Alternative views on gravity?

[elas]

The most misleading practice of physicists lies in the use of the negative sign. If two forces act in opposite directions they are referred to (for purely mathematical reasons) as positive and negative when in reality they are two positive quantities opposing each other.

As a result of using the negative symbol, we observe the interaction of two positive forces (apparent force) not the sum of two positive forces.

Construct a table showing the above and it will be seen that dark matter is the difference between actual force and apparent force.

For example where body A has greater mass than boby B:

 

force of body A minus force of body B =apparent force (plus quantity)

force of body B minus force of body A =apparent anti-force (negative quantity)

 

The same argument explains the cause of pos. And neg. charge.

In reality there are no negative quantities.

Edited November 28, 2009 by elas

[insane_alien]

its not misleading at all. it is an appropriate use of vector mathematics.

 

any confusion over the matter comes from people not understanding the mathematics.

[Sisyphus]

The Moon can constantly change its direction without a force being applied to it? That just seems imposible to me.An object will move in a straight line unless a force is applied to it.That makes more sence to me.I say that gravity is the force that is applied to the moon that moves it from a straight line.I say that gravity is an exterior force that pushes the moon and earth towards each other and not an attration between the 2 bodies.

 

There is a force: gravity. However, there is not a change in energy, and there is not an "external" force. Force and energy are different concepts.

[michel123456]

Happy Snapper's idea looks much like Le Sage's Theory of gravitation.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

Interesting stuff.

[insane_alien]

it does yes. and that means that the things that make le Sages theory fail make happy snappers theory fail.

 

namely, if you put something in a box it should experience less gravity. but this is not observed at all.

 

also, while i'm thinking about this (and everything but my assignment for monday)

 

happy snapper, if gravity is caused by some new form of matter that isn't darkmatter or normal matter then why don't we observe particles travelling in a way that that indicated they are being bombarded by something. this would be an obvious indicator of your speculation as the sudden acceleration of charged particles(such as an electron) would generate an electro magnetic emission.

[jajrussel]

The Moon can constantly change its direction without a force being applied to it? That just seems imposible to me.An object will move in a straight line unless a force is applied to it.That makes more sence to me.I say that gravity is the force that is applied to the moon that moves it from a straight line.I say that gravity is an exterior force that pushes the moon and earth towards each other and not an attration between the 2 bodies.

 

I can grasp this thought if you are saying that space is made up of tiny particles that only interact with mass by pushing. Assuming this is what you are saying, then what we perceive as gravitational force would actually be mass resisting movement. It is a good thought to examine. The only way to examine the thought without using math is to ask questions that do not require a mathematical expression for an answer. This is not such an easy thing to do because if you start using mathematical expressions in your answer, such as positive or negative you are bringing math into the conversation. At which point, anyone might assume it is okay to use math without limitation. Assuming that I have begun to grasp what you are saying, some questions I would have, would be; Why are these gravity particles pushing particles of mass, toward central points? Accepting, that they push, why do they only push from one side? I would think that in order to move the particle of mass would have to be pushed from only one side, yet I am assuming that the gravity particles would have to completely surround the mass particle, all of them pushing the mass particle at the same time. This would lead, well at least I would conclude that the mass particle would be unable to move. If you allow that the gravity particles are moving and that the mass particles are simply being carried along, you need a reason as to why the gravity particles are moving, and why they are moving in the direction they are moving, because someone is going to ask those questions. If you are saying that the gravity particles would normally pass through the mass particle and that the movement occurs because of the occasional interaction between the gravity particle and the mass particle, you would still have to explain why the mass isn't resisting movement, why its moving in the direction it is moving, eventually density, and a lot of other questions. Allowing math, your answers to the questions would not have to make sense to everyone, because not everyone can make sense of the math. By not allowing math your answers have to make sense to nearly everyone, simply because you have a bigger audience.

