clocks. Closer to heavier bodies the story is much different though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    The entire theory of GR is well verified experimentally.
    most of these verify the resulting vector, not the source of it. the resulting vector is exactly the same. shadow of a planet or gravity of the same planet
    No it isn't. GR doesn't use vectors, and the results are quite different, as explained above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    Ok, how much do you actually know of vector field analysis ? It is going to be difficult to continue this discussion if you are not even familiar with the basic concepts.
    advanced math cource no more. got 8 from it i think.

    but ur presuming there is a vector hitting the top of the planet but not the bottom, thats not so, tilt the image of the 2 balls so to speak. its not 2 directions its coming from its full 360 degrees

    GR doesn't use vectors
    no it doesnt, i do. forget the vectors then, but they are what explain the idea easily.

    use the word direction of the gravimetric force. in gr its "down towards earth", in le'sages its coming from all directions resulting in a force "down towards earth"

    its full 360 degrees
    actually its more than that aswell, it could ba thought as a ball around the particle or a body or any mass, a vector of force coming from all of its points towards the said mass.

    whatever vortex forming would be marginal even with calculating movement in it

    hmm, which direction does the earth rotate? in comparison to its path. would ur vortex be able to be a part of it?

    Closer to heavier bodies the story is much different though.
    yes it woudl be if an atomic clock would be used

    grasping the finer points of vector analysis, i see ur point but again its effect would truely be marginal, keeping in mind the shadow left by a planet. its reduction in the gravity is marginal by itself. i remember reading somewhere that if u would pack earth into solid matter of only the cores ud get a ball roghly the sice of a tennisball, weather this is correct or not is besides the point, but make a comparison with the tennisball to the size of the earth, the tennisball is the amount of gravity reduced by ~6000km(*2)(might remember this wrong) area of shadow, the tennisball would represent 1g. so, even if u would get the vortxing from the amount that would hit the top first, the shadow is really transparent aswell and the results would be propably too small for us to measure

    The issue is that in your model gravitational waves wouldn't occur. How could they ? And I am not talking about twin system - a rotating bar of mass just by itself would emit gravitation waves under GR. Any change in mass generates gravitational waves. Can your model explain that ?
    rotating bar of mass would generate gravity waves, ofc it would, unless all the atoms inside it were exactly the same, on molecular structures earlyer i was theorizing about the fact that strongest molecular bonds would be created by atoms with large shadow and weak gravity, a point that all atoms would not produce the same amount of the gravity. so in essence every atom getting shadowed would produce a microscopic fluctuation in the gravity. a wave if u want to think if it that way, a celestial body goin in another ones shadow would surely make one, but again when compared to the gravity produced by entire universe the effect would be microscopic.

    a question, if u walk with a flashlight towards east or west, is the speed of light still constant, is the walking speed added to the speed of light, would it travel faster to one direction. what about cosmic movement, earths rotation, etc.

    why im asking this is, would the speed of the outer ring of the mass increase the speed of the gravity. that would definately result in a gravity wave

    actualy if it doesnt it would still produce a gravity wave, the same way an ambulance speeding towards u and away produces a different pitch of sound.
    Last edited by KALSTER; January 30th, 2012 at 07:42 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    Please don't make so many posts after another. Rather edit your current post. Thanks.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    apologies, ill do that in the future, (must say tho that one post looks really eratic with jumping from one topic to another without distinction where previous one ends and the next begins) should be understandable i guess tho.

    to summarise a bit. there is very little that is different in my theory or le'sage theory vs the GR.

    gr says that mass has gravity, mine says that mass makes a shadow in gravity, the forces are equal but mine says that it comes from a combination of directional vectors rather than just one.
    the same calculus could be used for both as the force is equal, towards a mass.

    the difference in them would be found in very small scales or indeed a black hole. to get back to the black hole dilemma.
    Wrong. A black hole's gravitational field depends directly on its total mass - there is no upper limit.
    this was chewing on me for a while before i got the words in the right order. the fact that black holes gravity is based directly on its total mass. this is proving a point with the point itself imho. proving that gr is right because this part of gr says black holes must behave like this, when it is indeed the gr i am putting to question here.

    what is known about black holes in general? that they provide alot of gravity. what else, that there is a lensing effect, both expalined above. time dilation , light would as stated above be susceptible to gravity, so there would be a time dilation on light getting here, in fact im proposing that everything when looked deeply enough is kinetic and thus susceptible to gravity, so anything goin thu a one directional gravity field like that close to a black hole would surely be slowed down by it. about the amounts, no idea. smaller the particle the less it would propably be affected by it, depending on its size, mass, density, speed, direction, possible "aerodynamic" or gravitydynamic properties, its own energy, and a craploads of other powers ive never heard of. gravitational waves, for sure a black hole would produce some ripples being a void of a sort.

    so what true differences would there be... other than black holes, the practical uses or tests for this would propably be in the molecular level, as black holes would propably be out of our reach in terms of ability.
    so the proposal that gravity is affecting molecular structures. this could be tested with atoms, no idea how, but tryin to bump them together we might be able to establish a force that each atom actually would be pushing eachothers away from itself, which would be the gravity value of it. if we could establish a value to each atom in periodic table it might be usable in devising new ways to create alloys, knowledge into how the material will behave when its synthesised, possibly new ways to create them.

    others would include the effect of speed into the molecular structures, establishing a speed that would brak them or creating a safe speed limit to avoid space sickness. weaker bonds would be more likely to break at lower speeds aswell, so any space ships should be composed of the more stronger ones to avoid corruption. (afterall prolonged exposures to spacetravel has proven to be harmful, possibly even due to this)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    but ur presuming there is a vector hitting the top of the planet but not the bottom, thats not so, tilt the image of the 2 balls so to speak. its not 2 directions its coming from its full 360 degrees
    No, that's not what I meant, I understand the fact that we are talking three dimensions. The vector fields I was referring to are of course 3-dimensional fields. I get that.

    a question, if u walk with a flashlight towards east or west, is the speed of light still constant, is the walking speed added to the speed of light, would it travel faster to one direction.
    No, the speed of light is always constant, and it is constant for all observers in all directions. This is due to time dilation and length contraction effects that come into play for a moving observer; it is basic relativistic mechanics. Any textbook on special relativity will give all required details. Since gravitational waves travel at the speed of light also, the same would apply to them too.

    I list a few more general problems I see with your ( or is it LeSage's ?? ) model :

    1. Any forces that "pushes" onto the atoms of a body from all spatial directions would of necessity also create a drag effect, much like something moving through water. Why is no such effect being observed ?
    2. What about aberration ? Since the pushing force comes from outside and is moving at finite speed, and bodies are moving, the direction of push would be off-center !
    3. How do you explain that ALL forms of energy are a source of gravitation, not just mass ? In particular, the gravitational field itself is a source of gravitation !
    4. So what is the actual nature of the pushing force in this model ? Is it particles, radiation, or what is it ? What exactly is its source ? Why can it not be directly measured if it is there ?
    5. How come all experiments that attempted to measure gravitational shielding have come out negative ?
    6. Can you explain under your model why inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same ?

