Mystery of gravitation

[divinum1]

Ever since Isaac Newton first discovered the universal law of gravitation, not much has been added to it. Gravitation still remains a mystery, since no experiments can be performed with gravitation.

What is presently known about gravitation is that this force acts upon all things in the universe. And that this force is always directly proportional to the total sum of the mass and inversely proportional to the distance separating them. This notion about gravitation is still prevailing upon all physicists and astrophysicists since it was first introduced.

 

But the truth about gravitation is by far more different than what is now known about it.

 

Gravitation is in fact a bi-lateral force, meaning that it is composed of two forces; One is the 'g' force which Isaac newton discovered, also known as centripetal force (Fc), while the other force should be called; orbital force (Fo) since this is the force that causes all heavenly bodies to orbit around one another. Furthermore, these two forces are always directly proportional to one another and the radius of the mass from which they derive.

 

The orbital force (Fo) is by far more stronger than centripetal force (Fc). And the reason is, becuase this force is unified in all of its actions, whereas the centripetal force is all equally divided throughout the 360 degrees of the space that it occupies. Consequently the orbital force is by hundreds and even thousands of times more powerful than centripetal force.

 

Both forces are established by gravitons, who themselves are composed of two metaphysical particles of energy. And since a force is a vector quantity which clearly means that it has a direction and a magnitude. And for two such forces to exist in full cooperation with one another without annihilating one another, and the only possible way for the two forces to remain in such a state is in a perpendicular manner. Which means in a criss-cross manner, with one force spinning in one direction, and the other force spinning directly perpendicular to it. In this manner neither force cancels the other out. They instead form a unit of energy which virtually impossible to brake apart.

And when a gravitational field becomes established all around the mass, they divide the space equally between them, but because orbital force is all unified in its action, hence its strength increases by an inverse square, whereas the centripetal force increases only by a square root of the same proportion.

For this reason, centripetal force always lags far behind the orbital force. Hence orbital force may be considered as the prime force of gravitation, since the entire universe and everything within it is bound to its force.

 

Gravitons are the particles that establish a firm-constant realm throughout the space, and as such, they act as messenger, which means they are the ones that transmit all electromagnetic information.

For this reason, gravitons are undetectable, even though they are the main source of all electromagnetic transmissions.

Even though gravitons may be perceived or classified as metaphysical particles, they can not be excluded from the physical part of the universe, as if they do not belong to the same realm.

Where in fact they are direct constituents of everything there is, the things that we see, and things that we do not see.

[the tree]

Ever since Isaac Newton first discovered the universal law of gravitation, not much has been added to it.

I think it's fair to say that Einstein is already spinning in his grave from that.

Gravitation still remains a mystery, since no experiments can be performed with gravitation.

So what are these things for? Or, for that matter, these?

What is presently known about gravitation is that this force acts upon all things in the universe. And that this force is always directly proportional to the total sum of the mass and inversely proportional to the [square of the] distance separating them. This notion about gravitation is still prevailing upon all physicists and astrophysicists since it was first introduced.

Well we'd certainly notice if we were dramatically wrong about that. Planetary orbits wouldn't be the right shape for a start.

Gravitation is in fact a bi-lateral force, meaning that it is composed of two forces; One is the 'g' force which Isaac newton discovered, also known as centripetal force (Fc), while the other force should be called; orbital force (Fo) since this is the force that causes all heavenly bodies to orbit around one another. Furthermore, these two forces are always directly proportional to one another and the radius of the mass from which they derive.

• 'g' in terms of classical mechanics usually refers to the rate of acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface, rather than any force itself.
• Considering that Newton's description of gravity predicts both the behavior of objects close to Earth and the heavenly bodies, and that such a thing isn't particularly difficult to calculate, what possible reason is there to presume that two different things are acting?

The orbital force (Fo) is by far more stronger than centripetal force (Fc). And the reason is, becuase this force is unified in all of its actions, whereas the centripetal force is all equally divided throughout the 360 degrees of the space that it occupies. Consequently the orbital force is by hundreds and even thousands of times more powerful than centripetal force.

