Alternative views on gravity?

[Sisyphus]

gravity can not have an effect on what causes gravity

 

Why not?

[happy snapper]

Why not what?

[ajb]

I am very confused.

 

Do the micro particles interact with the atom gravitationally or via some other field?

 

If they do not interact with the electrons or the nucleus then all pass through.

[happy snapper]

If millions are entering the atom some must hit an electron or the nuclus..why wouldnt thay?Just amagine millions of asteroids entering our solar system..some would hit a plantet or the sun or a moon..some would exit the solar sysem and carry on there journey.. same thing with the mp and the atom

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

they physically hit the electron

[ajb]

We seem to be mixing a classical picture and a quantum one. This is a recipe for disaster!

 

On the atomic scale quantum mechanics is simply needed.

 

I suggest you look up quantum mechanics and scattering. Also, become familiar with general relativity and it's Newtonian limit.

 

Now, cut to the chase. What are you trying to tell us?

[happy snapper]

well..i think to much learning can be a bad thing.it confuses..you give names to things that are just ideas and take them as fact.Amagination is a greater tool than learning.. It is hard going with you as your head is full of this stuff. Im trying to show you how gravity works.. not what it does but how it does it..You have the degees but I have the idea..What is better?

[Sisyphus]

The atom does not look like a solar system. Electrons do not "orbit" the nucleus. If that's what your idea depends on, it's wrong.

 

My "why not" above was in reference to the what I quoted, the claim that "what causes gravity can't be affected by gravity."

[happy snapper]

a child can not be his own father just as gravity cannot have an effect on what causes gravity

[ajb]

Many years of hard work being guided by the best minds in the field outweigh ideas that do not fit well with modern physics, neither in philosophy or formulation.

 

It is in fact very difficult to follow your trail of thought as you have demonstrated no fundamental understanding of physics.

 

Physics at its heart is a mathematical pursuit. The only way we can really examine your ideas is if you formulate them in a way we can understand, ultimately that must include some mathematical formulation. Though, many good ideas can spring from interpretation and physical reasoning. Unfortunately, I find it hard to find these in your arguments.

 

Sorry, to be so blunt.

[happy snapper]

mathermatics is man made..physics has been here for billions of years and has worked fine without mathermatics?

[Sisyphus]

a child can not be his own father just as gravity cannot have an effect on what causes gravity

 

Just as a child cannot be his own father, this thread cannot contain coherent analogies.

[ajb]

a child can not be his own father just as gravity cannot have an effect on what causes gravity

 

You could be right, but you have not stated carefully in the language we can understand what you mean by this.

 

Until you do so we will have to interpret this as best we can.

 

Gravity is non-linear so that means that gravity "fluctuations in the local geometry" are self-gravitating. If this is what you are questioning?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

mathermatics is man made..physics has been here for billions of years and has worked fine without mathermatics?

 

No, nature has been here for 13.6 billion years as we know it.

 

Physics, the acquisition of knowledge of the natural world has been around since mankind developed.

[happy snapper]

As i dont have a degee I was hoping that a person who could understand the simple things as well as the complex may be of help to me.It seems my talk is to simple for you to get your head around..All it needed was an open mind that isnt blocked by all the stuff out there.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

ok ..try this one..An object wants to move in a straight line unless a force is applied to it.force = energy... so what energy is causing the moon to stay in orbit around the earth.. You can say gravity but no one knows what it is..You explain how it works if you can?

[ajb]

As i dont have a degee I was hoping that a person who could understand the simple things as well as the complex may be of help to me.It seems my talk is to simple for you to get your head around..All it needed was an open mind that isnt blocked by all the stuff out there.

 

Nature is seldom very simple, nor then is physics.

 

I welcome any simple explanation/formulation but I do not see where you are trying to go with your ideas.

 

I am trying to be as nice as I can about this. I cannot follow your ideas, not because they are too simple, but because they do not fit in with modern physics. This makes it difficult to really give you any help. Try to take on board my issues with what you have said so far.

 

My advice is get to grips with what is known and well accepted. Once you understand these you are free to find fault and then extend or work on alternatives.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

ok ..try this one..An object wants to move in a straight line unless a force is applied to it.force = energy... so what energy is causing the moon to stay in orbit around the earth.. You can say gravity but no one knows what it is..You explain how it works if you can?

 

Force does not equal energy.

 

I think you are misunderstanding what physics is and what physics can do for us.