[michel123456]

Nicolas Fatio de Duiller, Gabriel Cramer , Albert Redeker, George-Louis Le Sage, Leonard Euler, Daniel Bernoulli, Roger Joseph Boscovich, Georg Christoph Lichtenberg ,P.Leray, William Thompson 1st Baron Kelvin, Peter Guthrie Tait, Samuel Tolver Preston, Paul Drude , Carl Gottfried Neumann , Hugo von Seeliger, Caspar Isenkrahe, A. Rysanek, F.A.E. and Em. Keller, L. de Boisbaudran, J.J. Thomson, Thomas Tommasina, Charles F. Brush, Lyman Spitzer, Radzievskii and Kagalnikova, Shneiderov , Buonomano and Engels, Adamut , Jaakkola, Tom Van Flandern , Edwards, (sorry if I missed some) and

H. Snapper.

Except that H.S. had obviously no knowledge of the Le Sage Theory. Good for him.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think the Le Sage theory has been examined by all aspects, and decided not correct. But not enterely wrong, if you read carefully the link on wikipedia.

I suppose that the right answer on gravity resides in some sort of such a mechanical explanation. The most interesting comment IMO on this was made by Peter Guthrie Tait :

“ The most singular thing about it is that, if it be true, it will probably lead us to regard all kinds of energy as ultimately Kinetic."

[happy snapper]

The gravity particles dont push from one side.

They push from all sides..And yes you are right if an atom was being pushed equally from all sides it cant move. But atoms are not pushed equally from all sides so must move.

mf(gravity particles)are moving and have allways been moving since the big bang

Amagine you are standing surounded by 1000 people all firing paint guns at you. every time a paint gun pellet hits you it moves you 1mm away from the direction it hits.As you are being hit equally from all sides you will not move.

Now a friend comes along and stands next to you..You now both being hit but as you friend is shielding you from some of the shots and your shielding him then niether one of you are now being hit equally from all sides.You both move 1mm every time a paint pellet hits you.The movement is away from the force of the paint ball pellets and towards your friend.Now amagine its not paint balls but MF(micro particle)and you and your friend are single atoms.You must move towards each other.An atom ..A grain of sand..A planet..The same rule would apply in all cases.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ive just seen the mention of Le Sage's theory of gravitation...So it seems im 320 years to late with my idea.It does seem however that the idea is not 100% dead.. I was a bit worried about what happened the M particles that didnt exit the atom.. I thought that they may have been energy that bound the atom together instead of the free ride explaination I hear.Another possibility is that the energy is converted into mass and the atom just expands.As all atoms expand at the same rate then this expantion could not be measures..The atoms expand ..We expand ...and all our instruments expand.This expansion could only be observed from outside our universe,So not much chance of testing it.

It seems that the problem with my idea is not the basic idea but the problem with the particle that interact with the atom after the interaction?

[elas]

This is the first time I have come across LeSage. The idea originates from Newton who suggested that the universe is corpuscular in nature. This is the concept that I am working on, and like happy snapper, I thought I was doing original work.

 

LeSage is right; all that is necessary is to consider the fundamental particle as a partial vacuum field caused by existence of infinity (not the universe). Infinity does not have a centre, therefore nature regards the zero point at the centre of each particle as the centre of infinity; Plank's constants being the minimum values of field structure; matter and energy exists between zero points.

 

That is to mean that matter and energy owe their existence to the fact that absolute nothing (zero points) are non-dimensional. There is no such thing as a volume of absolute vacuum.

 

(my reply to insane alien will be given in a new forum).

Edited November 29, 2009 by elas

[insane_alien]

The gravity particles dont push from one side.

They push from all sides..And yes you are right if an atom was being pushed equally from all sides it cant move. But atoms are not pushed equally from all sides so must move.

mf(gravity particles)are moving and have allways been moving since the big bang

Amagine you are standing surounded by 1000 people all firing paint guns at you. every time a paint gun pellet hits you it moves you 1mm away from the direction it hits.As you are being hit equally from all sides you will not move.

Now a friend comes along and stands next to you..You now both being hit but as you friend is shielding you from some of the shots and your shielding him then niether one of you are now being hit equally from all sides.You both move 1mm every time a paint pellet hits you.The movement is away from the force of the paint ball pellets and towards your friend.Now amagine its not paint balls but MF(micro particle)and you and your friend are single atoms.You must move towards each other.An atom ..A grain of sand..A planet..The same rule would apply in all cases.

 

this just brings up the gravity shielding problem again. all current data indicates that you cannot shield against gravity at all. using a particle pressure model for gravity then gravitational shielding should be very possible.

