Why isn't vertical gravity a push?

[Capiert]

You're on.

(Unlike you) I see (vertical) gravity as a push.

(But that's putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.)

 

(I see that) there are (really) 2 types of gravity: vertical & horizontal.

It's rather obvious (that) the Cavendish experiment is a horizontal pull.

I interpret that (pull) as vertically moving (e.g. accelerating) charges of atoms

 are electromagnetically attracted together.

But has it ever occurred to you why you can NOT shield against gravity vertically?

Perhaps because that might only be the acceleration of matter moving upwards.

Thus any other reasoning is missing (as nonsense).

(E.g. because there is nothing there to shield against.?)

Hubble provided us with an interesting perspective:

 The universe appears to be expanding.

& if so why do NOT matter waves in that (weak) vacuum also expand?

(E.g. osmosis: moving from higher concentration to lower).

 

Maybe you can convince me why vertical gravity should NOT be a push?

 

Btw Asmov's Fantastic Voyage, of shrinking things

 for a period

 would be possible

 if we could (find a way to) restrict matter's expansion.

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Capiert

[StringJunky]

Why have you put this in The Lounge?

[Strange]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Why have you put this in The Lounge?

I guess he was aiming for Trash and missed (probably miscalculated gravity)

[StringJunky]

Just now, Strange said:

I guess he was aiming for Trash and missed (probably miscalculated gravity)

  I can't understand why people don't want to learn the real thing.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Capiert said:

(I see that) there are (really) 2 types of gravity: vertical & horizontal.

No one cares about what you "see" or believe. Unless you can provide a mathematical model and evidence.

3 hours ago, Capiert said:

It's rather obvious (that) the Cavendish experiment is a horizontal pullI interpret that (pull) as vertically moving (e.g. accelerating) charges of atomsare electromagnetically attracted together.

it is rather obvious that atoms are electrically neutral and so there can be no such force.

3 hours ago, Capiert said:

Thus any other reasoning is missing (as nonsense).

It is you delusions that are lacking evidence and are therefore indistinguishable from nonsense.

3 hours ago, Capiert said:

Maybe you can convince me why vertical gravity should NOT be a push?

Because you need something to do the pushing. That something must have physically contradictory and impossible properties: it must be able to pass through the Earth as if it weren't there but also be able to push against things. And if it pushes against things then it must dissipate energy. And a push cannot properly reproduce the way gravity actually works. Plus you have no evidence for it.

But apart from that ...

3 hours ago, Capiert said:

if we could (find a way to) restrict matter's expansion.

Matter isn't expanding.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Capiert said:

You're on.

(Unlike you) I see (vertical) gravity as a push.

(But that's putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.)

 

(I see that) there are (really) 2 types of gravity: vertical & horizontal.

It's rather obvious (that) the Cavendish experiment is a horizontal pull.

You are using the coordinate systems incorrectly. There is no vertical and horizontal here, there is radial. Gravity is a radial pull, and Cavendish measured that. Orbits wouldn't work  for objects out of plane if there were some arbitrary horizontal and vertical.

 

You introduce speculation but don't have a model, don't have evidence, you make no predictions that can be tested. Is there any reason for this thread to remain open?

[Sensei]

7 hours ago, Capiert said:

I interpret that (pull) as vertically moving (e.g. accelerating) charges of atoms are electromagnetically attracted together.

If you will put electromagnetically charged particle inside of electric field, it'll start accelerating toward opposite sign of field.. If you will put neutral charged particle, it'll remain there.. That's how charge of particle is tested in particle accelerators. Particle passing through electric/magnetic field has bended trajectory accordingly to charge, or lack of it, if neutral.

If you will pass molecule which has not uniformly distributed electrons like e.g. water, through electric field, beam of water will change trajectory. Such compounds are called e.g. polar liquids.

It's very easy to see if something is charged or neutral, due to reactions to external applied electric/magnetic fields.

 

[Phi for All]

9 hours ago, Strange said:

it is rather obvious that atoms are electrically neutral and so there can be no such force.

-------

Because you need something to do the pushing. That something must have physically contradictory and impossible properties: it must be able to pass through the Earth as if it weren't there but also be able to push against things. And if it pushes against things then it must dissipate energy. And a push cannot properly reproduce the way gravity actually works. 

-------

Matter isn't expanding.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

You are using the coordinate systems incorrectly. There is no vertical and horizontal here, there is radial. Gravity is a radial pull, and Cavendish measured that. Orbits wouldn't work  for objects out of plane if there were some arbitrary horizontal and vertical.

