sphere theory,a new theory on gravity

[olvin dsouza]

hi, to all scientist, physicist.

my name is olvine dsouza .I have founded a new theory on gravity that explains gravity in mechanical way. this theory has solved the elliptical effect that happens between stars & planets. so if any needs more explanation please contact me on email removed .

Edited June 28, 2011 by Klaynos
email removed

[mooeypoo]

Olvin, if you can just post a brief abstract/summary of your theory it would help us start a discussion going without making people having to actually download all your docs.

 

Can you post the intro in the thread?

[Pincho Paxton]

It's has similarities to my theory.

[tar]

Olvin,

 

I can't get a dense packed collection of spheres all spinning in the same direction, due to the direction of force at their contact points.

 

If you line up a bunch of gears and turn the first one counter-clockwise, it will cause the second in line to turn clockwise, which will cause the third in line to turn counter-clockwise...

 

If you took two gears spinning at the speed of light, both in the same direction, and put them together, all the teeth would grind off, and there would be no friction left between the gears, to transfer any force, or if the teeth were mighty strong, both gears would grind to a halt.

 

So two gears touching will spin in opposite directions. Three gears touching in a triangle won't spin at all.

Take a dense pack sphere situation, with each sphere touching 12 others, with friction at their surface touch points, and tell me how you could get any of the spheres, spinning on any axis. Much less get them all spinning in the same direction.

 

Regards, TAR2

[olvin dsouza]

Olvin,

 

I can't get a dense packed collection of spheres all spinning in the same direction, due to the direction of force at their contact points.

 

If you line up a bunch of gears and turn the first one counter-clockwise, it will cause the second in line to turn clockwise, which will cause the third in line to turn counter-clockwise...

 

If you took two gears spinning at the speed of light, both in the same direction, and put them together, all the teeth would grind off, and there would be no friction left between the gears, to transfer any force, or if the teeth were mighty strong, both gears would grind to a halt.

 

So two gears touching will spin in opposite directions. Three gears touching in a triangle won't spin at all.

Take a dense pack sphere situation, with each sphere touching 12 others, with friction at their surface touch points, and tell me how you could get any of the spheres, spinning on any axis. Much less get them all spinning in the same direction.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

hi tar,

thanks for taking intrest

great question ,it is assumed that if one conston(graviton) spins at clockwise then other one spins at counter clockwise.from the source(mass) first distance conston spins at clock wise,second distance conston spins at counter clockwise again the third distance conston spins at clockwise and so on.

[olvin dsouza]

hi tar,

thanks for taking intrest

great question ,it is assumed that if one conston(graviton) spins at clockwise then other one spins at counter clockwise.from the source(mass) first distance conston spins at clock wise,second distance conston spins at counter clockwise again the third distance conston spins at clockwise and so on.

 

each constons having sphere shape spins freely at constant rate. this happens due to the clock wise and anti clockwise imbalance process which i am not able to explain it in writting.

you are in the right point that three gear cannot spin in same direction at same time.so conston are not spinning in same direction but in a pattern of clock & anti clockwise

[tar]

Olvin,

 

Except, if you make arrows showing the direction of spin of three gears arranged together in a triangle, you will find that if the first is clockwise, and the second counter clockwise, the third will be conflicted in terms of which direction it should spin. Gear 1 is telling gear three to spin counter-clockwise, and gear two is telling gear three to spin clockwise. In other words, none of the three will spin at all.

 

If you don't believe me, find three gears of the same diameter, with the same size and number of teeth and put them together in a triangle. Nail them each in their center hole with a nail, to a board to give them each and axis to spin on. Then try to spin any of the gears. Nothing will move.

 

Now try it with four gears in a square. They will spin,

 

Your diagram showed a hexagonal pattern. If you would extend your arrows all the way around, you would see they conflict with each other, not support each other. Your system, as drawn, would grind to a halt.

 

Find a geometrical arrangement, in three dimensions, of dense packed spheres, that will support each others spin. Otherwise, your model doesn't work. And if your model doesn't work, it cannot be a model of reality, because reality does work.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S. Even 6 gears in a hexagonal pattern will spin, but not with a gear in the center, as a dense packed arrangement would have.

 

But I am thinking in two dimensions, and we have three to work with. I believe a dense pack situation with four intersecting hexagonal planes, will yield as well, three intersecting square planes. I don't remember, but maybe there is an arrangement that would work.