Why would we only get a small portion of the Earth's gravitational oompf when say, one of us in low earth orbit gets the whole lot?

Both forces are established by gravitons, who themselves are composed of two metaphysical particles of energy...

This is a good example of where you should think for yourself, before typing something like that. Edited March 15, 2011 by the tree

[ajb]

Ever since Isaac Newton first discovered the universal law of gravitation, not much has been added to it.

 

Not true.

 

Gravitation still remains a mystery, since no experiments can be performed with gravitation.

 

It is true there are plenty of questions to be addressed. However it is not true that we cannot preform experiments.

 

 

 

And that is as far as I got...

[divinum1]

I think it's fair to say that Einstein is already spinning in his grave from that.

So what are these things for? Or, for that matter, these?

Well we'd certainly notice if we were dramatically wrong about that. Planetary orbits wouldn't be the right shape for a start.

• [*]'g' in terms of classical mechanics usually refers to the rate of acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface, rather than any force itself.[*]Considering that Newton's description of gravity predicts both the behavior of objects close to Earth and the heavenly bodies, and that such a thing isn't particularly difficult to calculate, what possible reason is there to presume that two different things are acting?

Why would we only get a small portion of the Earth's gravitational oompf when say, one of us in low earth orbit gets the whole lot?

This is a good example of where you should think for yourself, before typing something like that.

 

Please leave Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton in peace! For the contribution that they gave to us about gravity is excellent, but this does not mean that they completed it, so that there is nothing more to be known about it. I know that if anyone comes with a new and better idea about it, there will a great controversy, just like you find them in my explanation. Becuase for any new thing there will be a need for new words and definitions for them, most of which will not be accepted in the beginning.

However I do not like to talk about sensless things because they only lead to arguments reather than solutions. But if you have some specific questions about gravitation, I would like to answer them.

Thus far in my first post I only described a small fraction of it, hence there is a lot more to it.

[ajb]

But if you have some specific questions about gravitation, I would like to answer them.

 

This is very honourable. However, the tree will be asking himself if you can answer his questions about gravity.

[swansont]

Gravitation is in fact a bi-lateral force, meaning that it is composed of two forces; One is the 'g' force which Isaac newton discovered, also known as centripetal force (Fc), while the other force should be called; orbital force (Fo) since this is the force that causes all heavenly bodies to orbit around one another. Furthermore, these two forces are always directly proportional to one another and the radius of the mass from which they derive.

 

The orbital force (Fo) is by far more stronger than centripetal force (Fc). And the reason is, becuase this force is unified in all of its actions, whereas the centripetal force is all equally divided throughout the 360 degrees of the space that it occupies. Consequently the orbital force is by hundreds and even thousands of times more powerful than centripetal force.

 

The centripetal/Newtonian gravitational force results directly in the Keplerian orbits. There's essentially nothing left for the "orbital force" to account for.

 

If you replace the Newtonian force with something else that depends on the radius of the objects (which is contrary to Newtonian gravity), you should be able to use orbital data to show that this is going anywhere. You have two free parameters, so this should either work or fail miserably using our planetary orbits. So before you attempt to dazzle us with more musings, wow us with some analysis that justifies that there's anything to it. You've made a prediction. Prove that it holds up.

[lemur]

To me the mystery of gravity is what causes it and why its not dipolar the way electrostatic force is. Apparently nuclear force is also purely attractive without dipoles, but why does it not seem to have the compounding effect that gravity and even magnetism have when numerous small fields combine to create a single larger field? Somehow, certain fields seem to be able to expand far beyond the atoms they emerge from, but nuclear force doesn't behave this way. Why? Could nuclear force and gravity be somehow related as attractive forces? Could gravity somehow be a "shadow" or "residual" field that extends beyond the electrons of the atom? Could the reason the nuclear force seems to "taper off" long before reaching the electrons have to do with those electrons' ability to cancel out the nuclear force in their vicinity only to have it re-emerge beyond the electrons as gravitation? I realize these are all wildly speculative notions but I don't know how else to discuss potential issues that gravitational theories could address beyond the Newtonian and Einsteinian approaches. Generally, though, I feel that the OP is right, that there ARE still mysteries of gravity, esp. its most fundamental causes.