5 hours ago, Sensei said:

If you will put electromagnetically charged particle inside of electric field, it'll start accelerating toward opposite sign of field.. If you will put neutral charged particle, it'll remain there.. That's how charge of particle is tested in particle accelerators. Particle passing through electric/magnetic field has bended trajectory accordingly to charge, or lack of it, if neutral.

If you will pass molecule which has not uniformly distributed electrons like e.g. water, through electric field, beam of water will change trajectory. Such compounds are called e.g. polar liquids.

It's very easy to see if something is charged or neutral, due to reactions to external applied electric/magnetic fields.

!

Moderator Note

Capiert, please deal with the replies showing where your idea breaks with what we observe in nature, or with misunderstandings you've had about what you've read. Further discussion in this thread relies on whether you choose to absorb this information or ignore it.

 

[Capiert]

Thanks for all the interesting input.

The objective here was to find the arguments against the gravity push concept

 & give you all a chance to change my mind.

But it looks like I have more questions

 needed to help me figure out what you are saying.

I chose the lounge because I thought it was an informal (casual) peaceful (non_hostile) place

 to discuss anything

 (in a scientific matter).

 

Sensei, what charge does a neutron have?

How are neutrons, accelerated, or deflected in their particle accelerators?

Does the earth have a (variable) net charge on its surface?

How then can we say the atoms are (completely) neutral

 when we can not measure all things?

E.g. position & momentum.

 

Swansont, aren't coordinate systems convertable?

It does not matter what coordinate system is used. Einstein.

Your selection of coordinate system might make the numbers easier for you.

(But) Orbits occur, for any coordinate system (you want to use).

I did NOT disagree that Cavendish demonstrated a pull,

 even if you insist (only) radially.

(E.g. most efficient.)

Then,

 nothing (=no equatorial pull) should be expected (by Cavendish's experiment)

 if (the 2nd mass is slightly) offset from the equatorial plane?

 

Strange, are atoms neutral?

How can that be?

Most of them are tied up (=bound [up]) in molecules, (& are)

 victims of electrostatic & magnetic fields.

A lot is happening, more than meets the eye.

 

How do you know matter is not expanding,

 if all matter around you

 (including your instruments)

 is also expanding?

I mean, how can you exclude that possibility?

If the medium (which you call space*time) is flexible, why can it not "expand" & compress?

(I didn't make the rules. Bending is none other than a deformation.

But wrt what? Another volume (reference)?)

 

Push is from electrostatic repulsion.

(Please don't ask me how that works.

You (all would) state: like charges repel.

 but have NOT explained (me) why (they repel).)

(Similar to water waves produced

 from dropping a stone

 into a pail of water,

 so the amplitude of the waves decreases

 further away from the source:)

If each atom's volume (as wave) increased ~a millionth of its volume pro second,

 then adding those (volume increases=) parts, for large objects

 gives noticeable numbers

 e.g. for planets' "surface" motion (& thus push)?

Are you with me? (=Can you understand?)

That (volume expansion) concept affects throughout all matter (=stuff)

 simply because matter is a wave.

The concept that the universe is running down (=dissipating) energy is well known.

The energy density is decreasing,

 due to the volume expansion

 (if the amount of energy is constant).

But (e.g.) drop something

 from a very high height.

The object will be destroyed

 when it hits the (earth's) surface

 (if it does not bounce).

E.g.

The air's pressure is being maintained

 against a vacuum

 (from outer space).

E.g.

The earth has a changing climate

 (although mostly due to the sun light).

E.g.?

I doubt that the earth rotates

 (against friction)

 due to gravity('s push, disapation).

But why doesn't the earth slow down to a stop?

Why do galaxies's (arms) curve?

Everything is moving,

 & getting faster,

 although we don't always notice it (=the acceleration).

The details of gravity are probably quite hairy,

 but what do you mean a push

 does not explain gravity correctly?

Please explain.

You probably have some specific examples in mind

 that you can share.

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Capiert

[swansont]

46 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Thanks for all the interesting input.

The objective here was to find the arguments against the gravity push concept

 & give you all a chance to change my mind.

The main argument is that there is no model where gravity as a push works.

Quote

 I chose the lounge because I thought it was an informal (casual) peaceful (non_hostile) place

 to discuss anything

 (in a scientific matter).

The lounge is not the right place to discuss science.

Quote

Sensei, what charge does a neutron have?

No net charge.

Quote

How are neutrons, accelerated, or deflected in their particle accelerators)?

Collisions (including ejection from a nucleus), magnetic fields (neutrons have a magnetic moment)

Quote

Does the earth have a (variable) net charge on its surface?

Yes, though it is probably relatively small. 

Quote

How then can we say the atoms are (completely) neutral

 when we can not measure all things?

E.g. position & momentum.

Charge, position, and momentum are independent variables. 