    Maybe you can explain these ? I think these would be valid objections for all push-gravity models, not just LeSage's theory.

    proving that gr is right because this part of gr says black holes must behave like this, when it is indeed the gr i am putting to question here.
    No, it's simply conservation of mass and energy. When a star collapses the resulting black hole will have the same or less mass as the dying star. Therefore the black hole is an object with a finite mass, and thus a finite gravitational field. This is well understood, and the field's effects can even be directly measured in binary systems like Cygnus X1.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; January 30th, 2012 at 11:51 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    your ( or is it LeSage's ?? ) model
    originally i thought it was mine, to be honest the first problem i saw with it was the fact that i couldnt find on the net anything about it (thx strange for pointing me to the right direction^^). i mean the idea seems to follow logic more tha the GR, so why would I be the first to realize it, surely there are others, physicist who would have come to the same conclusion. and apparently there are.
    one of the reasons i can look at this objectively is because i lack education for it, i can look at the evidence without saying oh, GR says this so that must be due to it. i can make my own assumptions according to logic and to what i know is true. the evidence itself. next step is to actually fit them into the model.
    problems arise when i actually dont know about the matter enough. ( i actually believe in this since it does seem logical. ) the point for coming here is to fill the gaps in my knowledge.

    all in all the idea seemed too large to hold it only in my own head. as in what if its true O.o if its just a fantasy i live in fine, but what if it actually is something significant. thats why i am here requesting not only issues but ideas that could explain it aswell. to find the truth.

    1. Any forces that "pushes" onto the atoms of a body from all spatial directions would of necessity also create a drag effect, much like something moving through water. Why is no such effect being observed ?
    le sage did increase the speed of gravity high above that of a lighspeed in his model, the speed of light is purely a guess. either way the comparison to moving an object inwater does seem too sluggish for this, id think closer to air resistance and moving an object at a 1cm /hour speed would be closer to the actual drag from gravity. there would propably be some but u dont feel the air resistance at that speed either. would it be measurable considering science that acknowledges gravity isnt that old and we dont have much in form of long time charts of the universe, the movement of stars in it. most of them are stationary enough to base a method of navigation on them.
    2. What about aberration ? Since the pushing force comes from outside and is moving at finite speed, and bodies are moving, the direction of push would be off-center !
    i think moving within universe woudl be what keeps earth in a balance of gravity instead of us flying in our houses during the night and bein pushed to the ground durign the day. i doubt we are at the specific center of the universe which would be the only reason to have a steady gravity if we werent moving. (thinkin of the expanding universe model at this point)
    so movement. univerces way to balance out the forces within. we would move away from a bigger source in the center of the universe and towards a smaller source along universes edge. to count for the difference, result beign a point of balance.

    ah need to continue this a bit later, raidtime. bbl

    edit, waiting for replacements so ill have a bit more time for this.

    3. How do you explain that ALL forms of energy are a source of gravitation, not just mass ? In particular, the gravitational field itself is a source of gravitation !

    im proposint that rather than all sources of energy being a source of gravity, that all energy is basicly kinetic. heat is vibration or movement, electricity is elecrons, movement ofc is kinetic, atomic energy = splitting atoms creating heat, umm, what else is there, did i forget something?
    4. So what is the actual nature of the pushing force in this model ? Is it particles, radiation, or what is it ? What exactly is its source ? Why can it not be directly measured if it is there ?
    the pushing force i think would be subatomic particles. in my head its dustsized stuff on an atom that is earthsized, but that is purely a guess. subatomic particles being thrown in all directions from an atom. why cannot it be measured, well. do we know what to look for, since all atoms are being bombarded with more or less equal force constantly needle in a needlestack. . the easyest method of measurement would be ur ordinary house scale.
    edit: actually it could be directly measured with pushing 2 atoms into collision, and measuring the force that they push eachother away with. or calculating the speed needed for the collision to happen
    5. How come all experiments that attempted to measure gravitational shielding have come out negative ?
    gravitational shielding, interesting question this one. as i said somewhere above, the mass of earth (no idea of the source) if al the atoms are clumped to gether, no gaps between them earth would be the size of a tennis ball (no idea on the accuracy but it serves as an idea on what we are dealing with)and that would provide the shielding of 1g. so to have anything measurable the shield would need to be massive indeed or to have a density of a black hole. id need to know more about the experiments to be able to tell what went wrong.
    but in essence anything that would provide a gravitational shadow would need to be large enought to provide gravity in GR. remember, forces are equal

    edit: did a quick calculation, using a qube of 12000*12000*12000 and comparing it with a 0.10*0.10*0.10 meters cube. (earhts diameter in comparison to the proverbial tennisball)
    (another edit: in my theory gravity would be the effect of gravity hitting the atom cores, rest of the mass of earth is a void)
    result= 1 728 000 000 000 000 g so this would be the approximate weight of the universe, give or take a few billion. earths shadow from this is 1g rest would go thu directly unhindered. to give a rough idea of the presicion needed for the shielding to be visible

    6. Can you explain under your model why inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same ?
    apologies, not familiar with the terms ^^

    No, it's simply conservation of mass and energy. When a star collapses the resulting black hole will have the same or less mass as the dying star. Therefore the black hole is an object with a finite mass, and thus a finite gravitational field. This is well understood, and the field's effects can even be directly measured in binary systems like Cygnus X1.
    on this model the strength of the gravitational field would be a measure of the black holes size, larger area of 0 counterforce would ofc produce a larger shadow which ofc would be a factor in its range, but closeup on its surface the gravity would be always the same, the exact amount of the weight of the universe.


    result= 1 728 000 000 000 000 g
    this really is very inaccurate, but again to give an idea of what we are dealing with what would need to be measured for the vortexing we talked about earlyer, ill use this again.
    so the fields strength is 1 728 000 000 000 000 g and the strength within earths shadow it would be 1 727 999 999 999 999 g
    taking into account gravitys speed of light 299'792'458
    meters / second(?) say an object would be moving at 1000 meters/second speed,
    coming from behind earths shadow length of 1000 / 299'792'458 = 0,0000033356 meters, would be subjected to the sideways directional force vector / second
    at a force of 1 / 1 728 000 000 000 000 = (my pocket calculator refuses to show other than 0 here) strength difference in comparison to the rest of the mass.
    actually it would be smaller since 1 g is the total overall measured on earths surface, the shadow provided by just the slice off the top of earth would be smaller

    how would you go around measuring that?
    Last edited by yunthi; January 30th, 2012 at 06:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    i mean the idea seems to follow logic more tha the GR, so why would I be the first to realize it, surely there are others, physicist who would have come to the same conclusion
    This was first proposed in the 1750s, and later abandoned due to the numerous problems with this model. GR came about as a result of the fact that there are phenomena that cannot be explained under Newton or LeSage, for example the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit ( have I brought this up yet ? ).

    but what if it actually is something significant. thats why i am here requesting not only issues but ideas that could explain it aswell. to find the truth.
    It isn't. It's an old theory that had its run, and was proven to be wrong long ago.

    im proposint that rather than all sources of energy being a source of gravity, that all energy is basicly kinetic.
    It's easy to just randomly "propose" things - do you have any evidence for that ? Simple counterexample - a magnetic field. No movement, lots of energy.

    we would move away from a bigger source in the center of the universe and towards a smaller source along universes edge.
    Look, I really think you should go and study basic physics and cosmology first before coming here to attack established theories. The universe has no center, and no edge !

    the pushing force i think would be subatomic particles. in my head its dustsized stuff on an atom that is earthsized, but that is purely a guess. subatomic particles being thrown in all directions from an atom.
    By what process are these particles emitted ? Where does their energy come from ? Where does it go ? What is their mass, spin, composition etc etc ? Are you aware that no particle can move at multiple times the speed of light, and if it could, then it wouldn't be able to interact with normal matter ?
    All of this is just mere conjecture without any scientific basis. No evidence of such particles has ever been observed, and this was one of the reasons why this model was abandoned.

