A theory: Gravity is not product of mass

[Ges]

Let me present my theory about gravity:

 

Big bang made of a space a vacuum. Same thing happens when a bomb detonates - there's a mere part of time when explosion pushes surrounding air and particles out of center of explosion, creating almost a vacuum (lets say it does create it because conditions of any explosion on earth aren't perfect). So on same principle universe is expanding - like never ending explosion that is pushing all most out all of particles, leaving in it only few and a lot of vacuum space.

 

ok, now let's go on gravity:

over past few years, geological studies has shown that all planets are expanding over time. Since those expandings aren't product of some new mass that is coming out of space, it is obvious that planets inflate because of some force. I say that vacuum of space is expanding planets. Let me explain it with this picture of vacuum pump from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kolbenluftpumpe_hg.jpg

Imagine that a force that is pulling out a pump handle is a vacuum force. Because of big bang, vacuum force is pulling out in all directions constantly.

Imagine that cork on the other end of pump handle is a matter of which planet is made

If you could pull out a pump handle so strong, a glass container from which you are sucking air would brake inwards. But don't forget about Newtons 3. law - Whenever a particle A exerts a force on another particle B, B simultaneously exerts a force on A with the same magnitude in the opposite direction.

 

So, a gravitation is nothing more than a counter force of vacuum force of space. It is not affected by planet's mass!

 

Also, I have a theory on planet proportions: what is the difference btw. planets, moons and stars - a size and state of matter of which a planet is build: So, small planets are solid, medium are liquid and big are gas and biggest are plasma (suns).

It all goes along perfectly with my theory of gravity as a counter force of space vacuum force because smaller planet is, weaker is force that rips particles apart that makes that planet. As planet grows bigger, solid particles gets ripped into liquid state (like earths liquid core). On same patters, the largest planets are gas giants, on which a vacuum force and counter force have ripped particles into molecules, therefor forming gas state of the planet. On the most largest planets - suns - particles are torn into most basic particles, atoms, which are torn by vacuum force and counter force by such force that they are looping outwards and inwards of the planet in such force that when they collide with other particle, they create a fission reaction. Also, recent thermal scans of our Sun show that a temperature is much lower inside of the sun than it is in the surface/atmosphere of the Sun

 

So, that explains why a black hole has never been seen - it doesn't exist! A "black hole" is nothing more than a counter force of vacuum, so strong that it draws all other smaller particles to it.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Ges

[D H]

This is not a theory. It is a WAG (wild-assed guess), and a bad one at that.

 

The first thing a scientific theory must do is conform to reality. This doesn't.

[Ges]

The first thing a scientific theory must do is conform to reality. This doesn't.

which part doesn't conform to reality?

and don't say "all of it" because everything is compared to processes that exists normally in nature

[ydoaPs]

There is no "vacuum force."

[D H]

The premise doesn't conform with reality. That mass causes gravitation is a well-observed phenomenon. The planets orbit the Sun, satellites orbit their planets. This is an observed fact. You have proposed something that flies in the face of reality. The behavior of objects due to mass is very well explained by extant theories. A new theory of gravity will have to simplify to these existing theories because these existing theories are very well-confirmed within some range of applicability.

 

For example, Newton's law of gravity simplifies to the constant acceleration of 1 g observed by Galileo and others under conditions of close proximity to the surface of the Earth and simplifies to Kepler's laws under conditions of a bunch of small objects (e.g. planets) orbiting a very large object (e.g., the Sun). General relativity simplifies to Newtonian gravity under conditions of small mass concentrations, moderate distances, and small velocities. A future theory of gravity will similarly have to simplify to yield general relativity in the domains where general relativity has been observed to be correct.

 

Physicists have three concepts of mass. Active gravitational mass, passive gravitational mass, and inertial mass. That different masses generate different gravitational fields is again a well-observed phenomenon. Active gravitational mass is a measure of the strength of the gravitational field generated by some object. Given a gravitational field generated by some massive object, the passive gravitational mass of another object represents the interaction between the object and that gravitational field. Finally, there are other forces of nature. The inertial mass of an object dictates how objects react to those non-gravitational forces. The equivalence principle hypothesizes that these three distinct definitions of mass are equivalent. The equivalence principle is one of the best observed phenomenon of all of physics.

 

Where exactly your conjecture fails is a bit hard to pin down. The reason: There's not much to it. You have not supplied a mathematical description. All you have supplied is meaningless philosophical rambling.

[Ges]

a "vacuum force" is just a force of pressure created by a big bang. I've explained with example of bomb explosion. An explosion pushes everything out of the center of the explosion, creating a mayor pressure in the center of the explosion.

It is perfectly seen when a bomb detonates under the water - for a short moment, there's a bubble of explosion which pushes surrounding water out, creating a pressure on borders of water and gas of edge of explosion and vacuum inside explosion bubble.

 

Vacuum is acting like in the movies when spaceships hull is breached and air is being sucked out through breached part

 

So same thing is happening to the planets - they are being sucked out into the space by vacuum force, but because they are closed, there's a counter force that we call gravity (but it is not gravity, it is counter force that follows newtons 3. law)

[ydoaPs]

a "vacuum force" is just a force of pressure created by a big bang. I've explained with example of bomb explosion. An explosion pushes everything out of the center of the explosion, creating a mayor pressure in the center of the explosion.

It is perfectly seen when a bomb detonates under the water - for a short moment, there's a bubble of explosion which pushes surrounding water out, creating a pressure on borders of water and gas of edge of explosion and vacuum inside explosion bubble.

