Gravity Is Caused By The Holy Spirit

[Temporocitor]

If photons cannot escape a black hole, then why would we expect either a particle or a force weaker than light to escape it. Hawking radiation, simplicitely, is heat that radiates away from the singularity... somehow. Now black holes are... quantum?... Relativistic?... Mechanical? With any of those, exactly how would that little graviton, or a quantum gravitational loop, manage to escape the gravitational force of... well... the gravitational force?

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath181/kmath181.htm

 

Soon after the appearance of Isaac Newton's Principia, describing the law of universal gravitation, Newton's young friend Nicolas Fatio (1664-1753) conceived the idea that the apparent force of gravitational attraction between material objects might be due to an imbalance of repulsive forces arising from the impacts of tiny rapidly moving corpuscles from the nether regions of space. Objects would tend to shield each other from this shower of gravific corpuscles, so they would be driven together, and it's easy to see that the strength of this effect would be inversely proportional (at least approximately) to the square of the distance between the objects, in accord with Newton's law.

Since the force of gravity depends strictly on the mass of an object (not on its apparent size), Fatio postulated that material objects are almost entirely transparent to the gravific corpuscles. At the time, this was a radical suggestion, but Fatio argued for its plausibility by noting that corpuscles of light can pass through solid glass, even though glass is as seemingly dense and impermeable as other solids. Fatio also noted that the lack of appreciable drag on moving objects could be explained by postulating a sufficiently high speed for the corpuscles. He also explained that the gravific corpuscles must be slowed by their interactions with ordinary matter in order to transfer the necessary momentum. Fatio continued to refine and promote his theory throughout the rest of his life, even after enlisting with the exiled Camisards, a insurrectionist sect of Huguenots from the south of France.

 

__________________________________________________ ___________________________________

 

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath209/kmath209.htm

It's an interesting historical fact that the attitudes of scientists toward the Fatio-Lesage "explanation" of gravity have varied widely, not just from one scientist to another, but for individual scientists at different moments. This is exemplified by Newton's ambivalence. On one hand, he told Fatio that if gravity had a mechanical cause, then the mechanism must be the one Fatio had described. On the other hand, Newton usually inclined toward the view that gravity does not have a mechanical (material) cause. It's true that he explicitly denied (in a famous letter to Bentley) the intelligibility of bare action at a distance, but he just as explicitly rejected (in a letter to Leibniz) the notion that space is filled with some material substance (a la Descartes) that communicates the force of gravity. His alternative was to say that gravity is caused by the will and spirit of God, not by any material cause. Of course, he gave consideration to various possible material mechanisms, and even included some Queries in the latter editions of Opticks, speculating on the possibility of an ether that is least dense near matter, and whose density increases the further we recede from matter. This could be interpreted as a somewhat obscure reference to Fatio's theory, since the flux of gravific corpuscles is reduced in the vicinity of matter, due to the shadowing effect. And yet David Gregory reported that, behind Fatio's back, Newton laughed at his method of explaining gravity, and Newton scrupulously avoided mentioning any such explanations in his cherished Principia – aside from making it clear that his conception of gravity did not assume any particular mechanism, nor even whether gravity was due to an inherent pull between matter or was caused by some kind of impulsion. Indeed Fatio was unhappy that Newton never publicly acknowledged, let alone endorsed, his theory. He wrote to Conduitt in 1730

 

"I have often wondered how the second and third Edition of Sir Isaac Newton's Principles do touch so lightly upon this matter. For if there be a mechanical cause of gravity – as it is most probable – there is also a demonstration that there can be no cause of it than that which I give, and Dr. I. knew it very well."

 

Apparently Fatio didn't appreciate how anathema his "explanation of gravity" was to Newton's fundamental doctrine, which was to eschew occult (i.e., hidden) causes for manifest phenomena. Even setting outside the outlandishness of the explanation, Newton was never able to extract from Fatio's idea any testable consequence that could support it, so the idea remained an occult mechanism which, according to Newton, is not the proper purview of science.