[olvin dsouza]

Olvin,

 

Except, if you make arrows showing the direction of spin of three gears arranged together in a triangle, you will find that if the first is clockwise, and the second counter clockwise, the third will be conflicted in terms of which direction it should spin. Gear 1 is telling gear three to spin counter-clockwise, and gear two is telling gear three to spin clockwise. In other words, none of the three will spin at all.

 

If you don't believe me, find three gears of the same diameter, with the same size and number of teeth and put them together in a triangle. Nail them each in their center hole with a nail, to a board to give them each and axis to spin on. Then try to spin any of the gears. Nothing will move.

 

Now try it with four gears in a square. They will spin,

 

Your diagram showed a hexagonal pattern. If you would extend your arrows all the way around, you would see they conflict with each other, not support each other. Your system, as drawn, would grind to a halt.

 

Find a geometrical arrangement, in three dimensions, of dense packed spheres, that will support each others spin. Otherwise, your model doesn't work. And if your model doesn't work, it cannot be a model of reality, because reality does work.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S. Even 6 gears in a hexagonal pattern will spin, but not with a gear in the center, as a dense packed arrangement would have.

 

But I am thinking in two dimensions, and we have three to work with. I believe a dense pack situation with four intersecting hexagonal planes, will yield as well, three intersecting square planes. I don't remember, but maybe there is an arrangement that would work.

 

Olvin,

 

Except, if you make arrows showing the direction of spin of three gears arranged together in a triangle, you will find that if the first is clockwise, and the second counter clockwise, the third will be conflicted in terms of which direction it should spin. Gear 1 is telling gear three to spin counter-clockwise, and gear two is telling gear three to spin clockwise. In other words, none of the three will spin at all.

 

If you don't believe me, find three gears of the same diameter, with the same size and number of teeth and put them together in a triangle. Nail them each in their center hole with a nail, to a board to give them each and axis to spin on. Then try to spin any of the gears. Nothing will move.

 

Now try it with four gears in a square. They will spin,

 

Your diagram showed a hexagonal pattern. If you would extend your arrows all the way around, you would see they conflict with each other, not support each other. Your system, as drawn, would grind to a halt.

 

Find a geometrical arrangement, in three dimensions, of dense packed spheres, that will support each others spin. Otherwise, your model doesn't work. And if your model doesn't work, it cannot be a model of reality, because reality does work.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S. Even 6 gears in a hexagonal pattern will spin, but not with a gear in the center, as a dense packed arrangement would have.

 

But I am thinking in two dimensions, and we have three to work with. I believe a dense pack situation with four intersecting hexagonal planes, will yield as well, three intersecting square planes. I don't remember, but maybe there is an arrangement that would work.

 

hi tar,

the spheres which i said is not spinning in same direction or the way you are trying to explain.you are right that six gears can spin but if we put one more gear in centre the whole set will not move. but the spheres out there in space spins in different pattern, the pattern that stricly follows the law of physics. this can be explain with the help of demonstration or with the help set of equations.i have the 100% proof that spheres can spin freely in clockwise and anticlockwise together but following a pattern.two way pattern theory

 

 

it is some thing like in one dimension two sphere spins in clock wise,anti clockwise and in third dimension third sphere spins.means the spinning that all the sphere gets is from two form of dimension. in short the sphere that spins at the speed of light gets its spinning through two dimension (two source that spins in two dimension).

 

 

 

[tar]

Olvin,

 

I am not really seeing the pattern you are suggesting.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Daedalus]

I didn't get to see the original documents, but from reading through the comments I figured I'd draw a few figures showing how three spheres could spin together. You can see the green sphere is spinning upwards. This is similiar to a horizontal gear rotating a vertical gear.

[tar]

Daedalus,

 

Nice drawings.

 

But can you get a dense packed arrangement to work?

 

You can't put a fourth sphere touching all three of those. It wouldn't spin in any direction. It would pop out. Or if you put it on the back side it would get sucked in to the three.

 

Can you extend that drawing so a total of 12 balls touch the red one, and see if they still spin?

 

Regards, TAR2

[Daedalus]

Daedalus,

 

Nice drawings.

 

But can you get a dense packed arrangement to work?

 

You can't put a fourth sphere touching all three of those. It wouldn't spin in any direction. It would pop out. Or if you put it on the back side it would get sucked in to the three.

