Unifying Theory of Gravity, maybe.

[DandelionTheory]

So, I deduced this neutral system over a 3 year period. When you pair a larger and smaller Field coil, charged particles are trapped around the smaller field coil in a toroidal vortex when DC current is applied. I think this is what Harold White was stumbling upon with the Warp Drive research he has been doing.

I think Normal matter and Dark matter are coupled by gravity, and collecting Dark Matter into one spot with a toroidal vortex is brilliant. That way you can control the localized gravity shift made.
I'm not a science major, just a normal Joe with a knack for pattern recognition.

I'm open to questions, because if it is an ACTUAL unifying theory of gravity it would stand up to scrutiny, right?

Edited May 7, 2017 by DandelionTheory

[Lord Antares]

 

because if it is an ACTUAL unifying theory of gravity it would stand up to scrutiny, right?

 

 

Correct, but it won't work here.

 

The problem is, actual scientific scrutiny will always include mathematics. Seeing how you haven't provided any, it's safe to assume that you don't have it.

The first three questions you will always get are:

 

1) Do you have any evidence for this?

2) How would you calculate this mathematically?

3) What predictions or testifiable expeiments does you model provide?

 

You cannot answer any of these and thus, the speculation is unfalsifiable and useless. Physics is very complicated, you can't make a genius unifying theory with a couple of words and a vague picture. Where are the variables? Where are the mathematics? How can we even test this model? How do we then know if it is correct? It looks like a feat of imagination to me.

[Delta1212]

Keeping in mind that the reason for 2 is that for a theory to be accepted, it needs to acheive 3 with a high degree of precision. A higher degree of precision than any current theory, in fact.

 

Presently, we don't know of a way to develop a model that gives more precise results than a mathematical model.

[DandelionTheory]

@Lord Antares

Okay, you're right. My assumption of this idea having merit came off as arrogant. I assumed someone would consider the hypothesis before throwing the book at them, but that is naive on my part.

So tell me, where would someone go to learn the math involved with such calculations?

As for your list of requirements:

Number 1 will take a few days to gather, but its apparent in the formation of galaxies, stars, black holes, rotating planet cores, molecules; As to quark behavior I'm not too sure, I mean who is with quantum physics? lol.

Number 2 was discussed above.

Number 3 I actually have some experiments in mind; one involving gravity manipulation to exploit a potential difference, and another involving fusion. If you would like to know what they are, I would gladly show you an example after I've made the ladder of your list of questions to satisfaction.

 

I know I don't have all the details, it was posted in the speculations section for this reason. It is a feat of imagination and understanding to see how attraction and motion are separate but linked without mathematical models, yet I just claimed to do so. I see how that is ridiculous and still plausible.

 

@Handy Andy

"...Gravitational attraction is caused by the stretching of space, space can be stretched by making a well for it to flow into and disappear in the form of a black hole..."

I believe this to be true.

"With the announcement of the most powerful eruption ever witnessed in the Universe in the galaxy cluster MS 0735.6+7421, astronomers are seeing that how supermassive black holes eject matter is just as interesting as how they consume it. "

http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0105/bh_ce/index.html

Edited May 7, 2017 by DandelionTheory

[Strange]

"...Gravitational attraction is caused by the stretching of space, space can be stretched by making a well for it to flow into and disappear in the form of a black hole..."

I believe this to be true.

"With the announcement of the most powerful eruption ever witnessed in the Universe in the galaxy cluster MS 0735.6+7421, astronomers are seeing that how supermassive black holes eject matter is just as interesting as how they consume it. "

http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0105/bh_ce/index.html

 

Important to note that the ejected matter never actually entered the black hole. Once matter (or light, or anything) falls into a black hole, it can never emerge.

[Lord Antares]

I know I don't have all the details, it was posted in the speculations section for this reason.

 

 

The rules of the speculation forum may be confusing, but rougly outlined, they say that you can eithe make claims of discovering a new theory or toy with baseless ideas for fun chatter. The latter has no requirements (other than not claiming it to be scientific) but the former requires you to answer my 3 questions to be accepted. Seeing how you are serious, I will assume that you want to go with the former.

 

 

I assumed someone would consider the hypothesis before throwing the book at them, but that is naive on my part.

 

 

This is something that is frequently said but is wrong in principle. How can one consider one's hypothesis if they do not possess the adequate evidence and models to review it? It's like asking if it's plausible that there is mountain which is 5 km high on some planet we can't see. I don't know, is it? We do not possess enough information to answer that question. I hope the analogy makes sense to you.

 

 

So tell me, where would someone go to learn the math involved with such calculations?