    id need to know more about the experiments to be able to tell what went wrong.
    What went wrong is that gravitational shielding simply doesn't exist. Just Google the term and read the links.

    apologies, not familiar with the terms ^^
    Don't worry about it too much, because it's something that LeSage gravity cannot explain...

    on this model the strength of the gravitational field would be a measure of the black holes size
    Which is in contradiction to all observational evidence. Any black hole's gravity field can only depend on just three things : total mass, angular momentum and electric charge.
    Also, black hole's don't have material surfaces, they only have event horizons, the radius of which once again depends only on the three things above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Allow me to summarize the state of affairs thus far :

    1. Drag - Not explained by LeSage, no such problem under GR
    2. Aberration - Not explained by LeSage, no such problem under GR
    3. Equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass - Not explained by LeSage, basic property of GR
    4. Nature of gravitation - Particles proposed by LeSage which haven't been observed; GR fully explains it through space-time curvature
    5. Gravitational time dilation - Not explainable by LeSage, automatic consequence of GR
    6. Frame dragging, static mass increase - Not explained under LeSage, automatic consequence of GR
    7. Gravitational waves - Not explained under LeSage, automatic consequence of GR
    8. Gravitational collapse - Not explained under LeSage, automatic consequence of GR
    9. Irrotationality of gravitational field - Not explained under LeSage, no such problem under GR
    10. Light bending - Not explained under LeSage, automatic consequence of GR
    11. Precession of Mercury - Not explained under LeSage, automatic consequence of GR

    If you wish we can continue on, because there are many more arguments that show why LeSage gravity essentially cannot work, and which I haven't mentioned yet. And then there is of course the maths, which we haven't even started on yet...
    As you can see I have had this discussion before with other people, numerous times actually...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit ( have I brought this up yet ? ).
    i think strange did mention it, havent wandered far enough with this to come up with an answer.

    but what if it actually is something significant. thats why i am here requesting not only issues but ideas that could explain it aswell. to find the truth.


    It isn't. It's an old theory that had its run, and was proven to be wrong long ago.
    how many times was roundness of earth proven wrong? the fact that it keeps rising gives it some merit. not all problems are solved for sure.

    It's easy to just randomly "propose" things - do you have any evidence for that ? Simple counterexample - a magnetic field. No movement, lots of energy.
    it isnt random there is logic behind it, GR is basicly the acceptance of not all things can be explained by logic. mine, yes they can be, were just not looking to find the link hard enough.
    magnetism isnt a simple counterpoint when we are talking about the nature of gravity, considering the similarities in the force itself, even if the effect is alot more localized.
    what i can grasp about magnetism is that electricity, electrons have a strong effect on it, a similar effect from a electron would fit the profile, but im not goin into that just yet. the theory is still barely forming at this point and i dont have enough data to make an assumption beyond - it propably is something similar to gravity.

    we would move away from a bigger source in the center of the universe and towards a smaller source along universes edge.


    Look, I really think you should go and study basic physics and cosmology first before coming here to attack established theories. The universe has no center, and no edge !
    center would be the point of the big bang. the big bang in my model woud have had to be a gigantic dust cloud without atomic structures, just subatomic particles with no charge, possibly remnants of previous universe or multiple previous universes in different sides of the universe(terms gettin mixed up there but with lack of better word, ill use it for both). somewhere along the way, something happened that produced the first atom, the first atom started pushing others away but since we are thinkin the gigantic dust cloud here, collisions or actual matter being clumped together would be fused from the energy of the first atom, a chain reaction ensues resulting in a big bang.

    work in progress for sure, just one theory that might fit into the model. not perhaps the correct one

    to put it short, center in this model would be the point of origin, or area of origin, the edge would be the event horizon behind which atomic pressure is not enough to hold any molecular bonds. either that or nonevent horizon of the mass no longer recieving directional gravity from. GR might not recognice these as center and edge, but im not talking about GR here.

    the pushing force i think would be subatomic particles. in my head its dustsized stuff on an atom that is earthsized, but that is purely a guess. subatomic particles being thrown in all directions from an atom.


    By what process are these particles emitted ? Where does their energy come from ? Where does it go ? What is their mass, spin, composition etc etc ? Are you aware that no particle can move at multiple times the speed of light, and if it could, then it wouldn't be able to interact with normal matter ?
    All of this is just mere conjecture without any scientific basis. No evidence of such particles has ever been observed, and this was one of the reasons why this model was abandoned.
    process, internal pressure, spring force, a microscopic dude who's in charge of waste disposal on the atoms surface, or possibly being a chain reaction as they are bombarded, the cores would release the same amount of matter/ energy resulting in gravity. (last one taken from the original post).

    source: atomic fusion atomic fission the original big bang and transformation of other forms of kinetic (^^) energy, including gravity from other atoms. multiple possible solutions.
    one id like to separate from others is:
    a black hole is formed when a star with high mass dies, its used up all its fusion fuel so to speak. a star during its life span emits a very large amounts of energy right. so if its energy would be all used up. would it have the internal force left to keep it from collapsing.
    stars.

    Where does it go
    everywhere

    What is their mass, spin, composition
    for that i think wed need to find one first, observe its true behavious, with only logic and theory behind me, thats too much into detail. spin might be deductable, altho if i were to guess it wouldnt propably be constant on all of them, atoms with different spin within matter at a different speed in a different environment would propably produce different spin gravity.
    omposition, somethign we dont have a word for yet other than gravity itself.
    Are you aware that no particle can move at multiple times the speed of light
    as explained by GR. the fact that we havent been able to measure speeds above light doesnt necesserily mean there arent speeds above lightspeed. (what was the name of the particle used in science fiction that allows time travel due to its faster than light speed again? is that particle real without the timetravel effect or was it all made up?)
    No evidence of such particles has ever been observed, and this was one of the reasons why this model was abandoned
    prematurely id say, i think the existance of atom was first theorized by ancient greeks, the didnt have the equipment to measure one either. the fact that we do not have sophisticated enough equipment to measure the particles is not a proof of them not existing. its merely a proof that we can not directly monitor particles that small yet.

    Which is in contradiction to all observational evidence. Any black hole's gravity field can only depend on just three things : total mass, angular momentum and electric charge.
    Also, black hole's don't have material surfaces, they only have event horizons, the radius of which once again depends only on the three things above
    as proven by GR, what exactly is the "all observable evidence"? Black hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia taking a look into that all observational evidence seems to indicate an invisible mass with high gravity, that would be true to both GR and ... ill actually call this mine since it holds some difference from le'sages model. again bear in mind that the directinal vector is exactly the same, towards the mass, the only thing differentiating GR and my theory is the size of the eventual black hole itself, gr says that nothing is visible beyond event horizon which would be just as true in my theory. the non visible, non directly observable part is the part put in question.
    i did explain the gravitational lensing before. altho admittedly u ignored that one, the rest of it would very well fit both theories.

    again raid time so ill get back to the second post a bit later




    Last edited by yunthi; January 31st, 2012 at 12:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    how many times was roundness of earth proven wrong? the fact that it keeps rising gives it some merit.
    It keeps coming up because people do not have a good understanding of the principles of established theories like GR; that's why they try to reject them, in order to return to allegedly "simpler" alternatives. It was the exact same with round earth. Even today there are still people who believe in a flat earth ( "Flat Earth Society" ) - does that idea have any merit only because it still comes up occasionally ?

