A theory: Gravity is not product of mass

[insane_alien]

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

 

nobody is saying gases won't disperse in a vacuum. what we are saying is that they will not disperse by the mechanism you propose but rather the well tested and observed mechanism, namely gas molecules tend to travel in straight lines unless 1/ they bump into something or 2/ there is an external force field acting on them such as gravity it which case the trajectory will be an orbit, either elliptical or hyperbolic.

[Ges]

Sayonara, you are confusing me. I don't what do you mean? Please direct me on part which is problem

 

what we are saying is that they will not disperse by the mechanism you propose but rather the well tested and observed mechanism, namely gas molecules tend to travel in straight lines unless 1/ they bump into something or 2/ there is an external force field acting on them such as gravity it which case the trajectory will be an orbit, either elliptical or hyperbolic.

but mechanism is practically the same as with the gravity.

Only difference is that gravity is result of mass and I say that gravity is counter force of pressure that holds up in the center of the planet because matter of the planet is being sucked outwards into the space

[insane_alien]

so how do you explain why different masses even if they are equal in all other dimensions produce different gravitational field strengths?

 

and can you prove that a vacuum actually sucks? because they don't, rather it is the matter that pushes. you can even prove this by blowing on your hand. does it feel like your hand is being pushed or does it feel like it is being sucked?

[Ges]

different masses produce different gravitational field strengths depending on the volume of those the masses. The greater volume of matter is the stronger planet's sucking (gravitational) force is.

[swansont]

the pressure inside the balloon is triggered by vacuum

 

No, it's not.

 

The behavior of the molecules' escape depends on their pressure. A balloon at 2 ATM of pressure will disperse at a different rate than a balloon at 1 ATM, all the while the vacuum is unchanged. Saying it depends on the vacuum has no predictive power.

 

different masses produce different gravitational field strengths depending on the volume of those the masses. The greater volume of matter is the stronger planet's sucking (gravitational) force is.

 

No.

 

The volume of the mass does not effect the force, as long as you are outside of that volume. It depends on the amount of mass.

[Ges]

The behavior of the molecules' escape depends on their pressure. A balloon at 2 ATM of pressure will disperse at a different rate than a balloon at 1 ATM, all the while the vacuum is unchanged. Saying it depends on the vacuum has no predictive power.

balloon at 2 ATM has different mass than those of 1 ATM. Also, that mass od 2 ATM will take greater volume than those of 1 ATM when they burst in same conditions

 

So by "pressure being triggered by vacuum" i meant only that any matter in vacuum will tend to fill that vacuum, therefor creating a pressure

[Sayonara]

It seems like you are describing things we already know about using your own terms and whatever reasoning seems intuitive to you.

 

You are far from having a scientific theory. I think this thread might be of interest:

Do you have a new theory?

 

Also see this thread:

So you've got a new theory...

[Ges]

No.

 

The volume of the mass does not effect the force, as long as you are outside of that volume. It depends on the amount of mass.

I disagree. I've explained a whole process why I think it is not so

 

It seems like you are describing things we already know about using your own terms and whatever reasoning seems intuitive to you.

It seams that way because it is almost the same as the standard gravity theory but only difference is that gravity is result of mass and I say that gravity is counter force of pressure that holds up in the center of the planet because matter of the planet is being sucked outwards into the space

[Sayonara]

It seams that way because it is almost the same as the standard gravity theory but only difference is that gravity is result of mass and I say that gravity is counter force of pressure that holds up in the center of the planet because matter of the planet is being sucked outwards into the space

And if you look at what makes a theory a theory, you will see that your idea runs counter to observed effects, and makes no predictions which the existing theories do not already account for in a manner which is compatible with the explanations for all the affected mechanisms.

 

Read the links I posted for greater clarity as to the obligations of a theory's author.

[Ges]

...you will see that your idea runs counter to observed effects

only effect that it runs counter is gravity force being result of a mass, and even there isn't running counter effect but counter nature of gravity force

and makes no predictions which the existing theories do not already account for in a manner which is compatible with the explanations for all the affected mechanisms.

that is because it isn't supposed to change anything, but to explain better why does everything happens like it does

[Sayonara]

only effect that it runs counter is gravity force being result of a mass, and even there isn't running counter effect but counter nature of gravity force

In other words, it flies in the face of established facts.

 

that is because it isn't supposed to change anything, but to explain better why does everything happens like it does

Scientific theories do this by making falsifiable, empirically testable mathematical predictions.

 

Again, I strongly recommend that you read both links I posted. This is the third time that opportunity has been suggested.

[Bignose]

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,

 

Since it is known that the Earth is surrounded by the vacuum of space, how is it possible -- given the statement I quoted here -- that an atmosphere remains about the Earth? Shouldn't the gases of the Earth's atmosphere "fly instantly"? They obviosuly don't or we wouldn't be able to live, so why don't they?

[swansont]

balloon at 2 ATM has different mass than those of 1 ATM. Also, that mass od 2 ATM will take greater volume than those of 1 ATM when they burst in same conditions

 

So by "pressure being triggered by vacuum" i meant only that any matter in vacuum will tend to fill that vacuum, therefor creating a pressure

 

 

No, pressure is not only dependent upon mass, nor on volume. And these are properties of what's in the balloon, not the vacuum.