 

The way this all settles in states that Newton's concept of a process neutral to religion, favors a fairy tale as gravity's cause rather than a sound scientific one. If we delve further into the idea that gravity is mechanical, rather than "Holy Spirit," we can find mistakes, nonetheless, a scientific principle that might be refined and may be the correct concept.

__________________________________________________ ________________________________

 

Perhaps black holes do not jive with loops of force that reach a mighty hand upward to pull us down by the seat of our pants, because even singularities are subject to Occam's Razor, thus the path of least resistance. If not, then the razor is feable at best, but crippled at worst.

 

What I find fascinating at times, is that a concept such as mechanical gravity arises when examining issues such as propulsion. I first encountered it when looking at the "glue" holding stars together. At the moment of fusion, gravitational force reverses because it is is overwhelmed by the atomic forces designed to do exactly that at millions of degrees C., unless, perhaps, a graviton is collectively a force stronger than electromagnetism. We know that is not true. A billion splattered atoms can't be wrong.

 

On the other hand, a particle with inifnite range, such as the graviton, especially as an inbound stream, would be unaffected by such high heat (though not vice versa) and the force it generates because the infinite range, requiring the potentially inifite velocity, is a jugernaut compared to the force of a single boson, or even a domino-train-like string of bosons, because the boson is finite opposed to the collective string of gravitons, approaching infinite velocity. One needs to remember that a star, even though vast compared to us or a single atomic particle, is but a speck compared to the force available to an infinite universe, both material and potentially material.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Temporocitor

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

Thread moved to Speculations, where it might belong if the original poster follows the forum rules and posts actual evidence to their claims. Or religion.

Either way, some evidence and substantiation is required, as opposed to blindly misrepresenting a well-established theory

You should revisit your basic physics books, Temporocitor. Also, please read our rules.

[tar]

Mooey,

 

Don't mind at all, this being in speculaltions. It is where it should be. But Temporocitor and Fatio and TAR2 all have had the same intuition, and I see no harm in once again going over it, to understand why it could not be the case.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Temporocitor]

!

Moderator Note

Thread moved to Speculations, where it might belong if the original poster follows the forum rules and posts actual evidence to their claims. Or religion.

 

Either way, some evidence and substantiation is required, as opposed to blindly misrepresenting a well-established theory

 

You should revisit your basic physics books, Temporocitor. Also, please read our rules.

 

I think you shouldn't be a moderator, mooypoo. I challenge you to provide a more accurate CAUSE of gravity.

 

Oh what's the use...

[Tres Juicy]

I think you shouldn't be a moderator, mooypoo. I challenge you to provide a more accurate CAUSE of gravity.

 

Oh what's the use...

 

 

Briefly, in 1 paragraph explain your "cause" of gravity and back it up with some evidence.

 

Also explain why your hypothesis is better than currently accepted science.

 

Edit: Mooey does not need to supply you with any information as that has already been done by established science over many years.

 

The balance is restored

Edited April 17, 2012 by Tres Juicy

[Temporocitor]

I think that LQG is where the paradox of conflicting forces rears its ugly head.

 

 

The force field, as shown above, could easily act as star birth in reverse. If a dipolar stellar field were to split into two opposing fields, the reverse of plasma jets, as would be seen in the star's initial birth, may have inverted, so gravitons and other higher order particles would radiate from the star's equator.

 

 

The above depicts stellar matter, whether born of contracted intergallactic hydrogen or anihilated older stars, flowing into the star normal to the axis. I've overlaid the Hubble image with graphics to depict energy flow and the polar lines of force. Whether gravity is quantum or relativistic or mechanical, certainly an anamoly of gravitational force manifests the accretion force(s). If a black hole evaporates, this is a likely mechanism (there's that "mechanic" word again...) that results from a reversible work process.

 

Briefly, in 1 paragraph explain your "cause" of gravity and back it up with some evidence.

 

Also explain why your hypothesis is better than currently accepted science.

 

Edit: Mooey does not need to supply you with any information as that has already been done by established science over many years.

 

The balance is restored

 

Balance to what? So-called scientifics can draw a breath of relief because you defended their lack of imagination? Mooeypoo won't offer a CAUSE of gravity any more than you can.

 

As for this theory being better, I think that would only emerge through discussion with people who actually know a bit about Netwon and what he thought.