    it isnt random there is logic behind it, GR is basicly the acceptance of not all things can be explained by logic.
    Once again, GR is perfectly logical once you make the effort to understand it. I admit the model can be daunting to someone who has never been confronted with it, but once you get the basic principles it is really one of the most logic and beautiful models in scientific history. And it works

    to put it short, center in this model would be the point of origin, or area of origin, the edge would be the event horizon behind which atomic pressure is not enough to hold any molecular bonds.
    I don't think you understand - we are dealing with four dimensions here, there is no point of origin, and neither is there an edge. It's not like a 3-dimensional sphere.

    for that i think wed need to find one first,
    Yes, this is one of the areas where the model falls through. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of these particles. And if they were real, we would run into a lot of problems with thermodynamics, atomic energy levels, fundamental forces etc etc.

    what was the name of the particle used in science fiction that allows time travel due to its faster than light speed again? is that particle real without the timetravel effect or was it all made up?
    I belief what you are looking for is the Tachyon. At the moment there is no evidence that such a particle exists.

    its merely a proof that we can not directly monitor particles that small yet.
    It's not a question of size, but of mass. The fact that this particle hasn't been observed would mean one of two things : a) it interacts with normal matter only very weakly, or b) it is extremely massive. The latter would mean that it is not stable, and wouldn't travel at high speeds. Both points would create problems for your model.
    I would argue that such a particle isn't needed, thus the fact that we don't observe it means it's not there !

    as proven by GR, what exactly is the "all observable evidence"?
    Have I not already provided that ? Why must we go around in circles ? Ah well, here it is again...
    1. Perihelion precession of Mercury
    2. Gravitational red shift
    3. Gravitationa light deflection
    4. Shapiro delay
    5. Eotvos torsion balance experiment
    6. Equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass
    7. Pound-Rebka experiment
    8. Gravity Probe A & B experiments
    9. Hafele-Keating experiment
    10. Thirring-Lense precession
    11. Frame dragging ( as observed by Gravity Probe B )
    12. Geodetic effect
    13. Periapsis precession of pulsar orbits ( e.g PSR B1913+16 )
    14. Gravitational waves

    i did explain the gravitational lensing before. altho admittedly u ignored that one, the rest of it would very well fit both theories.
    You did not explain it at all; you just made up a completely unsupported conjecture of photons being rotating half-spheres, which I have shown you to be wrong. So no, I didn't ignore it. Light bending doesn't fit in with your model, because photons are massless and have no surface area.

    the rest of it would very well fit both theories.
    Show us by explaining all of the above phenomena under your model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I wish to bring up another HUGE problem with your theory.

    These alleged push forces must obviously be trememdously strong ( otherwise they couldn't influence large masses ). In order for any object in the universe to be in balance and not "bounce" around wildly, these forces from all sides must be perfectly balanced since even the tiniest fluctuations would have massively large effects. This in turn means that the observable part of the cosmos should be perfectly homogenous and isotropic.
    As we all know this is unfortunately not the case :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament

    Can you explain that discrepancy ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Look, why can you not just acknowledge that this theory of yours doesn't work ? This whole idea of push-gravity has been proven again and again to be untenable. There are just too many problems with it, all of which can be found via simple Google searches. Now, if you really want we can spend our time going through every one of them ( believe me, I know them all ), but at the end of the day there is nothing new to be learned here. Many others have done this before.
    Even now we are already down to unobservable particles with indeterminate properties that move at several times the speed of light, and affect light rays because those are actually rotating half spheres ? All of this is pure conjecture without any physical basis whatsoever, and in no way is at any simpler than GR. And that's even before we start doing the actual maths. And the further we go the more problems you will encounter with your model, and the more groundless conjectures you have to make to keep it afloat. In the end what you will get is just a jumbled heap of pseudoscience. Too many others have gone there before.
    In contrast we have General Relativity which explains all gravitational phenomena naturally via one unifying property, without needing either push- nor pull-forces, or any superluminal ghost particles. Granted, the maths aren't easy, but the point is that all results obtained from that theory are in perfect agreement with observation. Can you point out just one gravitational phenomenon that GR can't explain ? I would be more than interested to hear it. For your model, I have pointed out at least ten things that aren't explainable, and I could probably come up with another ten if I had to. But is there really any point since this has all been done before ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Time to put this out with the trash...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    the first couple of points on that are more filosofical than scientific debates. a scientist should i think keep an open mind, even with theories previously proven wrong if there is new evidence or ideas that might explain the results differently. my thoughts, im sure some will disagree with this. and how u should think is not my point here.

    I don't think you understand - we are dealing with four dimensions here, there is no point of origin, and neither is there an edge. It's not like a 3-dimensional sphere.
    more a filosofical statement aswell. but my pov does have a clear answer to this, you are talking about 4 dimensions, not me. but even then along the timeline there is a beginning (of the measured timeline atleast) and in some cases end.

    if ur referring to the curvature of time which my model doesnt recognice (the debate of atomic clocks used the instrument of measure) again this is what you and gr recognice, i dont. 3 dimensional sphere is what would fit my model better than 4 dimensional so ill use that, and it indeed would be atleast close to a sphere.

    There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of these particles. And if they were real, we would run into a lot of problems with thermodynamics, atomic energy levels, fundamental forces etc etc.
    the lack of factual evidence of the particles existance again the particle would be subatomic and research into subatomic sized particles has been relatively slow.
    atomic energy levels
    from nuclear power plants we do know atom cores hold alot of energy, afterall it is been used already. gravity would indeed increase the energy of the atoms, and it would in my model be a factor in not necessarily thermodynamics. what the kinetic energy converts to remain still one of the big questions in pushing gravity models, but again not explainable with current level of technology doesnt mean not true.
    however i can speculate on this. as the force of gravity must come from somewhere (i think u did ask the source of the energy previously) that would mean a chain reaction of atoms recieving energy and releasing it.
    another theory that did come up due to this thread, an idea of it possibly having its hands on atomic decay. splitting an atom does release sizeble amounts of energy a principle which is used in again in nuclear plants.
    so there is an input of the energy and an output for it, if they are equal its a point of balance if not well, my guess would be an atom uses more power than it gains resulting eventually in the void. (and black holes in case of stars)
    for sure gravity would be a fundamental force in itself so im sure some would need to be revised.
    what was the name of the particle used in science fiction that allows time travel due to its faster than light speed again? is that particle real without the timetravel effect or was it all made up?


    I belief what you are looking for is the Tachyon. At the moment there is no evidence that such a particle exists.
    thx ^^ what i thought about it aswell but wasnt sure. next question would be asking for the reasons why a particle wouldn't be able to travel faster than light? is there other proof than experimental for this? and since it wouldnt be able to according to gr affect anything wouldnt the experiment be void as it wouldnt show up in any detector due to the lack of ability to interfere with anything?
    a point to the side but i am curious about this.