[divinum1]

Not true.

 

 

 

It is true there are plenty of questions to be addressed. However it is not true that we cannot preform experiments.

 

 

 

And that is as far as I got...

 

In my topic I was trying to explain what gravitation is and how it became established.

If gravitation was completely understood, there would be no need of any experimentation about it.

But since experiments are conducted about it, that alone tells me that gravitation is still not completely understood, and is therefore subject to debate.

However, I am confident to say that I know how gravitation works, how it came into being, and many more facts about it, all of which is free of charge. And if anyone ask me a question about it, and if I understand the question correctly, I will answer it to the best of my ability.

[the tree]

In my topic I was trying to explain what gravitation is and how it became established.

If gravitation was completely understood, there would be no need of any experimentation about it.

[...]

However, I am confident to say that I know how gravitation works, how it came into being, and many more facts about it, all of which is free of charge. And if anyone ask me a question about it, and if I understand the question correctly, I will answer it to the best of my ability.

The first question is obvious. What makes you think that anything in your original post is correct?

 

Beyond that, any questions I would have about gravity would ask for predictions that ideally would be testable or at the very least not contradict extremely well known evidence.

[divinum1]

To me the mystery of gravity is what causes it and why its not dipolar the way electrostatic force is. Apparently nuclear force is also purely attractive without dipoles, but why does it not seem to have the compounding effect that gravity and even magnetism have when numerous small fields combine to create a single larger field? Somehow, certain fields seem to be able to expand far beyond the atoms they emerge from, but nuclear force doesn't behave this way. Why? Could nuclear force and gravity be somehow related as attractive forces? Could gravity somehow be a "shadow" or "residual" field that extends beyond the electrons of the atom? Could the reason the nuclear force seems to "taper off" long before reaching the electrons have to do with those electrons' ability to cancel out the nuclear force in their vicinity only to have it re-emerge beyond the electrons as gravitation? I realize these are all wildly speculative notions but I don't know how else to discuss potential issues that gravitational theories could address beyond the Newtonian and Einsteinian approaches. Generally, though, I feel that the OP is right, that there ARE still mysteries of gravity, esp. its most fundamental causes.

 

I am glad you ask If nuclear force and gravitational force are related in some way.

As a matter of fact, nuclear force is gravitational force. But to understand how this is possible,

I have to tell you that every force is directly proportional to the mass and its radius. And as far as protons and neutrons are concerned, they are the densest masses in the universe. Their density amounts to 1.99x10>13 kg/m3. Furthermore, every mass weather as small as a proton, they are all surrounded by 7 energy shells. And the deeper they go the shorter their distance become, but their strength reaches up to E=mc2, which in essence determines the end of the spectrum of all three quantities; mass its density radius and force.

Moreover, nuclear force is also composed of two forces just like gravitation. Hence all forces of nature act in accordance of the radius of the mass and its density. For this reason, nuclear force appear to be so much stronger than any other force in nature. And since all forces cooperate with one another in accordance of the mass from which they derive. For this reason, neutrons and protons cooperate with one another (where in fact a proton is just an ionized neutron whose mass defect is equal to 20 electrons).

And precisely the same apply to electrons, they too are surrounded by 7 energy level or shells.

And when an electron for example becomes excited, its action affect all 7 energy shells, and they are the source that transmits its information onto gravitons, and gravitons which are bound to the gravitational field transmit that information throughout the space at the speed of light.