 

I find it INSULTING that this thread was moved. I think that was done out of obstinance if not blatant ignorance of the historical value, let alone lack of imagination. If Faraday had been that unimaginative, we'd be making feeble attempts to communicate over the "candlenet."

[mississippichem]

If mooeypoo hadn't have moved this to speculations I or someone else would have so let's just drop that one please.

 

Temporocitor, do you realize that everything you've posted in this thread is nonsensical?

 

Please take the time time to learn how physics is properly argued. That is, with math and experimental evidence.

 

You have posted a sermon instead.

Edited April 17, 2012 by mississippichem

[Klaynos]

I think you shouldn't be a moderator, mooypoo. I challenge you to provide a more accurate CAUSE of gravity.

 

Oh what's the use...

 

!

Moderator Note

That isn't how things work. You make a claim YOU need to back it up. Read our rules. Read the speculation forum specific rules.

 

Do NOT reply to this modnote.

[Temporocitor]

It was closer to 1995 when I was able to crunch enough numbers to actually believe that gravity from within matter cannot endure heat even in the range of 100,000 deg C., let alone 10,000,000. (There are no lnks to corroborate this, although I find it hard to believe that every (any?) physicist out there can perfectly balance all the Special Equations of State as they pertain to stellar gravitation and result in fusion.) The result is a runaway imbalance of neutrinos, thus the star disintegrates, leaving a body of neutrons, while any protonic and electronic matter propels outward.

 

That is simply the reason I began looking in other directions (no pun intended) for stellar mechanics that defeated this quandary. The rest of this is what started making sense around 2000, then in 2004 or 2005 I found some of the concepts of LeSage and Fatio, but only recently these articles that pretty much convinced me Newton allowed religion to mandate his scientific thinking.

 

___________________________________________________________________________

 

Nobody can prove or even evidence the cause of gravity as of current technology. I can see why though: Most of the so-called scientific minds one encounters on the net are only accomplished in the idiot art of spreading hatred. No imagination that's worth 2 cents; just jealousy, jealousy, jealousy that becomes and purveys hatred and ignorance. Have fun with that, but I've been experimenting with magnetism, light, gravity and time for longer than most you have been alive.

 

Show me evidence of any elementary, weak particle that can withstand 10,000,000 deg C.

[mooeypoo]

Mooey,

 

Don't mind at all, this being in speculaltions. It is where it should be. But Temporocitor and Fatio and TAR2 all have had the same intuition, and I see no harm in once again going over it, to understand why it could not be the case.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I'm not sure what you mean. If it wasn't the case, this would've been in the trash can. It's in speculation where it belongs. It's open for discussion.

 

Since it's essentially claiming gravity, a mainstream well-established theory, is wrong, it requires a large dose of substantiation. Also, with due respect, tar, the entire text in the first post is nonsense nonscience. It's mixing subjects of quantum, general relativity and loose subject of gravity, and seems to ignore quite a large amount of known knowledge to make the point that "we don't know".

 

 

It's open and up for discussion, but the thread really needs to follow the rules. If this was an attempt to get something philosophical, then rephrase the premise (instead of challenging the theory itself, ou can challenge the philosophical principles) get rid of the religious aspect, and post it in philosophy. But it was posted in mainstream science.

 

It really really isn't.

 

 

 

 

We're not here to discuss me, we're here to discuss the theory, according to our rules. I'm sorry it offended you that we moved your thread to speculations. It wasn't done to offend you, it was done 'cause that's our rules.

 

So far, your answers were either asking *us* to prove the theory for you, requesting for weird evidence from us, or misrepresenting the theory you claim is wrong.

 

If your only defense for your theory is that I'm a bad moderator, then my "qualifications" aren't really the problem.

[Arete]

...

 

Take a xanax?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....lth/PMH0000807/

 

"Alprazolam is used to treat anxiety disorders and panic disorder (sudden, unexpected attacks of extreme fear and worry about these attacks). Alprazolam is in a class of medications called benzodiazepines. It works by decreasing abnormal excitement in the brain."

Edited April 17, 2012 by Arete

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think this thread is done.