    It's not a question of size, but of mass. The fact that this particle hasn't been observed would mean one of two things : a) it interacts with normal matter only very weakly, or b) it is extremely massive. The latter would mean that it is not stable, and wouldn't travel at high speeds. Both points would create problems for your model.
    I would argue that such a particle isn't needed, thus the fact that we don't observe it means it's not there !
    id have to go with option c: both. remember the really inaccurate (could someone do a more presice calculation of this pls?) 1 728 000 000 000 000 g force that was the "weight of the universe", and then again the interaction on the atom cores out of this is minimal earths mass provides 1 g gravity. one single particle would have minimal effect but the amount of them in combination would provide more. and yes, show me a stable atom that does not decay or interract with anything. and again coming back to the nuclear power plants, they wouldn't work on a stable atom.

    the model itself is instability of the atoms providing outwards push that is gravity. atoms would be unstable but a single (ill use the word graviton here) would have minimal effect, and it would be stable. aswell as capable of high speeds.

    either way, if its not a particle but energy, wouldnt that solve more or less all issues u have with pushing model. since this way every result would be exactly the smae regardless of the force being pull towards a mass or push towards mass? (theoretical question, considering it is after all a particle im proposing and not energy)

    think its time to post this and edit in some more later. i am getting a feeling that google wave would work better on this thatn a forum ^^
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    ive responded to most issues with an answer that would explain it within my model, not in gr but in mine.

    I wish to bring up another HUGE problem with your theory.

    These alleged push forces must obviously be trememdously strong ( otherwise they couldn't influence large masses ). In order for any object in the universe to be in balance and not "bounce" around wildly, these forces from all sides must be perfectly balanced since even the tiniest fluctuations would have massively large effects. This in turn means that the observable part of the cosmos should be perfectly homogenous and isotropic.
    As we all know this is unfortunately not the case :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament

    Can you explain that discrepancy ?
    easy one. yes it would be tremendously strong. it wouldnt bounce around wildly, do an explosion in water, pressure wave will travel thu it but in relatively short time all of it would be back in balance. the same would be true with the universe, since the source is atoms, and all of em pushing . a greater push in a region of space would result in matter moving away from the region, thus decreasing the push in that region, remember the universe has had 16 billion years? was that earths age or universes. to balance itself. it wouldnt be perfect but the fluctuations would be very small.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    I wish to bring up another HUGE problem with your theory.

    These alleged push forces must obviously be trememdously strong ( otherwise they couldn't influence large masses ). In order for any object in the universe to be in balance and not "bounce" around wildly, these forces from all sides must be perfectly balanced since even the tiniest fluctuations would have massively large effects. This in turn means that the observable part of the cosmos should be perfectly homogenous and isotropic.
    As we all know this is unfortunately not the case :

    Galaxy filament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Can you explain that discrepancy ?
    not a huge issue, acutally very easily explained. dop an explosion into water and see the waves, itl balance itself relatively quickly, same would work with the universe itself. if there was a region of space that produced more gravity than others, rememberin its the atom cores that are the source and the same atoms the affected part. the area would push tatoms away from itself, thus reducing the gravity within that region, balancing it out. the universe has had a long time to do this. it wouldnt be a perfect balance, but very close to it

    why dont i accept that my theory is wrong, propably because my lack of seein the actual problems with it. as said ive explained most of the issues you have posted, all within one week (forget teh halfball will u, it was a play of thought no more). with extensive research im sure i would come up with answers to most if not all of the issues. this post is just as much about finding the issues with it and to see it they indeed do fit. i sincerely thank u for pointing them out altho most of them i dont really see as issues, nothing ive read so far would make this impossible

    1. Perihelion precession of Mercury - need to study this one, havent got the time to from typing in here ^^
    2. Gravitational red shift - i did point out my belief in that gravity would affect light, if u just would get ur mind over the ball
    3. Gravitationa light deflection - same thing
    the rest ill need to study, thank u for providing this thread with something new ^^

    one of the biggest things that do make me wonder is the fact that u think because pull model explains something a push model wouldnt, again , same amount of force would be present in both.

    most phenomenon could be just as easily proven in both.
    Last edited by yunthi; January 31st, 2012 at 05:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    that would mean a chain reaction of atoms recieving energy and releasing it.
    another theory that did come up due to this thread, an idea of it possibly having its hands on atomic decay. splitting an atom does release sizeble amounts of energy a principle which is used in again in nuclear plants.
    so there is an input of the energy and an output for it, if they are equal its a point of balance if not well, my guess would be an atom uses more power than it gains resulting eventually in the void.
    Unfortunately there is not a shred of evidence for any of this.

    ive responded to most issues with an answer that would explain it within my model, not in gr but in mine.
    Unfortunately though GR is well verified experimentally, whereas your model is not. And as a matter of fact, you haven't explained many of the points I brought up...

    dop an explosion into water and see the waves, itl balance itself relatively quickly, same would work with the universe itself. if there was a region of space that produced more gravity than others, rememberin its the atom cores that are the source and the same atoms the affected part. the area would push tatoms away from itself, thus reducing the gravity within that region, balancing it out.
    Again, that would mean that matter would be "balanced out", i.e. matter density would be roughly homogenous across the universe. Unfortunately though this isn't the case, as seen in my link. That was my whole point !

    i am getting a feeling that google wave would work better on this thatn a forum ^^
    Why ? Because the general Joe Public wouldn't have the scientific knowledge to bring up all these many objections to your model ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    google wave due to the diversification if it, quote of quote of quote, instead a reply to the original one effect at a time between the posts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    I am still waiting for just one example of a phenomenon that GR can't explain, or where GR makes a wrong prediction ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    1 min of research produced an article
    Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    i
    wont solve all the issues with this in a week mind you, if it was that easy for sure it would have been a complete theory by now by someone else.


    i did post here to find out about the possible issues with this, next step is to study them and form a theory on their basis. patience is a virtue

    The race for the first direct detection of gravitational waves continues apace
    taken from wikipedia
    which was one of the issues in push theory u said it cannot explain when the first of them hasn't been found. this i think indicates that the issue itself is a derivation of gr. so lack of them couldnt be used as a proof of push theorys inability to explain this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    1 min of research produced an article
    Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    i
    wont solve all the issues with this in a week mind you, if it was that easy for sure it would have been a complete theory by now by someone else.


    i did post here to find out about the possible issues with this, next step is to study them and form a theory on their basis. patience is a virtue
    If you had read the article properly you would have noticed that this finding has not yet been confirmed...it is awaiting independent verification. Once this verification has been forthcoming, and we know for sure that those neutrinos actually were moving at superluminal speeds, I will freely admit that adjustments will need to be made to quantum mechanics. In the meantime :

    "Dario Autiero, who leads the OPERA team's analysis of the faster-than-light result, has stated that further scrutiny and independent tests are necessary to definitely confirm or refute the results. Independent tests by other collaborations are under way."

    Btw, this isn't a GR phenomenon at all, because it has nothing to do with gravitation
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    which was one of the issues in push theory u said it cannot explain when the first of them hasn't been found. this i think indicates that the issue itself is a derivation of gr. so lack of them couldnt be used as a proof of push theorys inability to explain this.
    Ok, I take your point, you are of course right. Disregard the gravitational waves. That still leaves you with the other 13 points...so plenty of feedback for your theory, and plenty of things to think about
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    i did post here to find out about the possible issues with this, next step is to study them and form a theory on their basis.
    That's fine. I think I did leave you with plenty of issues
    Ponder them and come back to us at a later stage. Remember though that others have done that before you...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    ahh, u were gettin impationt so i linked the first issue i found ^^, altho the next one would be valid.
    how does GR explain the lack of gravitational waves ( i actually believe that even they could be expalined some way with the push model. but for the sake of argument, this would be similar to the questions how come no proof of gravitons has been found.)