Although electron's energy levels or shells are also directly proportional to the radius and the density of the electron. But since the density of an electron is not the same as that of proton, hence its energy shells extend much further into space and are less dense than proton's shells. And the same principles apply to masses, hence what it appears that there are different forces in nature, they are just manifestations of the same force that predominates over all things which is gravitational force. But nobody perceives these facts.

For this reason, this gravitational force is subdivide (the two of them) in accordance of the masses from which they derive. And are thus perceived as different forces, which clearly appears like it, and are now classified as fundamental forces of nature. How long is that going to take before the scientists discover the truth about gravitation, what it does, how it behaves, and why it behaves in this manner. I myself didn't know anything about it in my early study of physics, I discovered all these things in 1985 after I discovered the so called; True Principles of Nature. Which I wouldn't even mention if they were not correlated to mathematics, because I consider that mathematics is true language of nature, or universal language of nature once you begin to understand it .

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

You've been asked some direct question about orbits and predictions. I'd suggest you attempt to answer them.

[divinum1]

!

Moderator Note

You've been asked some direct question about orbits and predictions. I'd suggest you attempt to answer them.

I just begun to use the computer for the first time in my life, hence I do not yet know how assemble a mathematical equation, even though I have quite a number of them. So it may take me a few days before I find someone who can show me how write them. And then I will show them, for this reason, I am unable to how that my predictions are true. So bear with me for a little while?

[Klaynos]

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/

 

Enjoy.

[divinum1]

To me the mystery of gravity is what causes it and why its not dipolar the way electrostatic force is. Apparently nuclear force is also purely attractive without dipoles, but why does it not seem to have the compounding effect that gravity and even magnetism have when numerous small fields combine to create a single larger field? Somehow, certain fields seem to be able to expand far beyond the atoms they emerge from, but nuclear force doesn't behave this way. Why? Could nuclear force and gravity be somehow related as attractive forces? Could gravity somehow be a "shadow" or "residual" field that extends beyond the electrons of the atom? Could the reason the nuclear force seems to "taper off" long before reaching the electrons have to do with those electrons' ability to cancel out the nuclear force in their vicinity only to have it re-emerge beyond the electrons as gravitation? I realize these are all wildly speculative notions but I don't know how else to discuss potential issues that gravitational theories could address beyond the Newtonian and Einsteinian approaches. Generally, though, I feel that the OP is right, that there ARE still mysteries of gravity, esp. its most fundamental causes.

 

Basically the physical world is divided into three levels;

1. Gravitational level

2. Electron or chemical level, and

3. Nuclear level.

What this means is that each level is bound to its own two forces, Fo and Fc.

Nuclear force for example is the shortest but the strongest, which is directly proportional to the radius of the mass and its density. The same apply to electron forces, although electrons exhibit their force as bipolar, because electrons themselves exist in two different forms; 1. as single electrons, and 2. as paired electrons. All paired electrons are 'neutral' they exhibit no charge, whereas all single electrons do exhibit a negative charge. And the reason is, because a single electron as an individual reality it only represent one half of a complete reality, and precisely for this reason it exhibits a charge, which is a sign of an electron who is trying to establish a cooperation with another electron. And if such electron does establish such cooperation with another electron which may be with another atom, that is the point in time and space when the two electrons become neutral as a unit. And when such unit becomes broken, the two electrons exhibit their charge once again.

However, gravitons do not act in the same manner, they are the most stable particles in the universe, and since they are composed of two equal energy units they are completely neutral. Hence it is virtually impossible to get hold of them. But the realm that they transform into which we call gravitation, is divided into two equal halves as well. One of which acts as orbital force (Fo), and the other as centripetal force (Fc). And this is the point in time and space where and when the two forces express themselves in a mathematical order, which can be formulated and verified,(but at the moment I am not able to write these equations because I do not know how use computer wizardry as yet).

The same is true about protons. Whereas gravitons being composed of two equal units of energy, which also act as two equal particles, and they thus cancel their charges out, and are therefore neutral as well.