 

Vacuum is acting like in the movies when spaceships hull is breached and air is being sucked out through breached part

 

So same thing is happening to the planets - they are being sucked out into the space by vacuum force, but because they are closed, there's a counter force that we call gravity (but it is not gravity, it is counter force that follows newtons 3. law)

Wow.....such a gross misunderstanding of pressure and what a vacuum is.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The Earth is surrounded by a vacuum. Why should that vacuum want to suck us in one particular direction?

[Ges]

The premise doesn't conform with reality. That mass causes gravitation is a well-observed phenomenon. The planets orbit the Sun, satellites orbit their planets. This is an observed fact. You have proposed something that flies in the face of reality. The behavior of objects due to mass is very well explained by extant theories. A new theory of gravity will have to simplify to these existing theories because these existing theories are very well-confirmed within some range of applicability.

this what I'm talking about is not so much different than a standard theory of gravity! My explanation shows better functioning of forces btw. planets and simplifies theory of gravity by giving only one force for all - a vacuum force, which is not braked by a planets mass, but by planets volume - the bigger planet is means the lager is volume on which vacuum force acts means the stronger planets pulling force is. By decreasing in volume, planets tend to be drawn towards bigger planets. It's almost the same as gravity but gravity is not fully explained where it comes form

So, examine planets that are ones that attract moons - there's not a rock planet that has a liquid or a gas moon, but it always follows this pattern that a more volume planet has lover volume planet for it's moon:

gas can have liquid and solid moons, liquid can have only solid, and solid can only have rocks/asteroids for moons

 

The Earth is surrounded by a vacuum. Why should that vacuum want to suck us in one particular direction?

it wants to suck us in all directions, same as it wants to suck all of the planets

 

Wow.....such a gross misunderstanding of pressure and what a vacuum is.

please, explain what's wrong with it?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

it wants to suck us in all directions, same as it wants to suck all of the planets

 

So then why does the "counter force", gravity, push us toward the sun if the vacuum force is pulling in all directions equally?

[Ges]

the sucking force of a vacuum acts in all directions outward on the planet - it is not directed in any direction separately. So it only enlarges the planets. But a counter force in planet have direction - towards the center of that planet. So every planet acts as a magnet, trying to suck surrounding matter back, acting basicly the same as a gravitational force. Only difference is that gravitation force is believed to be caused by mass of the planet and I say it is caused by volume of the planet and volume is caused by vacuum stretching of the planet

[swansont]

Vacuums do not exert forces — they correspond to an absence of pressure, or force.

[Ges]

yes, I'm aware of that

but there is a force: what would happen if you would release a balloon full of air into the space? The pressure inside the balloon would raise so high that a balloon would burst, because air inside balloon tends to fill vacuum evenly. That is a vacuum force! A tendency of matter to fill vacuum space

[swansont]

yes, I'm aware of that

but there is a force: what would happen if you would release a balloon full of air into the space? The pressure inside the balloon would raise so high that a balloon would burst, because air inside balloon tends to fill vacuum evenly. That is a vacuum force! A tendency of matter to fill vacuum space

 

That's due to the pressure inside the balloon, though, not because of the vacuum.

[Ges]

the pressure inside the balloon is triggered by vacuum

[insane_alien]

no, the pressure inside the balloon is caused by molecules in the balloon bumping into them. the balloon does not have to be in a vacuum for this pressure to be there though. when the balloon is in a vacuum it would burst because you have removed counterpressure from the outside. now, it is perfectly possibly to inflate a balloon in a vacuum and not have it burst. similarly, if you filled a balloon with air at a normal balloons pressure plus atmospheric pressure then it would pop as quickly.

 

you fall down by assuming the force comes from the outside where in reality it is from the inside.

[Ges]

no, the pressure inside the balloon is caused by molecules in the balloon bumping into them.

bumping into what?

 

the pressure is caused by molecules inside of the balloon trying to fill empty space of vacuum

[insane_alien]

bumping into each other and the balloon.

 

i think you need to look up kinetic theory of gases. molecules want to travel in a straight line. and pressure doesn't make much sense at a molecular level.

[Ges]

it doesn't confront what I'm saying:

on earth, oxygen is all around, making a pressure tend to be even everywhere where are the same conditions (height, temperature) because it is drawn towards earth because of my proposed negative vacuum force (or as it is known now - gravity) and by bumping into each other

In space in vacuum, there's absence of all matter. So when matter comes into the space, it tends to fill that emptiness by runing in all directions. The stability of matter decides how fast will that occur, so gases will fly instantly, liquid will become gas and then follow pattern of gas, and solids will first try to become liquid, following the same pattern. Examine the experiments of water exposed to vacuum which demonstrate exactly that what I've said

 

So, when a balloon filled with gas is released in space, a molecules of gas will tend to run apart due absence of any surrounding pressure that holds them together

[Sayonara]

Shouldn't the balloon, according to what you just said, become a liquid?

[insane_alien]

are you being deliberately dense?

 

please, go look up why gases tend to expand. it is not due to external forces but simply due to the fact that the molecules are moving, and, inless there is something to stop them, such as a container wall or gravitational force then they will move apart.

 

also, are there any experiments you can do that would prove this? and why is there negative vacuum force only around planets?

[Ges]

Shouldn't the balloon, according to what you just said, become a liquid?

where did you conclude that idea???

so gases will fly instantly, liquid will become gas and then follow pattern of gas, and solids will first try to become liquid, following the same pattern.r

[Sayonara]

where did you conclude that idea???

Here:

and solids will first try to become liquid, following the same pattern.

I just sort of ignored all the other bits of the post which fly in the face of observable reality, or those 'explanations' you provide which are already sufficiently accounted for by actual physics.

[Ges]

so theres no problem... gas from balloon will escape into the vacuum in undefined directions

[Sayonara]

So you answer my question by stating something unrelated which requires a separate and even more extraordinary explanation of its own.

 

You are not onto a winner here.