    on the filament issue, i do need to revisit my original explanation. further thinkin into it (as u can see some of this is created on the fly so for sure there will be errors bofore the finalized version)
    my first thought forgot the shadow effect from the explanation, which kinda is the fundamental part of my theory. so any mass would create shadow aswell as provide gravity. this might result in a balance. ill give it some more thought but for now, its 1:13 and i really need to get some sleep.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    how many times was roundness of earth proven wrong?
    Never. People have always known the Earth is round.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    ahh, u were gettin impationt so i linked the first issue i found ^^, altho the next one would be valid.
    how does GR explain the lack of gravitational waves ( i actually believe that even they could be expalined some way with the push model. but for the sake of argument, this would be similar to the questions how come no proof of gravitons has been found.)


    on the filament issue, i do need to revisit my original explanation. further thinkin into it (as u can see some of this is created on the fly so for sure there will be errors bofore the finalized version)
    my first thought forgot the shadow effect from the explanation, which kinda is the fundamental part of my theory. so any mass would create shadow aswell as provide gravity. this might result in a balance. ill give it some more thought but for now, its 1:13 and i really need to get some sleep.
    Not impatient. I was at work, and it was the small hours of the morning. The joys of shift work.
    Lack of gravitational waves ? Ehm, I think you misunderstand - there is plenty of evidence for their existence, it's just that our instruments aren't yet sensitive enough to detect them directly here on earth. Since it wanted to be fair and consistent to your course, I didn't push the issue yet. It's like the neutrino thing - one waits for final confirmation, but with the waves we know that it will happen, it's just a matter of time. Have a read through these :

    3. The Hulse-Taylor Pulsar - Evidence of Gravitational Waves
    Physics - A Fleeting Detection of Gravitational Waves

    As for the isotropy issue, you haven't answered my question. As you can see there are vast areas of voids between filaments; these areas would not emit any of your proposed particles, and thus gravitation cannot be balanced throughout the universe. This has nothing to do with shadows, it is a matter of particle density.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    the questions purpose as u saw was to demonstrate the fact that lack of equipment with the needed sensitivity hardly is evidence. im sure u got the idea behind it (+saw the question coming a mile away)

    As for the isotropy issue, you haven't answered my question. As you can see there are vast areas of voids between filaments; these areas would not emit any of your proposed particles, and thus gravitation cannot be balanced throughout the universe. This has nothing to do with shadows, it is a matter of particle density.
    the fact that gravity eminating from an atom would not stop at a short range around the atom was one of the basic principles. it wouldnt slow down inside a void without interacting with something. clustering in a galactic scale would fit the model perfectly. basicly gravitational push to the cluster thu it will need to be greater than the internal push. same principle which in my model keeps planets together (as in not a gigantic dust cloud but solid ground) etc.

    i think i see my own issue with this tho. if there is a greater extrenal force than internal, why wouldnt it all clump up together more closely. (same issue would appear in gr with the GR pull model aswell, btw, why is it not forming one huge black hole)

    one answer for it might be within my model as in stars. as mass increases in some areas, it would increase the internal push aswell with increased bombardment of gravity they would need to put out more aswell. ignition of a star. multiple stars in an area could provide with the internal push necessary to maintain the balance.

    alot of stray thoughts at this point needs alot of refining i think. partly typed it here to keep the train of thought together before it disappears
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    i think i see my own issue with this tho. if there is a greater extrenal force than internal, why wouldnt it all clump up together more closely. (same issue would appear in gr with the GR pull model aswell, btw, why is it not forming one huge black hole)
    No, the push-gravity would have the opposite effect - it would tend to distribute all matter evenly in the universe. Again, this is contrary to observed evidence.
    Why is it not forming one huge BH ? Because the universe is not static in GR - it has finite size and finite age, and gravity can only propagate as fast as light can. In addition, space is still expanding in all directions, and once one takes into account that the early/young universe was not perfectly homogenous ( i.e. had natural fluctuations in density due to quantum effects ), the observed large-scale structures like filaments etc naturally arise as the cosmos expands further. Therefore no huge black hole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    we could add the magical component to it just like gr did to make the calculations right. dark matter increasing the push.

    while this is still work in progress,
    the shadow effect that binds molecular structures together, molecular structures into solid ground, planets solarsystems, solarsuystems to galaxies.
    what would be different in a larger scale?

    what u suggest would happen with this would be contrary to the observable evidence, what i suggest wouldnt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    I just am amazed that everybody thinks they have a better theory of Gravity, when Einstrin's fomulation was proposed a century ago, and has passed thousands of tests with a perfect passing score. Yet everybody seems to want to replace Einstein's name with their own name. Of course, none of them work, but they will not be deterred...
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    so gravity: space time curvature? or pool table ball hits ball 1st ball stops moving second ball starts moving logic.
    be it wrong or right, the second one does have certain attraction

    but defending gr in there seems to me almost fanatical, lacking any curiosity, lacking any open mindedness.

    if it cannot be proven it must be wrong.


    let me give an expmple:
    there exists a circle that appears to be orange:
    - it is orange
    - you are color blind
    - your eyes are seeing it as orange but in reality its formed of yellow and red dots
    - you have orange sunglasses on.
    - room is lit by orange light, its actually white
    - room is filled with orange mist
    - the circle is transparent on orange paper
    - the dicle is moving away fast resulting in red shift
    - there is a powerfull black hole resulting in gravitational red shif

    etc etc etc

    all of these can explain the phenomenon that is the orange circle . most of gr is observing a phenomenon and then explaining it.

    but gr is not the only possible explanation. to everything
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    That is a complete non sequiter, since the two things have nothing to do with each other. Why am I not surprised?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    the one thing i did pick up from the other thread was the true gravity in gr, how does it work, that is one of the things that spawned this thread.

    -how can something that doesnt have mass to bind it in the real world have any effect on mass.
    -if it has a mass how can something hit something and pull
    -that wouldnt make any sense, then it must be push.

    my own train of thought was quite a bit compllicated than that but my fingers arent fast enough to keep up with it so it becomes very short and simplified in comparison
    still the base idea is that
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    So far as I am concerned gravity neither pushes nor pulls. Gravity is curvature in space time due to the presence of energy; this curvature leads to free falling particles following curved geodesics. GR describes the relationship between energy and curvature; the results are in perfect agreement with all known observational evidence. No new theory is presently needed, because there is no known gravitational phenomenon in the macroscopic domain that isn't explainable in terms of GR. Enough said.
    taken from the other thread. that or the said pool table logic
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    had a flash of though from the filament discussion.

    the thought that stars would possibly be a source of balance.
    so the origin was that due to the shadow. mass would gather at certain points. and with the increased mass, the gravity would increase within the mass. as gravity increases within it, bombardment on each atom would increase. this would be the source of ignition for stars and their fusion, while energy input to each atom increases the energy output must aswell. so the atoms would release their gravity in increasing value along with the fusion. so far nothing new to this discussion, just condensing it a bit.

    i just realized something i read somewhere that earth is moving away from the sun. (as are other planets in our solar system)

    an accepted theory to this is that sun is radiating lots of energy and this is decreasing its mass. sounds viable.
    another option would be the one that would fit my model perfectly, that the actual gravity increased within would slowly push earth away.

    or combination of the 2. if sun is losing mass it would lose part of its shadow as well so this would hold true.

    the part that actually caught my attention was, could this explain the lack of drag? since earth is moving away from the sun, if sun had any push force then moving away from the sun would serve as giving it more speed, while the drag would be the stabilising force.
    as in suns push would give it a gravitational acceleration. and the drags slowing effect would grow with the increasing speed until it is equal to the push, giving earth a steady speed.

    edit: on second thought. propably not, not abandoning the idea completely just yet. but the drag reduction would propably come from suns rotation.
    slingshot effect.