Thus each level is bound to two forces, and as a result, it appears as if there are more forces in nature. But they express themselves in accordance of the three quantities from which they derive, and are therefore 'limited' in all three respects. For this reason, nuclear force has such a short range of action. And the same apply to electron force. And even gravitational force is limited as well, but interconnected, but divided in accordance of the mass with which they cooperate. And for this reason, all gravitational fields are limited. Like Earth's gravitational field for example; it extends up to; 685,000,000 km. into space, which is directly proportional to the mass of the Sun to which it is bound, and the distance between them. The Moon on the other hand is directly bound onto Earth, and its gravitational field is also directly proportional to the mass of the Earth and the distance between them, which gives; Moon's 'g' field extends to; 52,300,000 km.

Since I am unable to post the equation as yet, at least , I can give you the value of orbital forces of the Earth and the Sun;

Earth's F0= 7910 m/s. and Sun's Fo= 436 618 m/s.

And it is this orbital force of the Sun that carries or forces all planets to orbit around the Sun, at precisely the speed that they do, not the other way around. For every mass in the universe is moving-orbiting in the direction of the force, not to some kind of free fall supposedly. For nothing can move in any direction unless there is a force acting, which causes thing-masses to move in the direction of the force. And because the prime force of the universe is the orbital force (Fo), for this reason, all heavenly bodies are bound to this force, and are moving along in accordance of it, to whichever they are bound to. And so is the universal gravitational field, which means that is bound to one single gravitational field, into which all galaxies are wrap around, and are thus subject to one universal system. Although this is impossible to notice through observation, because of the vastness of the size of the universe.

Even what is observable can be hardly comprehended, because most of the information received by light or other electromagnetic emotions, are distorted by gravitational field itself, since the field itself is a force (of two forces), hence light is affected by it and what we observe comes to us in a form of curvature as well as in dilation of time. For this reason, we hardly see anything as it is, except for the things that are very close to us.

[Klaynos]

Going to have problems with talking about radius and subatomic particles...

[lemur]

I actually find it interesting to read your ideas since they are at the same time so divergent from other claims I am familiar with but yet they are also more plausible sounding and easier to follow than most theories that get bashed with the 'crackpot' label. My favorite part is the comparison of paired electrons and gravitons as both having neutralized charge, only the gravitons are harder to separate. Do you see matter/antimatter as being like ionization for gravity? The part I find interesting but don't get is the seven layers to every particle. While I can appreciate the idea that protons and electrons could both have the same structure but different densities, why seven? Why not six or eight? It seems like a very arbitrary number, and really what is even the point of theorizing them as multilayered at all? Do the layers change or give way in certain situations to make the more inner layers relevant in some way?

[ajb]

All paired electrons are 'neutral' they exhibit no charge...

 

[divinum1]

I actually find it interesting to read your ideas since they are at the same time so divergent from other claims I am familiar with but yet they are also more plausible sounding and easier to follow than most theories that get bashed with the 'crackpot' label. My favorite part is the comparison of paired electrons and gravitons as both having neutralized charge, only the gravitons are harder to separate. Do you see matter/antimatter as being like ionization for gravity? The part I find interesting but don't get is the seven layers to every particle. While I can appreciate the idea that protons and electrons could both have the same structure but different densities, why seven? Why not six or eight? It seems like a very arbitrary number, and really what is even the point of theorizing them as multilayered at all? Do the layers change or give way in certain situations to make the more inner layers relevant in some way?

 

To answer to your question of matter/antimatter; Only particles of the same kind act as matter and antimatter relative to one another, like electrons for example. For two such particles do cooperate with one another in the same region or sphere to which they are confined. And their cooperation remains stable for as long as they do not surpass 90 degrees, which is directly perpendicular to the motion of the other particle. And in this position they act neutral, but if somehow they become altered as they do in some experiments, then they act as 'anti' particles relative to each other, and this is because of their internal motion by which they 'spin'. Where in this case their motions become contrary to one another, and if they get in contact they annihilate themselves out of existence. Therefore matter itself seems to act as anti matter, and is perceived as such, but in fact there is no such a thing as antimatter.