 

Can you extend that drawing so a total of 12 balls touch the red one, and see if they still spin?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Am I restricted to using identically sized spheres? And by densly packed are you refering that all spheres must make contact with adjacent spheres or can they just touch spheres located near each other?

Edited July 10, 2011 by Daedalus

[tar]

Daedalus,

 

According to Olvin the spheres are dense packed. He did not per se limit them to all the same size, but his drawing made me think that that was his thought.

 

The dense pack arrangement I am considering, has each sphere touching 12 others. You can get the arrangement by placing the center of each sphere at each of the vertices of the figure you get when you cut the corners off to the center of each edge (around a center sphere). Or more simply, put the center of each sphere at the center of each of the twelve edges of a cube. With the sphere diameter being equal to 1/2 the distance between an edge center and the opposite edge center.

 

I'm just glueing some ping pong balls together now, and I'll post a picture, once it dries and I can put the last three on. (and figure out if and how to post a picture.)

 

Or short of that, you can build the start of the pattern I want to test for spinablity, by putting six spheres around a center sphere, putting three spheres in a triangle on top of this, each in every other "place" created by the hexagonal arrangement, and then on the opposite side of the first hexagonal group place the other three spheres, but in the opposite three "places", so you wind up with four intersecting hexagonal planes.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

http://kjmaclean.com/Geometry/Cubeoctahedron.html

 

Shows the cube octahedron, which is the figure you should place the center of each sphere on the vertices of.

Edited July 11, 2011 by tar

[Daedalus]

Daedalus,

 

According to Olvin the spheres are dense packed. He did not per se limit them to all the same size, but his drawing made me think that that was his thought.

 

The dense pack arrangement I am considering, has each sphere touching 12 others. You can get the arrangement by placing the center of each sphere at each of the vertices of the figure you get when you cut the corners off to the center of each edge (around a center sphere). Or more simply, put the center of each sphere at the center of each of the twelve edges of a cube. With the sphere diameter being equal to 1/2 the distance between an edge center and the opposite edge center.

 

I'm just glueing some ping pong balls together now, and I'll post a picture, once it dries and I can put the last three on. (and figure out if and how to post a picture.)

 

Or short of that, you can build the start of the pattern I want to test for spinablity, by putting six spheres around a center sphere, putting three spheres in a triangle on top of this, each in every other "place" created by the hexagonal arrangement, and then on the opposite side of the first hexagonal group place the other three spheres, but in the opposite three "places", so you wind up with four intersecting hexagonal planes.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

http://kjmaclean.com...octahedron.html

 

Shows the cube octahedron, which is the figure you should place the center of each sphere on the vertices of.

 

I am assuming that all of this takes place in three dimensional space. The next question is, am I allowed to increase the number of spatial dimensions?

[tar]

Daedalus,

 

I suppose we should ask Olvin, but I would guess that you can use whatever dimensions the universe as we know it, will bear.

 

By the way, I took a couple jpgs of the structure (in ping pong balls) with the center of the spheres on the 12 vertices of a cube octohedron. But I don't know how to link the pictures to here.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Found the "use full editor"

 

[tar]

Seems to be a Face Centered Cubic, or A,B,C stacking of hexagon planes.

 

Interesting to me, is that you also get this arrangement if you close-pack square planes.

 

And the center sphere is a member of four different hexagonal planes, and three different square planes. And six axises, or six pairs of directly opposite spheres. Each of the six axises (three spheres in a straight line) is a member of two of the hexagonal planes and one of the square planes.

 

A lot of symmetry.

 

Have not figured yet, if it can spin.

Edited July 13, 2011 by tar

[Daedalus]

Tar, I think the true nature of this is that the spheres are different in size. The repulsion forces of like charged particles would keep certain spheres from touching each other. From this we could obtain tightly packed clusters. We can also pack more spheres together using higher dimensional spaces.

[tar]

Seems different than Olvin's idea.

 

Where is Olvin?

 

Did he abandon the theory?

[Daedalus]

It does seem as though he has. But there could be any number of reasons why he has not replied.

[olvin dsouza]

It does seem as though he has. But there could be any number of reasons why he has not replied.

 

hi, daedalus

this is olvin. i ll be back soon with full explanation about sphere arrangement.

 

Seems different than Olvin's idea.