    considering sun would be rotating, so any mass leaving it would follow centrifugal principles. leaving the edge to the direction of the rotation.
    the same principle as in the previous attempt would work tho, solar winds pushing to increase the speed while drag increasing with the speed slows it down to balance.

    both effects would be very minor but they would be the source of balance nonetheless
    Last edited by yunthi; February 1st, 2012 at 08:17 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    the shadow effect that binds molecular structures together, molecular structures into solid ground, planets solarsystems, solarsuystems to galaxies.
    Molecules are bound by sharing valence electrons. Gravity plays almost no role in this ?!

    we could add the magical component to it just like gr did to make the calculations right. dark matter increasing the push.
    What would happen then is that all matter would tend to spread out evenly because of the push gravity; we would be seeing a perfectly homogenous universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    if it cannot be proven it must be wrong
    That's exactly why push gravity needs to be put away once and for all. There has been no evidence in its support for 250 years.
    GR on the other hand is very well verified.

    but gr is not the only possible explanation. to everything
    It doesn't claim to be ! But it is working very well in its own domain.

    so the origin was that due to the shadow. mass would gather at certain points. and with the increased mass, the gravity would increase within the mass. as gravity increases within it, bombardment on each atom would increase. this would be the source of ignition for stars and their fusion, while energy input to each atom increases the energy output must aswell. so the atoms would release their gravity in increasing value along with the fusion. so far nothing new to this discussion, just condensing it a bit.
    I say it to you again : gravity is a function of energy. The total energy in a star doesn't change only because fusion sets in at its core. Gravity is not effected by this.

    i just realized something i read somewhere that earth is moving away from the sun. (as are other planets in our solar system)
    News to me. Any evidence for this ?

    the part that actually caught my attention was, could this explain the lack of drag?
    No. drag would mean that the earth looses kinetic energy over time and would actually spiral inwards towards the sun. Neither is actually happening !

    slingshot effect
    Huh ?!

    the same principle as in the previous attempt would work tho, solar winds pushing to increase the speed while drag increasing with the speed slows it down to balance
    Good grief. Basic mechanics, anyone ? Solar wind ( not being a constant force, which is a different problem ) would act perpendicular to the earth's orbit, whereas drag would act along the earth's orbital plane. Also, solar wind decreases with distance from the sun whereas drag would actually increase because the sun's shielding effect is smaller farther out.

    Can you not see how many problems your model has ? You now need to make more and more assumptions just to keep it going. What a waste of time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    So far as I am concerned gravity neither pushes nor pulls. Gravity is curvature in space time due to the presence of energy; this curvature leads to free falling particles following curved geodesics. GR describes the relationship between energy and curvature; the results are in perfect agreement with all known observational evidence. No new theory is presently needed, because there is no known gravitational phenomenon in the macroscopic domain that isn't explainable in terms of GR. Enough said.
    taken from the other thread. that or the said pool table logic
    So what are you trying to say ? The geometric model of GR is much more elegant than push-gravity, and explains all observed gravitational phenomena perfectly well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    -how can something that doesnt have mass to bind it in the real world have any effect on mass.
    -if it has a mass how can something hit something and pull
    -that wouldnt make any sense, then it must be push.
    I really don't understand what you mean by this.

    1) I have already explained a number of times that gravity under GR is the result of the presence of energy. Any form of energy. Mass is only one of the things causing it.
    2) 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.
    3) Wrong, it makes perfect sense.

    All of this has been explained before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    assumption and possible explanation to the issues stated, not much of a difference. arent theories in most cases assumptions later proved with tests, a theory in itself is an assumption

    there is one error to pretty much everything u proposed. it sees things thu GR standpoint. my explanations are what would happen in my push theory, not what would happen in GR.

    i just realized something i read somewhere that earth is moving away from the sun. (as are other planets in our solar system)


    News to me. Any evidence for this ?
    so the orbits of the planets are steadily expanding outward from the Sun
    taken from wikipedia Astronomical unit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that was found under development. not sure where i found it tho, somewhere long ago. can't remember the original source.

    slingshot effect


    Huh ?!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slingshot_effect

    There has been no evidence in its support for 250 years.
    that really does seem to matter a lot for you. im sure its partially due to scientists giving up because of external pressure exceeding internal push ^^

    Molecules are bound by sharing valence electrons. Gravity plays almost no role in this ?!
    im fully aware of GR's habit of explaining things with forces without mass, they however have no place in my theory.

    we do know that electrons form a sortof bond within 2 atoms at close range, but is this the cause for the bond or effect of the bond, my answer is effect.
    my theory is based on all energy being conveyed by particles, including electrons orbit around an atoms core.
    force of the atoms push would keep them from crashing into them while external pressure would keep them in orbit. (and dont try to add drag in here, as heat ( vibration= same effect as a hula hoop) now add another atom core to the vicinity. between the 2 atoms the shadows would result in a point of balance between them where there is no push toward either of the atoms, thus it would keep its cource, which would be away from its original atom and into the orbit of the second one, result = figure 8 between the 2 atoms.

    seriously tho. you are trying to pose issues to my theory that exist in GR, my explanations would not work under GR for sure but it is not GR im talking about, its my model.

    edit:
    where there is no push toward either of the atoms
    the wording is wrong, there is equal push and shadow from the atoms resulting in a null force vector. leaving only the electrons kinetic energy, direction and speed
    Last edited by yunthi; February 2nd, 2012 at 09:33 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    arent theories in most cases assumptions later proved with tests, a theory in itself is an assumption
    Exactly...and GR was tested and proven to be in agreement with observation, whereas push gravity was not

    there is one error to pretty much everything u proposed. it sees things thu GR standpoint.
    My friend, in case you have not noticed - GR is the currently accepted, tested, and well verified theory of gravity. Of course I use that as my standpoint. How is that an error ? The error is on your part, through pursuing a model that has already been proven wrong long ago.

    im fully aware of GR's habit of explaining things with forces without mass,
    This is now probably the third or fourth time I am explaining this : GR doesn't use forces as such, it uses geometry.

    my theory is based on all energy being conveyed by particles, including electrons orbit around an atoms core.
    force of the atoms push would keep them from crashing into them while external pressure would keep them in orbit. (and dont try to add drag in here, as heat ( vibration= same effect as a hula hoop) now add another atom core to the vicinity. between the 2 atoms the shadows would result in a point of balance between them where there is no push toward either of the atoms, thus it would keep its cource, which would be away from its original atom and into the orbit of the second one, result = figure 8 between the 2 atoms.
    You don't know very much about quantum mechanics, do you ? That's all I can really say to this.


    seriously tho. you are trying to pose issues to my theory that exist in GR, my explanations would not work under GR for sure but it is not GR im talking about, its my model.
    Seriously though, you might want to wake up to the fact that GR is the accepted theory of gravitation at present. Why ? Because it works, and it explains all gravity phenomena that we know of ! How do we know that ? Through observation, and through experiment.
    You are free to pursue any model you wish, but if you do you will need to be prepared to answer some serious questions. The onus is on you, and you alone, to show the rest of the world how your model is better than GR.
    Btw, how come I haven't seen any maths from you yet ?? I'd love to actually get into the numbers, and I am quite prepared and capable to do so from my GR standpoint. Why ? Again, because I know it works.

    im sure its partially due to scientists giving up because of external pressure exceeding internal push ^^
    Of course it is. It's a huge international conspiracy to suppress the obvious truth...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    Btw, how come I haven't seen any maths from you yet ?? I'd love to actually get into the numbers, and I am quite prepared and capable to do so from my GR standpoint. Why ? Again, because I know it works.
    ur goin to laugh at this one, i hate maths. (even if a had a gift for it) i left school about 8 years ago, and cant remember too much of the higher math. however, im not here to discuss about myself, but the theory.