 

Now why are there 'seven' layers-shells or levels of space in nature:

This is because the nature itself is based on an 'octimal' system, which means that it starts from;

0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7. hence if the system increases it become divided and then the second system does the same. For this reason, even the periodic table of elements is divided into seven periods. And the electron shells are also divided into seven energy levels or shells. So everything in nature is divided into this natural system of seven, kind of odd but true.

 

Ionization: Gravity is not ionized nor can it be ionized, because gravitons have only two particles, or two units of energy, and nothing can be taken or added to them, and therefore gravity can not be ionized. The only things that become ionized, are neutrons and atoms.

The ionization of a neutron transforms into 'proton', and is always positive. Whereas atoms may be ionized into a positive or negative state, which is already known how this is achieved.

[swansont]

I actually find it interesting to read your ideas since they are at the same time so divergent from other claims I am familiar with but yet they are also more plausible sounding and easier to follow than most theories that get bashed with the 'crackpot' label.

 

One very important hurdle is the "not demonstrably wrong" test. It doesn't matter how wonderful the explanation sounds if it doesn't actually fit with the data. divinum1 has made a prediction. The first order of business is to see if that prediction is correct. If it isn't, there's no point to posting or reading any of the rest of it.

[lemur]

One very important hurdle is the "not demonstrably wrong" test. It doesn't matter how wonderful the explanation sounds if it doesn't actually fit with the data. divinum1 has made a prediction. The first order of business is to see if that prediction is correct. If it isn't, there's no point to posting or reading any of the rest of it.

I'm not that concerned with "locking out" everything from my mind that doesn't immediately fit data. I find it interesting to think about things in different ways to compare the limits of qualitative description/theorizing. Sometimes people post things like this and I don't even bother to keep reading because the ideas just don't make sense to me. This one just happens to not be causing any allergic reaction so I am giving thought to the parameters to see where they start to blatantly fail in terms of my own knowledge/understanding, which admittedly is far from being as rich as many people's.

 

To answer to your question of matter/antimatter; Only particles of the same kind act as matter and antimatter relative to one another, like electrons for example. For two such particles do cooperate with one another in the same region or sphere to which they are confined. And their cooperation remains stable for as long as they do not surpass 90 degrees, which is directly perpendicular to the motion of the other particle. And in this position they act neutral, but if somehow they become altered as they do in some experiments, then they act as 'anti' particles relative to each other, and this is because of their internal motion by which they 'spin'. Where in this case their motions become contrary to one another, and if they get in contact they annihilate themselves out of existence.

What, then, would cause particles to maintain or change orientation in the way you suggest?

 

Now why are there 'seven' layers-shells or levels of space in nature:

This is because the nature itself is based on an 'octimal' system, which means that it starts from;

0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7. hence if the system increases it become divided and then the second system does the same. For this reason, even the periodic table of elements is divided into seven periods. And the electron shells are also divided into seven energy levels or shells. So everything in nature is divided into this natural system of seven, kind of odd but true.

I suppose you could say that stable molecules can lose or gain up to 7 electrons in ionization. This makes me wonder if its possible for at atom to ionize a full eight electrons to reach a different level of stability than its natural one.

 

edit: btw, I had another idea about the cause of gravity since engaging in this thread: I wondered if it is a form of residual electromagnetism, like that which causes surface-tension in water. I can't think of any deducible hypotheses to test this idea, though, unless the electrostatic residue of a massive body would cause gravitation to vary independently of mass, i.e. because of specific composition and chemical state(s) of the massive body in question.

Edited March 17, 2011 by lemur

[swansont]

I'm not that concerned with "locking out" everything from my mind that doesn't immediately fit data.

 

Well, as a scientist and as moderator, I am concerned with this being scientific. A poster is obligated by the rules of the forum to back his/her conjecture up. This is scienceforums.net, not makingcrapupforums.net.