Quote

Swansont, aren't coordinate systems convertable?

It does not matter what coordinate system is used. Einstein

No, it doesn't. But some systems are easier to use and show concepts much more clearly.

Quote

 I did NOT disagree that Cavendish demonstrated a pull,

 even if you insist (only) radially.

I never said it wasn't a pull. My objection was the use of horizontal; that's problematic. You agree that you can use any coordinate system. Well, "horizontal" is a particular coordinate system — one of the infinite number of Cartesian systems you could use. I can use any one I want, and most of them do not have "horizontal" as you have used it. So to say that the pull was horizontal is wrong. It masks what is going on.

Quote

(E.g. most efficient.)

Then,

Nothing (=no equatorial pull) should be expected (by Cavendish's experiment)

 if (the 2nd mass is slightly) offset from the equatorial plane then?

No. I don't know why you would think that. There is absolutely nothing about Newton's law that would say that no pull would be expected in Cavendish's system if the masses weren't in a particular configuration.

The force between two objects is (GMm/r^2) in the direction of the line between the two masses (the centers, if they are not points, and are spherically symmetric). If you want to do things the most straightforward way, that line defines the radial direction of the coordinate system. You are free to transform into any other coordinate system, if you wish.

But there is nothing magical about the "equatorial plane" defined by the Cartesian coordinates with horizontal and vertical. There are an infinite number of equatorial planes, and there will always be one defined by the vector between the two masses.

Quote

Strange, are atoms neutral?

How can that be?

Most of them are tied up (=bound [up]) in molecules, (& are)

If they are bound they are molecules, not atoms. When one speaks of they neutrality opf atoms it is implied you are talking about a lone atom.

Quote

 victims of electrostatic & magnetic fields.

A lot is happening, more than meets the eye.

How do you know matter is not expanding,

 if all matter around you

 (including your instruments)

 is also expanding?

I mean, how can you exclude that possibility?

You look at the bigger picture, i.e. more than two objects. You think of the ramifications of this idea, and find where it fails to match observation.

e.g. what happens to distance between multiple objects if they are all expanding?

Quote

 Push is from electrostatic repulsion.

(Please don't ask me how that works.

You (all would) state: like charges repel.

 but have NOT explained (me) why.)

Physics doesn't explain it. We observe that it happens, and make a model that describes the behavior, and then test the model.

 

[Strange]

28 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Sensei, what charge does a neutron have?

None. The clue is in the name.

29 minutes ago, Capiert said:

How are neutrons, accelerated, or deflected in their particle accelerators?

They aren't. Because they have no charge.

30 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Does the earth have a (variable) net charge on its surface?

Yes. A small net positive charge. (Matched by a negative charge in the (upper) atmosphere.)

30 minutes ago, Capiert said:

How then can we say the atoms are (completely) neutralwhen we can not measure all things?E.g. position & momentum.

Because, by definition, an atom has the same number of protons and electrons.

Position and momentum are not related to charge.

32 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Strange, are atoms neutral?How can that be?

Yes. Because, by definition, an atom has the same number of protons and electrons.

Quote

Most of them are tied up (=bound [up]) in molecules, (& are) victims of electrostatic & magnetic fields.

So what. That can't create charge.

You can, of course, remove one or more electrons from an atom. But then it is no longer an atom; it is a positively charged ion (and there are an equivalent number of negative charges somewhere else to balance them).

33 minutes ago, Capiert said:

How do you know matter is not expanding, if all matter around you (including your instruments) is also expanding?I mean, how can you exclude that possibility?

You can't obviously. You also can't exclude the possibility that nothing is real and we are just characters in a unicorn's dream.

So lets stick to science, and not wacky untestable delusions.

36 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Push is from electrostatic repulsion.

But ...

• Matter is electrically neutral. (You raise the interesting example of the Earth and the atmosphere having small opposite charges. How does this fit with your "repulsion" idea?)
• Where is this electrostatic repulsion coming from?
• Why does the force increase as objects get closer together (and therefore further form the source of repulsion) when it should obviously get weaker)?
• We can block electromagnetic fields, so why can't we block gravity?

40 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Similar to water waves produced from dropping a stone into a pail of water, so the amplitude of the waves decreases further away from the source:)If each atom's volume (as wave) increased ~a millionth of its volume pro second, then adding those (volume increases=) parts, for large bjects gives noticeable numbers e.g. for planets' "surface" motion (& thus push)?Are you with me? (=Can you understand?)

This doesn't make much sense to me.

But perhaps you can show the mathematics where this effect will reproduce Newtonian gravity?

42 minutes ago, Capiert said:

But why doesn't the earth slow down to a stop?