 

That is another problem. It is extremely unlikely that a layman would be able to come up with a unifying theory as it requires substantial knowledge. You would have to be a physicist, at the very least, to even consider investing your time into it. I'm not trying to bring you down, I want to make sure that you understand what you're tackling with.

 

 

Number 1 will take a few days to gather, but its apparent in the formation of galaxies, stars, black holes, rotating planet cores, molecules;

 

It's not enough, even if you think it's evidence. It needs to comply with the mathematics and specific predictions you should be making.

 

 

 

Number 3 I actually have some experiments in mind; one involving gravity manipulation to exploit a potential difference, and another involving fusion. If you would like to know what they are, I would gladly show you an example after I've made the ladder of your list of questions to satisfaction.

 

I'm not sure what kind of experiment you are thinking about, but a scientific one would need to include the mathematics mentioned above. You will need to be specific and it will need to be observed and confirmed.

 

 

 

I would gladly show you an example after I've made the ladder of your list of questions to satisfaction.

 

I'm not trying to torture you on purpose. It is what EVERY scientific peer-review would ask of you. This is what you need to provide to the scientific world in order to be accepted.

[DandelionTheory]

 

Important to note that the ejected matter never actually entered the black hole. Once matter (or light, or anything) falls into a black hole, it can never emerge.

I see how discerning between these points is important, I just don't have the math to back it up right now. That's why I asked for resources.

I understand once matter falls past the event horizon its gone, but tell me, where is the event horizon? can you come up with a model for it?

All we CAN say is matter is ejected from black holes some how and I think it's because of the magnetic fields produced by the shear size of the damn thing.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4753

[Strange]

I understand once matter falls past the event horizon its gone, but tell me, where is the event horizon? can you come up with a model for it?

 

 

 

The simplest model is the Schwarzschild metric.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/Schwarzschild_black_hole.html

 

This describes a non-rotating, uncharged black hole (in an otherwise empty universe). It is thought to be a good approximation for many cases. Slightly more realistic is the Kerr metric, which describes a black hole with angular momentum (e.g. formed by a rotating star).

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/K/Kerr_black_hole.html

[DandelionTheory]

That is another problem. It is extremely unlikely that a layman would be able to come up with a unifying theory as it requires substantial knowledge. You would have to be a physicist, at the very least, to even consider investing your time into it. I'm not trying to bring you down, I want to make sure that you understand what you're tackling with.

Regardless of your opinion, I did not need math to visualize this. Being a physicist is a credibility requirement made by man, not the universe. If I figure out the motion of energy within the universe, I can predict the motion of the universe. I'm not offended, I just want to make clear that this isn't a whim I made up to piss off smart people.

 

 

I'm not sure what kind of experiment you are thinking about, but a scientific one would need to include the mathematics mentioned above. You will need to be specific and it will need to be observed and confirmed.

Right, so I can show you my cards, but the money is yours? haha. CREDIT FIRST right? Make up your mind bro.

[Strange]

Regardless of your opinion, I did not need math to visualize this. Being a physicist is a credibility requirement made by man, not the universe. If I figure out the motion of energy within the universe, I can predict the motion of the universe.

 

 

You may think you can predict the motion of the universe but there is only one way to know if you are right or not.

 

And that is to produce quantitative predictions that can be tested against reality. That means using mathematics. So, I would say that it is a credibility requirement imposed by the universe.

[Lord Antares]

I did not need math to visualize this.

 

What's your point? I don't need math to vizualize pink elephants. You need math to prove it.

 

 

Being a physicist is a credibility requirement made by man, not the universe.

 

It's not a ''requirement'' as such but only a physicist would have a chance at tackling this very complicated issue.

 

 

Right, so I can show you my cards, but the money is yours? haha. CREDIT FIRST right? Make up your mind bro.

 

I'm a fool for thinking you would be reasonable. How do we tell if your ''theory'' is any good if you don't show us your ''cards''? How do you think this goes? You say ''I have an amazing unifying theory which solves all problems'' and we say ''okay great''?

[DandelionTheory]

 

The simplest model is the Schwarzschild metric.

http://www.daviddarl...black_hole.html

This describes a non-rotating, uncharged black hole (in an otherwise empty universe). It is thought to be a good approximation for many cases. Slightly more realistic is the Kerr metric, which describes a black hole with angular momentum (e.g. formed by a rotating star).

http://www.daviddarl...black_hole.html

Like this?

[Strange]

Like this?

 

 

Who knows, without a mathematical model to test. (But it certainly doesn't look like any black hole representation I have seen.)

[frankglennjacobs@gmail.com]

I can make a picture in my mind of a black hole. Stuff falling into it and never falling out. Radiation radiating into it but not coming out because the gravity overcomes all energy.

 

In my mental picture, a black hole is a waste-dump for entropy-contaminated matter.