 

also, there would be limits upon the maximum strength of gravity. this has not been observed either.

 

Ive just seen the mention of Le Sage's theory of gravitation...So it seems im 320 years to late with my idea.It does seem however that the idea is not 100% dead..

 

the thing as a whole is false. it is not the mechanism for gravity. certain aspects of it however can apply to other fields however and it is this that is being re-examined.

 

It seems that the problem with my idea is not the basic idea but the problem with the particle that interact with the atom after the interaction?

 

the problem is with the basic idea as well.

 

also, you haven't proposed how this particle is supposed to interact with the atom. what force does it use? we have already given you reasons why it cannot be electromagnetic interaction, strong interaction or weak interaction. and if it is a gravitational interaction then you need to introduce yet another particle that carries this meta gravitational force to allow them to interact.

 

you also haven't stipulated a source for these particles, where do they come from? why don't we see gravity varying with time?

 

why is ther no drag effect if you are moving relative to this field of particles? etc. etc.

 

this idea has so many holes it makes a seive look like a good water container.

[happy snapper]

The sorce of these particles was the big bang.They were created before atoms as I believe that the atom itself relied on these particles to exist in the first place.

Theere is no drag effect .We and all the atoms around us are being moved by these particles.

Imagine its a windy day.We measure the wind on the ground at 30mph We then go up in an air ballon.We also travel at 30 mph.We measure the wind speed from the moving baloon.. If is zero.This is the same effect.We move with this moving sea of particles.

Every atom finds its point of least resistance.

Gravity does vary all the time We do not see this change as this change also changes us and all the atoms around us.This change could only be seen if from an independent observer from outside the solar system in real time and that cant happen.

 

 

Now amagine that thes M particle were formed early in the big bang.Atoms were formed within this soup of M particles.This soup expands outward but within this soup M particles are moving in all directions but the underling trend is an expansion. This expansion has happened and is still hapening.

It makes sence that the more it expands then the density of this soup has to decrease.

So if an atom is within this M particle soup then it also will expand in relasionship.

If it is only the spacing within the atom that expands then no extra mass would be needed but if the parts of the atom have to expand also to keep a working scale then extra mass will be needed for the atom to function.

I believe that this extra mass is taken from the M particles that interact with the atom.

How it does it at a sub atomic scale I dont know but think this is an elegant solution.to the question of where these particles go after they interact with the atom.

[insane_alien]

The sorce of these particles was the big bang.

 

so why don't we see the force of gravity diminishing with time as these particles were absorbed. we have values for G extending back billions of years (thanks to big ass telescopes and the finite speed of light).

 

They were created before atoms as I believe that the atom itself relied on these particles to exist in the first place.

 

woah, where did this come from? you better have some very good reasons for this along with some data.

 

Theere is no drag effect .We and all the atoms around us are being moved by these particles.

 

so now these particles are responsible for ALL motion? really? even to the point where we ignore the other forces? surely if i fire a rocket and lift off from the earth i am going to be moving against these particles as i am escaping the earths gravity(and that after all is what you said these particles caused)

 

Imagine its a windy day.We measure the wind on the ground at 30mph We then go up in an air ballon.We also travel at 30 mph.We measure the wind speed from the moving baloon.. If is zero.This is the same effect.We move with this moving sea of particles.

 

and if we stick some propellers onto that to make a blimb we measure the speed to be non-zero and we get some drag. which is what i was talking about.

 

Gravity does vary all the time We do not see this change as this change also changes us and all the atoms around us.This change could only be seen if from an independent observer from outside the solar system in real time and that cant happen.

 

yes it can, we have probes outside the solar system, we can look at other solar systems, we can look at whole other galaxies too. anyway, if it is impossible to observe the effects of something, then what is the point of it? it gets cut by occams razor.

 

So if an atom is within this M particle soup then it also will expand in relasionship.

 

why?

 

How it does it at a sub atomic scale I dont know but think this is an elegant solution.to the question of where these particles go after they interact with the atom.

 

elegant does not mean right. you will need to provide far more than this to get anywhere.

 

so far you have provided NOTHING for us to work with other than a very vague description. you need to be specific, you need to provide ways for it to be tested, you need some mathematics to make precise predictions and then some.