[Bignose]

No, pressure is not only dependent upon mass, nor on volume.

 

Quite. Look at the Ideal gas law: PV=nRT. If the temperature of the gas in the balloon is doubled, T, and the volume, V, of the balloon remains unchanged, then the pressure is also doubled -- no need to add more mass to the balloon to double the pressure at all! Pressure, P, Volume, V, mass (n is moles of the gas), R is the gas constant, and Temperature, T are all linked together. You cannot simply say that a balloon at 2 atm of pressure has more mass than a balloon at 1 atm of pressure, because there are other reasons why it may be at 2 atm than just more stuff inside it.

 

Now, most gases do not obey the Ideal gas law exactly, but follow it close enough to make a very good approximation. And all the other non-ideal gas laws are also dependent on all of pressure, temperature, volume, and moles/mass of the gas.

[trumpetmeister]

Ges:

 

I think your theory needs to be reformulated in terms of mathematical expressions, and clear, refutable claims, otherwise you won't convince anyone. I reccomend you read Kuhn and Popper, or at least a good summary of their work, which can be found at:

 

http://www.humanists.net/pdhutcheon/Papers%20and%20Presentations/Popper%20and%20Kuhn%20on%20the%20Evolution%20of%20Science.htm

 

Also, I'd like to see a citation for your evidence that the earth and other planets are expanding. I am somewhat familiar with this conjecture, but at a perusal, it doesn't appear to conserve energy, or provide an explaination for destructive plate boundaries. A big part of your theory relies on an unprovable premise.

 

Even if we accept your theory as true, that planets expand causing a greater inward 'vaccuum force', it does not explain why all objects with mass do not similarly expand. What is special about the earth? Laser interferometry could easily detect such minute expansions.

 

In your post, you say that space is a vaccuum while earth is a collection of matter. If the only force holding the earth together is gravity, and you state that gravity results from your reverse vaccuum theory, then why wouldn't the earth immediately disassociate? It would be exactly like free expansion of gas. We would observe at least the atmosphere of the earth quickly drifting away, followed by the boiling away of our oceans. Yet, we do not observe this.

 

There isn't a law of thermodynamics that provides the condition for the sort of on/off vaccuum your theory requires. Your theory does not explain how planet formation occurs in the first place.

 

Why do objects moving at relativistic speeds have greater mass, and a greater observable gravitational field? Shouldn't motion have nothing to do with a vaccuum? How does your theory predict gravitational lensing? Does your theory allow for the precession of mercury around the sun due to General Relativity?

 

What new phenomena does your theory predict? Why is it better than the theory of gravitation?

 

I'm new to this forum, and I see this thread is posted under the pseudoscience heading. The pseudo science heading seems to suggest that this part of the forum is a place where the rules of good science no longer apply. If this is true, than I am sorry to bother everyone. However, it sounds like you're trying to convince people that your theory is correct, so I see no reason why we shouldn't apply the scientific method.

[Sayonara]

I'm new to this forum, and I see this thread is posted under the pseudoscience heading. The pseudo science heading seems to suggest that this part of the forum is a place where the rules of good science no longer apply. If this is true, than I am sorry to bother everyone. However, it sounds like you're trying to convince people that your theory is correct, so I see no reason why we shouldn't apply the scientific method.

The moderator log for this thread shows that it was moved into the P&S forum by a member of staff. This typically happens when a theory is posted which clearly is not the result of following the scientific method.

 

Hopefully Ges will read the links I posted and glean some idea of how he needs to alter his approach.

[D H]

I'm new to this forum

First things first: Welcome to Science Forums!

 

I see this thread is posted under the pseudoscience heading.[/quote']The moderator log for this thread shows that it was moved into the P&S forum by a member of staff.

That would be me.

 

As a member of the staff I should have both stated that the thread was being moved and given a rationale for doing so. In this case I did do the latter but did not do the former. Sorry for any confusion. I can be a bit brusque when confronted with absolute nonsense.

 

I see this thread is posted under the pseudoscience heading. The pseudo science heading seems to suggest that this part of the forum is a place where the rules of good science no longer apply.

The rules of science are somewhat relaxed (but not eliminated) in the speculations section. If there was an easy way (or even a not-so-easy way, just any way) to truly distinguish pseudoscience from speculations we would not allow pseudoscientific postings at this forum. The borderline between the two is not well-defined, hence pseudoscience and speculations.

[czimborbryan]

The only way there could be a vaccuum force in the universe is if it was all bundled up in a giant balloon.

 

I also beleive that the expansion of planets that was referred to is supposed to mean the expansion of the universe as an explosion expands, not for planets expanding like a balloon.

[Bignose]

The only way there could be a vaccuum force in the universe is if it was all bundled up in a giant balloon.

 

How do you justify this statement? Why is the "giant balloon" the "only way"?

[czimborbryan]

Well, it's not the only way and probobly not really a way at all and can not be justified. As far as I know, there isn't a clown big enough to blow up a balloon of that size.

[Bignose]

Well, then don't just throw these statements out there as facts, please. This is a science board, and as such we are going to ask you to justify your statements. Yes, even (and especially) in the speculations section.

 

If you make a statement that something is the "only" way that something can be, there should be a good reason for saying it. If you are just making a joke (that isn't terribly obviously a joke) then you aren't really adding to the scientific discussion.