 

The natural phenomena that we call gravity is well modelled by general relativity. At least in the regimes of (most) astrophysical phenomena. I can give you a detailed account of the field equations, give you the solution that describes static spherically symmetric bodies and then we can discuss orbits etc.

 

We can then discuss how well these describe nature and the experimental tests of general relativity.

 

We could then go on to discuss the breakdown of general relativity on the small scale and the trouble with singularities. Then we can think about how quantum effects could come to our aid. Then, I would probably direct you towards sting theory, as well as other approaches to quantum gravity.

 

But would any of this tell you what gravity is? In short no. But that is not physics. Thus, I am not too worried.

[happy snapper]

Amagine that in 10 years time a major break though came and it was proved that gravity was not an attraction between objects but caused by mp that enter and exit atoms causing a differencial between ajacent atoms...O shit...Some guys was saying that 10 years ago but I fobbed him off as a crank because he didnt have a degree..All he had was an idea that I didnt let him finish.

[ajb]

Amagine that in 10 years time a major break though came and it was proved that gravity was not an attraction between objects but caused by mp that enter and exit atoms causing a differencial between ajacent atoms...O shit...Some guys was saying that 10 years ago but I fobbed him off as a crank because he didnt have a degree..All he had was an idea that I didnt let him finish.

 

 

I must point out that I feel I have not fobbed you off. I have been trying to make you think deeper about what you have said so far. Sorry if you feel let down or accused of being a crank.

 

Give us your "punch line".

 

Also, good luck with it all in the future.

[happy snapper]

Try your own advice.It makes sence.

[ajb]

Another unhappy customer.

[StringJunky]

Another unhappy customer.

 

Never mind, you did your best. It's nice to see patience in the face of ignorance. For laymen like myself it's good to see experts in their field, like yourself, trying to express essentially mathematical concepts in classical real world terms and logically dismantle commonly held misconceptions in a respectful way.

 

Kudos to you sir!

[happy snapper]

Im not unhappy.And why do say customer.As if I am the reciever and you are the giver?I am not here as a shopper.I was here to offer you something.If anything you were the customer. You refused my offer because it wasnt in the right wrapping paper and then decided that I could be the customer..

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

stringfellow..There not commonly held misconceptions.They may be misconceptions but not common..They may be rubish but they are my rubish and not common rubish..And as a so called layman how can you judge.?

Edited November 26, 2009 by happy snapper
Consecutive posts merged.

[ajb]

Sorry, my comment was not to be taken too literally.

[Klaynos]

Reading the snippets of this I have it makes me think happy snapper is thinking about something closer to a graviton than anything else...

[ajb]

Reading the snippets of this I have it makes me think happy snapper is thinking about something closer to a graviton than anything else...

 

This was also my feeling, but this did not really tally with what he was saying.

[happy snapper]

Ok I hear what you say.But il ask some simple questions that you can mayby ask others as well as yourself.

 

no 1...Is it possible for a particle to be smaller than an atom?

no 2 ...Is it possible for a particle to travel towards an atom enter it and leave unhindered?

no0 3 ...Is it possible that a particle can be affected on its journey by an electron or the necleus.?

no 4... Is it possible that dark matter may be all around us but the only reason we cant see it is that it is small ?

If you get a no to all from everyone then forget it.

If not then you should get back to me and listen.

My idea doesnt go against any rules of PHYSICS.

Have you ever had any of your friends ever have an original idea of how GRAVITY actually works..Id say never.

 

 

Just because we cant see something or measure it does not mean it is not there.If a particle is so small it can travel within an atom then we can not measure it because we are made of atoms and all our instruments are made of atoms.Put a receptor deep in a mountain and it can never capture a particle if the said particle has the abilility to travel within the atoms of the receptor.Thes particles enter the receptor and exit unhindered in ther journey.Because these instruments can not capture them does not mean they do not exist..I believe that we do measure them every day but because it is such a common measurment we dont even notice it.

Edited November 26, 2009 by happy snapper

[insane_alien]

1/ yep, atoms are composed of protons,neutrons and electrons. all smaller than the atom.

 

neutrons and protons are themselves made up of quarks which are smaller than protons/neutrons

 

2/ yes, a neutrino can do it although it will have a small chance of reacting with the nucleus.

 

3/ yep, nuclear reactions take place all the time.

 

4/ no. the only reason we cannot detect dark matter is because it appears to only interact with other matter via gravitational forces rather than the rest of them (electromagnetic, weak and strong forces). if it did interact via more than just gravity it would be relatively easy to spot.