[divinum1]

I'm not that concerned with "locking out" everything from my mind that doesn't immediately fit data. I find it interesting to think about things in different ways to compare the limits of qualitative description/theorizing. Sometimes people post things like this and I don't even bother to keep reading because the ideas just don't make sense to me. This one just happens to not be causing any allergic reaction so I am giving thought to the parameters to see where they start to blatantly fail in terms of my own knowledge/understanding, which admittedly is far from being as rich as many people's.

 

 

What, then, would cause particles to maintain or change orientation in the way you suggest?

 

 

I suppose you could say that stable molecules can lose or gain up to 7 electrons in ionization. This makes me wonder if its possible for at atom to ionize a full eight electrons to reach a different level of stability than its natural one.

 

edit: btw, I had another idea about the cause of gravity since engaging in this thread: I wondered if it is a form of residual electromagnetism, like that which causes surface-tension in water. I can't think of any deducible hypotheses to test this idea, though, unless the electrostatic residue of a massive body would cause gravitation to vary independently of mass, i.e. because of specific composition and chemical state(s) of the massive body in question.

 

A paired unit of two electrons will hardly ever change their orientation. The only time they do so is in laboratories when they are altered by some means, that is the time when they may brake apart.

And when they do so, one acts a negative electron, while the other acts as a positive electron-positron. and as such are viewed as anti particles. But there are times when their motions become opposite to one another, and if they come in contact, they annihilate themselves. Otherwise they never do that in nature by themselves.

 

Magnetism is a result of electrons actions, either directly or indirectly. But magnetism is also caused by gravitational field, which is by far weaker than bar magnets or electromagnets. However magnetism also has two forces, and it is always the stronger force that affect a magnetic needle in a compass.

And what a deceiving effect they perform on the observer, because the needle always align itself with the stronger force. Even though it always points toward the north pole, the needle is in fact aligned with the orbital force which acts horizontal, the exact opposite of the other force. Hence magnetism is very tricky:

[lemur]

Well, as a scientist and as moderator, I am concerned with this being scientific. A poster is obligated by the rules of the forum to back his/her conjecture up. This is scienceforums.net, not makingcrapupforums.net.

I actually tried that url to see if it would work. I have read the rules of the speculations forum and, while I find them a bit strict, I understand and respect them. I am curious, however, what you would expect this poster to do to make his ideas testable. There are two I've been able to discern that I find interesting:

1) particles repel each other or annihilate due to the direction of their spin relative to each other.

2) fundamental particles have 7 layers, and that this is somehow related to the 8 electron-places in atomic "shells"

 

Both ideas could be fleshed out qualitatively and maybe used to deduce testable propositions, in which case they would become falsifiable. To get to that point, though, I think the mechanics of the presumed structures would have to be very clearly defined, which I don't think they are - but only divinum can really say.

 

 

[swansont]

I am curious, however, what you would expect this poster to do to make his ideas testable.

 

See post #6

[lemur]

See post #6

So you want him to show direct evidence that the gravitational force around a massive body (Fc) is weaker than the force that occurs in between such bodies (Fo)? That seems reasonable to me although the whole comparison is already causing problems in my mind considering that Newtonian gravity basically already takes into account gravitational cancellation within a massive body due to itself, no? At least I remember a discussion some time ago (on another forum I think) that the center of the planet would be weightless because of all the surrounding mass canceling out opposing gravity from the other direction. But at the surface, this canceling-out effect would be all but neutralized, I would think, and most gravity would be expressed as centripetal in the direction of the center. Maybe what he is saying is that as the canceling-out effect decreases with distance from the center, it becomes relatively stronger because it is "unified" and thus only the unified gravitation factors into attraction between planets, stars, etc. That all makes sense to me, but I'm not sure why that suggests that gravity is more than one force emerging from the same particles with different effects depending on where an object is located relative to the rest of the material/particles of "the body."