 

Where is Olvin?

 

Did he abandon the theory?

 

 

hi,

this is olvin. i will be back soon with in two or three days . and explain the sphere arrangement

[olvin dsouza]

olvine's sphere theory.docsphere theory mass proportion.dochi this olvin

look out at this theory that explains gravity a push force

it discribes an un seen particle out in space

 

 

Introduction

 

Space as we called it empty, is not empty, it’s full of conston( graviton particle).

 

Conston might could be a particle having spherical shape .but un seen

 

It could have diameter smaller than quarks.

 

It spins in its own axis.

 

They are un bond but are in touch with each other just like the solid states of matter are close to each other.

 

They all spins together

 

This theory gives

 

 

 

 

 

The challenge of this theory is to prove that gravity is a PUSH FORCE BY UN SEEN PARTICLE

 

 

 

 

 

sphere theory , two body attraction.doc

[olvin dsouza]

Seems different than Olvin's idea.

 

Where is Olvin?

 

Did he abandon the theory?

 

 

hi tar

here is the answer for your puzzle.

see the attachmentarrangment of constons 3.doc

 

It does seem as though he has. But there could be any number of reasons why he has not replied.

 

tar and daedalus both of you have got realy confused you are looking out for what is imposible.

the dig which you have seen before doesn't means three or four or five or six spheres attatch together

you already know three of the spheres won't be able to spin

but a set of four spheres can spin.set of four spheres if you make them adjust in two clock & two anticlockwise then they can spin.

take four pionpong balls attach two balls eachother mark them clock wise other one anti clock wise

now take other two, attach both in the same way.finally take both set attach in such a way that all should spin. (four sphere can spin)them together on side by side what you will get square.

now if you take more four ball and attach them in the above explain way and attach all of them to make set of eight sphere you will find a cubic shape all spinning togrther.

again if you take a set of more eight balls and arrangement them to form a cube shape you will find all spinning.

it is not nessary for the spheres to attach them all together to form a circle, octagonal or pentagonal shape and that is what you are doing.

what you have to do is when you attachclock &anti clockwise set the spheres in squares or cubic shape only.

the whole set of spheres(constons) in the universe space has a cubic shape, spinning in clock& anti clockwise.

arrangment of constons 3.doc

 

hi tar

here is the answer for your puzzle.

see the attachmentarrangment of constons 3.doc

 

 

 

tar and daedalus both of you have got realy confused you are looking out for what is imposible.

the dig which you have seen before doesn't means three or four or five or six spheres attatch together

you already know three of the spheres won't be able to spin

but a set of four spheres can spin.set of eight spheres if you make them adjust in two clock & two anticlockwise then they can spin.

take four pionpong balls attach two balls eachother mark them clock wise other one anti clock wise

now take other two, attach both in the same way.finally take both set attach in such a way that all should spin. (four sphere can spin)them together on side by side what you will get square.

now if you take more four ball and attach them in the above explain way and attach all of them to make set of eight sphere you will find a cubic shape all spinning togrther.

again if you take a set of more eight balls and arrangement them to form a cube shape you will find all spinning.

it is not nessary for the spheres to attach them all together to form a circle, octagonal or pentagonal shape and that is what you are doing. at this shapes arrangement sphere will not spin

what you have to do is when you attach clock &anti clockwise set the spheres in squares or cubic shape only.

the whole set of spheres(constons) in the universe space has a cubic shape, spinning in clock& anti clockwise.

arrangment of constons 3.doc

 

know that set of two,four ,eight, sixteen forms a cube and all set of spheres can spin in constant rate.if arranged in clock & anticlockwise spin.

[pantheory]

olvin dsouza,

....The challenge of this theory is to prove that gravity is a PUSH FORCE BY UN SEEN PARTICLE

There are a number of present theories that propose that gravity and or mass are caused by "unseen" particles in the background field, such as dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons which are the most well known. Additionally Pushing Gravity has been around as a theory for more than 300 years. I also think it will be proved to be the correct model of gravity but is a big change from the present GR model so it will probably take a while for such realization .

 

Whether your sphere gravitational model is correct as explained by your link, is another matter.

Edited July 15, 2011 by pantheory

[Ophiolite]

What advantages does your hypothesis offer over current conventional theories?

How would you go about falsifying it?

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Topics merged. One to a customer, please