    Of course it is. It's a huge international conspiracy to suppress the obvious truth...
    just take a look at this page here, how receptive the community is to a new idea ^^
    in all honesty, if this wasnt something i was truely curious about, im sure i would have quit aswell just like anyone else u have talked to. not because you have proven me wrong. but lets just say ur answers to everything seem to be quite monotonous. do i want to stay here being ridiculed or should i just leave it as is, its not like this would effect my own life in any shape or form regardless (even if im proven right)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Without the math, it's not a theory, it's idle speculation. Period.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    in all honesty, if this wasnt something i was truely curious about, im sure i would have quit aswell just like anyone else u have talked to.
    Wonder why that is...?
    And how about all the other threads on this topic from long before I ever joined this forum ? Seems like no one was ever able to convince the community about the merrits of push gravity...
    Again, wonder why...?

    but lets just say ur answers to everything seem to be quite monotonous.
    Are they ? Well, I'm not here to win a creative writing contest.
    I just don't believe your model is right, and I am quite happy with how well GR has worked for us thus far. Since the two are mutually exclusive, what did you expect me to say ? Sing praise and halleluja to your amazing new theory of gravity which revolutionizes science as we know it ? Sorry, but it just isn't going to happen.
    Sorry that you're disappointed.
    As to whether you have been proven wrong or right by the contributors to this thread, including myself, will be up to the readers to decide.

    do i want to stay here being ridiculed
    Sorry that you feel that way.
    I think that all questions posed to you were perfectly valid ones.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Without the math, it's not a theory, it's idle speculation. Period.
    I agree.
    Petty, really. I would have loved to see how that model calculates the Mercury precession.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    ur goin to laugh at this one, i hate maths. (even if a had a gift for it) i left school about 8 years ago, and cant remember too much of the higher math. however, im not here to discuss about myself, but the theory.
    I am not laughing at all, believe it or not. I am also no scientist, and there are limits to my maths.
    Many of the most senior and intelligent contributors on this forum aren't knowledgable in maths. It's not a prerequisite for being here, but don't say that maths aren't required for a physical theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    in all honesty, if this wasnt something i was truely curious about, im sure i would have quit aswell just like anyone else u have talked to.
    Wonder why that is...?
    And how about all the other threads on this topic from long before I ever joined this forum ? Seems like no one was ever able to convince the community about the merrits of push gravity...
    .
    That's both the community here, and the scientific community who actually use the math to understand things like this. Well said.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    while i agree the questions the problems etc are valid ones.

    Look, why can you not just acknowledge that this theory of yours doesn't work ? This whole idea of push-gravity has been proven again and again to be untenable. There are just too many problems with it, all of which can be found via simple Google searches. Now, if you really want we can spend our time going through every one of them ( believe me, I know them all ), but at the end of the day there is nothing new to be learned here. Many others have done this before.
    Even now we are already down to unobservable particles with indeterminate properties that move at several times the speed of light, and affect light rays because those are actually rotating half spheres ? All of this is pure conjecture without any physical basis whatsoever, and in no way is at any simpler than GR. And that's even before we start doing the actual maths. And the further we go the more problems you will encounter with your model, and the more groundless conjectures you have to make to keep it afloat. In the end what you will get is just a jumbled heap of pseudoscience. Too many others have gone there before.
    In contrast we have General Relativity which explains all gravitational phenomena naturally via one unifying property, without needing either push- nor pull-forces, or any superluminal ghost particles. Granted, the maths aren't easy, but the point is that all results obtained from that theory are in perfect agreement with observation. Can you point out just one gravitational phenomenon that GR can't explain ? I would be more than interested to hear it. For your model, I have pointed out at least ten things that aren't explainable, and I could probably come up with another ten if I had to. But is there really any point since this has all been done before
    this for example...

    i do feel a certain pride on for example the drag. to me it sounds like a valid point even without any math behind it, a possible solution. why do i not simply give up...


    ur right, i will, u win ... i lost intrest in typing here.

    good riddance im sure. pop the champagne
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    this for example...
    I think the other members of this forums should decide on that. I for myself fail to see where the ridicule in the quoted text segment is. If you want to experience what ridicule really means, then try to submit your model to a peer review journal. Even hardened, professional scientists are being put through their paces there.

    ur right, i will, u win ... i lost intrest in typing here.

    good riddance im sure. pop the champagne
    Sorry that you see it that way. I would have much rather had you understand the merits of GR instead of an outdated model from 1748, but somehow I don't think it would ever have happened.
    Pop champagne ? Not likely . I'm not that kind of guy, believe it or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    seriously tho. you are trying to pose issues to my theory that exist in GR, my explanations would not work under GR for sure but it is not GR im talking about, its my model.
    These are not "issues that exist in GR", these are features of the real world that GR explains and Magic Push Gravity doesn't.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    People don't understand the concept of an analogy. sigh....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    the sheet model assumes a gravity down. so what is that force
    xkcd: Teaching Physics
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    People don't understand the concept of an analogy. sigh....
    Perhaps we need some sort of ... metaphor ... to explain it.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    149
    close but dont think thats what im askin about

    so, the planets are makin the dents, no issues there. (well honestly i do but not in the concept that im asking)

    matter in the close proximity. what pulls/pushes/timewarps it towards that dent.

    take away inertia, put thematter in a standstill, its not moving. what is the force that moves it towards the hole/dent/ downhill curvature.

    The resultant force is oriented inward, towards the source, so you can interpret it as a pull force.
    what is causing the pull force in a space time curvature


    where does the energy for gravity come from, or is it unlimited (there exist a few perpetual motion devices based on gravity, and,or rotation of the earth) so if gravity is infinite, it would also be an infinite source of energy (altho a very sizeable with very low output, but still) if just having mass creates gravity then this would be true
    Last edited by yunthi; February 5th, 2012 at 02:50 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by yunthi View Post
    The resultant force is oriented inward, towards the source, so you can interpret it as a pull force.
    what is causing the pull force in a space time curvature
    The "dent" description is an analogy - do you understand what that means? It means it is not accurate, it just a rough visual description. It is not supposed to explain how gravity works. It cannot explain how gravity works.

    There is no good analogy that will explain this.

    I could say that mass curves space towards it and other masses follow that curve. Does that help? Probably not.

    I could say that mass "sucks" space into it dragging other matter with it. Does that help? Maybe.

    But these are analogies. That means they are lies to try and help people understand the math.

    There are, as far as I know, only two ways of understanding GR:
    1. Just accept that it works by describing the curvature of spacetime and that is what causes gravity.
    2. Spend 5 years or so learning the necessary mathematics.

    You choose.

    But if you try and say that GR is wrong because the "rubber sheet" model doesn't work then people will just laugh at you.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. My theory of the gravity
    By Hunter-azor in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: June 25th, 2011, 07:12 AM
  2. Gravityguru's theory of gravity
    By gravityguru in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2009, 12:24 PM
  3. A new theory of 'gravity'
    By in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: May 15th, 2007, 06:40 PM
  4. Gravity, and the uniform theory
    By wapperboy in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 14th, 2007, 12:36 PM
  5. new theory of gravity
    By monkeyspoon in forum Physics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 30th, 2006, 02:36 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
  •