 

you also haven't answered my questions about how these particles interact and you have already shown that you are quite unfamiliar with both the quantum world and the relativistic world. this raises quite a bit of concerns about what you are saying and they are justified. you need to start backing upwhat you're saying especially before you go and add more bits to it.

[happy snapper]

Im sorry I meant universe and not solar system

i feel the M force is the thing that binds the atom just in the same way it does for a planet and a sun . The electrons in the atom have this force applied to them and this force keeps the electron and the neclei bound..Weaken this force and the elecron will be further away.I cant see how the electron can stay within the atom for free without a force aplied to it.Nothing is free.If energy or matter is moving it will travel in a straight line unless a force is aplied to it.Surely an electron must have this rule also And as far as your quantom world.I dont see one. Thing happen at these scales in a different way because the m force is not linear.only at atom scales can the differences in the density of M have an observed affect.You see a difference in laws and call it quantom.All I see is things look different because they dont act as they do at bigger scales because the forces apllied to them are not from a linear force.

And its true what you say about my knoledge about your physics.But I have a thinking mind.Only today did I find that my idea is not new...(Le Sage) got there before me over 300 years ago.As far as im concerened the universe is just matter in motion.Physics is full off fancy made up names for things..Some exist and some dont.Physics was here before man was and will be here after hes gone.No mathermatics ..No life.. but things will still carry on.If a thing can never be proved doent mean it doesnt exist? What comes 1st the idea or the maths

[insane_alien]

The electron has got a force applied to it, electrostatic attraction between the electrons and the protons. not that electrons orbit the nucleus in the classical sense anyway. things get complicated down there.

 

the fact that you seem totally unaware of this begs the question, how much education in physics do you have? because that's taught wuite early on in high school.

 

as to the 'fancy made up names' well, we need to call phenomenon something. and most of them had never been seen before so of course we had to make up names for them. it would be inefficient and impractical to have to give a full description of a phenomenon or particle every time we mentioned it. we don't reffer to tables as 'wooden objects with a flat top surface and one supporting legs to bring it to a desired height' we call them tables.

 

also, you have to show where current theories go wrong before they can be replaced otherwise, is your idea any better.

 

i suggest you go read up on the scientific method and what science actually is before you continue. then go read some of the basic materials(wikipedia will do) on quantum mechanics.

[happy snapper]

I dont have any education in PHYSICS at all..In fact I left school at 14.I just had an idea thats all .A lot in here seem to have good knowledge but not much in amagination.And I never said that things should not have names even if amaginary.. A Graviton has never been seen or found but it is talked about as if it is a real thing.I will take your advice and put my head in a few books for a few years so I can explain to educated people in way that they may understand

[insane_alien]

your 'M particle' has never been seen or found yet you talk of it as being real. don't be so hypocrtical.

 

also, we do have imagination but for things to be accepted into science it needs to be consistent and coherent. there are rules and steps to follow to ensure that whatever gets in is actually a good description of reality and removes the human aspects of it like gut feelings and biases. this ensures what we have is the real truth and not something just made up.

 

your idea does not pass this step.

[brzozowskir2]

a philosophy teacher proposed to the class that the effects of gravity are actually stemmed from the work of "gravity faeries". these entities are small, invisible, and are everywhere around us. they are responsible for everything that we have attributed to gravity. for example, when the apple fell from the tree, it was not because of a force, but because a bunch of g-faeries got a hold of the apple and flew it down to Newton's cranium. Please take this as a warning against metaphysics LOL

[insane_alien]

actually, there is a proper philosophy called metaphysics and it wouldn't deal with stuff like 'g faeries'

 

'g faeries' would fall under the popularized by nutjobs definition of it though. of course, the proper term for THAT kind of metaphysics is 'mindless drivel'

[Grim-Smile]

Have the current ideas on the way gravity works been proved in any way and does anyone else have any alternative views? I have a few ideas that seem to make sence to me...

 

my thoughts on the matter were that gravity may be the essence of dark, or negative matter, look at a black hole, it has the most gravitational pull of anything and we cannot be sure of what it is made of without the ability and knowledge of testing it. because it is possible that it has altered due to the intence force, similar to a chemical when exposed to heat or coal to PRessuRE and heat.