 

Supposing I were right? I could not show my mental picture to anyone.

 

Supposing I had mathematics that could be verified? But you can't take a picture of an event that does not allow light to exit.

 

The best science can do with a black hole is to take pictures of matter perturbed by the presence of one.

[Klaynos]

The best advice is likely to be to study what we already know, which include the mathematics if it.

 

You might not like to hear that but the only way you're going to be able to explain this to a physicist is talking our language, that's maths.

 

It takes people around 10 years of full time study to get the basis to start making contribution without significant help from others.

 

The experts have been studying this for 40 years and still don't have the answer you claim. This really isn't a shirt road you're heading down but it's an incredibly interesting one.

[Lord Antares]

 

In my mental picture, a black hole is a waste-dump for entropy-contaminated matter.

 

 

What does that even mean? Matter isn't ''entropy-contaminated''. Matter IS entropy as a part of a larger closed or open system.

 

 

 

Supposing I were right? I could not show my mental picture to anyone.

 

 

Then you are wrong.

 

 

 

Supposing I had mathematics that could be verified? But you can't take a picture of an event that does not allow light to exit.

 

You don't need a picture for math. For example, how can we calculate the distances and forces at the event horizon without taking a picture inside?

 

 

 

The best science can do with a black hole is to take pictures of matter perturbed by the presence of one.

 

Then predict what exactly needs to happen in order to be able to differentiate your ''theory'' from the current one. What does it offer that the current model can't? Make some predictions.

 

You aren't aware of how complicated modern physics is. There are thousands of pages on relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology etc. There are many, many equations which are regularly used to confirm the applicability of the current model. How you can allow yourself to think that your mathless 5-line text with an unexplained picture can build upon this model is beyond me.

[Handy andy]

Without using maths looking at your diagram you have two north poles facing each other they will repel. The moon has no magnetic field, would you expect the moon to stay in orbit with your theory.

 

Rather than just drawing out a diagram in a thought experiment, try an experiment with some iron filings on a piece of paper and a couple of magnets you will see the flaw in your diagram. It does not matter how hard you push two north poles at each other they will always repel.

 

You could also use a finite elements package, which incorporates maxwells equations, to show your idea is wrong. Maxwell was unable to incorporate gravity into his mathematical model.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Handy andy

[DandelionTheory]

Without using maths looking at your diagram you have two north poles facing each other they will repel.

maybe looking closer would help.

[Strange]

maybe looking closer would help.

 

 

Maybe you providing an explanation and not just incomprehensible diagrams would help.

[DandelionTheory]

 

 

Maybe you providing an explanation and not just incomprehensible diagrams would help.

 

 

...When you pair a larger and smaller Field coil, charged particles are trapped around the smaller field coil in a toroidal vortex when DC current is applied...

I think Normal matter and Dark matter are coupled by gravity, and collecting Dark Matter into one spot with a toroidal vortex is brilliant. That way you can control the localized gravity shift made...

From my original post.

 

Well first I wanted to see if anyone would give me the time of day, then I was told there were problems with my approach.

APPARENTLY explaining the small magnetic fields are DC pulsed when this approach is done with electromagnets, which causes charge carriers to vortex naturally, is too much to logic out for some people; While the larger field coil needs to be counter rotating relative to the immediate adjacent smaller magnetic field, like earths rotating core's mass, which also suggests our Moon does not posses such a magnetic field and I will GUESS it has less overall gravity-to-mass ratio because of that. What you end up with is a gravity trap that utilizes charge carriers to string along ANYTHING that will follow its gravity into a toroidal vortex. Be it dark matter or neutral matter.

The OP attachment is a diagram of a NEUTRAL system; A black hole would be a GROSS IMBALANCE to this system, why? Well its about infinite relative space. This system suggests all of space would be naturally occurring aggregates of this "bubble" formation, but how does this bubble formation then return to neutrality?

 

MY OPINION:

After a while the core becomes too large for the magnetic field to mass ratio, and is expelled via path of least resistance; Which would be the poles.

Those charge carriers then naturally create the adjacent neutralizing bubble to form. Look at the neutral system, its a flipping pitching machine for charge carriers.

Edited May 8, 2017 by DandelionTheory

[Strange]

One problem with this is that magnetic fields will have no effect on dark matter. Also, because it does not interact via electromagnetic forces, dark matter will not respond to gravity in quite the same way as normal matter (which is why it is distributed throughout galaxies, rather collapsing into "clumps" like stars and planets).

 

 

 

I will GUESS it has less overall gravity-to-mass ratio because of that.

 

If anything, I would guess that the absence of a magnetic field would reduce the gravity because it means the total energy is lower. But this would be too small to detect anyway.

 

 

 

A black hole would be a GROSS IMBALANCE to this system, why? Well its about infinite relative space.