Conservation of momentum (I know you don't understand/believe in that, but tough). And because there is no friction to slow it down. (Actually it is being slowed very slightly by tidal forces. The same forces that have resulted in the moon always keeping the same face to the Earth. But this will never be enough to stop the Earth.)

44 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Why do galaxies's (arms) curve?

You are getting more and more off topic. But, if you insist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_wave_theory

45 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Everything is moving, & getting faster,

Got any evidence for that?

46 minutes ago, Capiert said:

but what do you mean a push  does not explain gravity correctly?

It is up to you to show (in mathematical detail) that a push force can reproduce the effects of Newtonian gravity (others have tried and failed, so good luck) and then to extend that to reproduce the effects described by General Relativity.

47 minutes ago, Capiert said:

You probably have some specific examples in mind

For example, demonstrate in mathematical detail, that a push force can produce the predicted orbits of planets. 

[Markus Hanke]

40 minutes ago, Capiert said:

The details of gravity are probably quite hairy,

 but what do you mean a push

 does not explain gravity correctly?

I will skip the mathematical details - but it can be shown that no vector field model (which push gravity would necessarily have to be) can correctly account for gravity as we observe it in the real world ( see Misner/Thorne/Wheeler “Gravitation” for the formal proof). This is essentially because vector fields do not have enough degrees of freedom to do so - you need at least a rank-2 tensor field to correctly model gravity. This rules out anything based on a push or pull concept, except as an approximation in the weak field regime; this is why Newtonian gravity (which is a vector model, but with a pull instead of a push) works fine in the weak field limit, but fails in the strong field domain. If you go about it really smartly, you may perhaps be able to construct some kind of a push model that gives the right results for the weak field limit, but you will find that you come across all sorts of unexpected and cumbersome problems, and in the end you will be left with many more questions than you have answered. Trust me on this, because it has been tried many, many times by different people.

Another important point to remember is that gravity is demonstrably non-linear in very complex ways, which you will find very difficult to replicate via mechanical models of push/pull.

As for your question how we know that matter is not shrinking - we know this because neither the weak interaction nor the strong interaction are scalable in this way. If matter was shrinking, composite particles such as nucleons and mesons would simply dissolve over time into a gooey mess (or not form in the first place), and decay rates of certain unstable particles would be very different from what they are in the real world. We can also test for such shrinkage directly by examining whether the fine structure constant has been changing (which it would have to, in order for the strength ratio of electromagnetism to the other interactions to remain the same); this has been done in different ways, like this for example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor#Relation_to_the_atomic_fine-structure_constant

So all in all, what you propose has already been tried many times by different people, and we know that it simply does not work, for a variety of reasons. You simply cannot construct a self-consistent model of push gravity that is both in accord with what we know about the rest of physics, and with experimental data. It can actually be shown that this is not possible, in general ways.

 

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

I will skip the mathematical details - but it can be shown that no vector field model (which push gravity would necessarily have to be) can correctly account for gravity as we observe it in the real world ( see Misner/Thorne/Wheeler “Gravitation” for the formal proof). This is essentially because vector fields do not have enough degrees of freedom to do so - you need at least a rank-2 tensor field to correctly model gravity. This rules out anything based on a push or pull concept, except as an approximation in the weak field regime; this is why Newtonian gravity (which is a vector model, but with a pull instead of a push) works fine in the weak field limit, but fails in the strong field domain. If you go about it really smartly, you may perhaps be able to construct some kind of a push model that gives the right results for the weak field limit, but you will find that you come across all sorts of unexpected and cumbersome problems, and in the end you will be left with many more questions than you have answered. Trust me on this, because it has been tried many, many times by different people.

Another important point to remember is that gravity is demonstrably non-linear in very complex ways, which you will find very difficult to replicate via mechanical models of push/pull.

As for your question how we know that matter is not shrinking - we know this because neither the weak interaction nor the strong interaction are scalable in this way. If matter was shrinking, composite particles such as nucleons and mesons would simply dissolve over time into a gooey mess (or not form in the first place), and decay rates of certain unstable particles would be very different from what they are in the real world. We can also test for such shrinkage directly by examining whether the fine structure constant has been changing (which it would have to, in order for the strength ratio of electromagnetism to the other interactions to remain the same); this has been done in different ways, like this for example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor#Relation_to_the_atomic_fine-structure_constant

So all in all, what you propose has already been tried many times by different people, and we know that it simply does not work, for a variety of reasons. You simply cannot construct a self-consistent model of push gravity that is both in accord with what we know about the rest of physics, and with experimental data. It can actually be shown that this is not possible, in general ways.

 

 

 Aww the mathematical detail is where all the fun is particularly the assymmetric relations you described above lol.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Mordred