 

A black hole is not infinite. (I have no idea what "infinite relative space" means.)

 

Basically, you are just making stuff up that has no basis in science or reality.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Strange

[DandelionTheory]

One problem with this is that magnetic fields will have no effect on dark matter. Also, because it does not interact via electromagnetic forces, dark matter will not respond to gravity in quite the same way as normal matter (which is why it is distributed throughout galaxies, rather collapsing into "clumps" like stars and planets).

You're right, I'm not using magnetic fields or electromagnetic force to influence dark matter. I'm using the gravity of the charge carriers themselves.

 

 

 

If anything, I would guess that the absence of a magnetic field would reduce the gravity because it means the total energy is lower. But this would be too small to detect anyway.

 

Says someone arguing about physics...

 

 

A black hole is not infinite. (I have no idea what "infinite relative space" means.)

 

 

Right, the system is. The 2 magnetic fields collapse matter into itself and attract more, more becomes too much and it tries to balance itself out via ejection of matter which eventually causes the neutral system to form; which is a bipolar fusion reactor that spits matter like a hose, and because it is bipolar it spins violently causing a vortex of charged particles and energy which starts the cycle again. IT BECOMES INFINITELY BIGGER because entropy?

See now we get to the relative infinite space, because the system that makes up the black hole is the same system that makes up the atom; which means atoms could be MADE OF black holes. See? Relative infinite space.

[Lord Antares]

 

Right, the system is. The 2 magnetic fields collapse matter into itself and attract more, more becomes too much and it tries to balance itself out via ejection of matter which eventually causes the neutral system to form; which is a bipolar fusion reactor that spits matter like a hose, and because it is bipolar it spins violently causing a vortex of charged particles and energy which starts the cycle again. IT BECOMES INFINITELY BIGGER because entropy?

See now we get to the relative infinite space, because the system that makes up the black hole is the same system that makes up the atom; which means atoms could be MADE OF black holes. See? Relative infinite space.

 

You have reduced yourself to spouting drivel. Have you got any mathematics or evidence for any of that? I thought your first post after the OP was signalling a rational discussion but apparently not. You didn't respond to my last post. Do you think you can overthrow thousands of pages of calculations, equations and explanations with a few sentences?

 

If you were to present this to an actual peer-review environment, how would you actually convince them that this is useful and applicable? How would you answer their inquiry about evidence and mathematics?

[DandelionTheory]

 

You have reduced yourself to spouting drivel. Have you got any mathematics or evidence for any of that? I thought your first post after the OP was signalling a rational discussion but apparently not. You didn't respond to my last post. Do you think you can overthrow thousands of pages of calculations, equations and explanations with a few sentences?

 

If you were to present this to an actual peer-review environment, how would you actually convince them that this is useful and applicable? How would you answer their inquiry about evidence and mathematics?

What makes you think I want this for myself? Maybe I'm sharing something of this magnitude to the skeptical public BECAUSE I need help. Hrmm? That doesn't happen normally? Neither does deducing a unifying gravity theory, but look at that.

You already told me my evidence was hogwash before I presented it, that's not someone I want to talk to normally. I asked for resources, and you said it would "take 10 years" to come close. Yet someone willing to take on such a brain teaser like this is well aware of that task. Let me ask you, what do you do when you're relaxing? I THINK. Its what I love to do, and this task is a background process while I work with my hands. SHOW ME WHERE TO LOOK OH KIND GURU, you want that? yessss master with paper certificate, tell me how to speak maths so I may be blessed by your learned stature. You have forgotten people dont always think in math like you.

Edited May 8, 2017 by DandelionTheory

[Strange]

You're right, I'm not using magnetic fields or electromagnetic force to influence dark matter. I'm using the gravity of the charge carriers themselves.

 

 

What is the total mass + energy of the charge carriers? That is the source of gravity.

 

Please be specific (i.e. use numbers).

 

 

 

The 2 magnetic fields collapse matter into itself and attract more, more becomes too much and it tries to balance itself out via ejection of matter which eventually causes the neutral system to form; which is a bipolar fusion reactor that spits matter like a hose, and because it is bipolar it spins violently causing a vortex of charged particles and energy which starts the cycle again.

 

Plasma physics is immensely complicated and it isn't good enough to make wild guesses about what might happen. Physicists use supercomputers to run simulations to understand the possibilities. A scribbled drawing just isn't as convincing.

 

 

 

IT BECOMES INFINITELY BIGGER because entropy?

 

How can it become infinitely bigger?

 

 

 

the system that makes up the black hole is the same system that makes up the atom; which means atoms could be MADE OF black holes. See?

 

Not really, no. Atoms and black holes have almost nothing in common.