Gravity could still be a pushing force

[MigL]

Really, John C., how dare you inject a modicum of common sense and knowledge into this fairy tale that these ' gravity pushes' adherents are peddling,

Don't you know that their unsupported statements are more valid than your statements supported by accepted scientific facts ?

 

Really, when I need a good laugh, I read the speculations forum. Its better than reading Lewis Carroll, nothing makes sense. And they cannot be convinced.

[John Cuthber]

I was particularly amused by "Greetings from Florida (but no greetings to germany)", even more so, given the circumstances.

But my intent is just to put forward the reasons why these outlandish ideas are plainly wrong.

For example this idea was proved wrong by Cavendish hundreds of years ago.

[kristalris]

That's not the issue. It's defending them after the ideas have been shown to be wrong.

On the topic push or pull I agree that the membrane idea (to comply to the 3rd law of Newton) is extremely improbable and thus falsified on a reasonable norm.

A quick recap of a few arguments:

If gravity is a push, what is the source of the push? It has to be far away, since gravity has an infinite range.

So given push as the to be tested hypothesis out of the OP the most probable way that then can be facilitated is by assuming an infinite space filled with an infinite amount of stuff (i.e. particles) that is/are hitting each other and thus providing pressure. The mathematics of which can be taken by seeing any larger part of the universe as a box with infinitely thick walls. That complies then to Newton, now doesn't it? No membrane needed thus.

Not only that, since I'm on a rotating planet, the source has to be moving infinitely fast to stay above me.

No it doesn't. There are other probable possibilities to be considered. If the Higgs field is a continuum of sorts filled with lumps (i.e. hidden un-split-table variables/ actual atoms) with mass (not exerting gravity but causing it) in an observed (at least) super conductive way, whereby the continuums "atoms" are as such un-spun and the observed SM are spiraling and spinning through that continuum, then it doesn't have to travel faster. And if the Higgs field adds / gives mass to matter (= stuff that exerts gravity) what will the laws of Newton then say happens to that matter traveling through the continuum?

 

edit: what would happen according to Newton if a railway cart is on a slope hiting away logs on the track and traveling at constant speed when you add the logs to the cart? (the slope simulates (at least) super conductivity)

As JC asked, what am I pushing against, since forces act in pairs? Then there was the failed prediction of tides, because Popcorn's model apparently had shielding in it.

 

These are failures of the model. You cannot validly claim it is "already proven by experiments and observations"

I agree his model fails, yet seeing it as push conflicts in no way with current science either. (I.e. you can always describe a movement mathematically accurately as push or pull if you like, depending on the scope that you take into account, as has been pointed out in this thread earlier on.)

 

Pull is believing in magic, if you address all problems, but will suffice if you only look at part of the problem to address say the tides. Physics at the moment only wants to look at part of the problem. That's alright, as long as you then don't pose argument on larger issues. If you state a position you must prove it. The norm in that respect should be verbal logic in first instance, when it is a given that you are addressing a problem whether or not the universe is infinite. What you need to address if you want to deal with the OP. You must learn to crawl before you can run. I.e. if you look at all the observations and address all relevant questions than there is only one by far most probable way to marry it all to current science: it's push.

Edited April 16, 2013 by kristalris

[pwagen]

So given push as the to be tested hypothesis out of the OP the most probable way that then can be facilitated is by assuming an infinite space filled with an infinite amount of stuff (i.e. particles) that is/are hitting each other and thus providing pressure. The mathematics of which can be taken by seeing any larger part of the universe as a box with infinitely thick walls. That complies then to Newton, now doesn't it?

Then why is gravity increased near heavy objects, if objects produce pressure? Shouldn't I be thrown off?

[kristalris]

Then why is gravity increased near heavy objects, if objects produce pressure? Shouldn't I be thrown off?

Not if you assume that it (matter) collects the mass out of the continuum (like a little black hole). It thus causes an under-pressure in the continuum perceived as gravity. The more mass the more gravity exerted on its environment. Exactly what we observe. i.e. spinning mass collects un spun mass out of the Higgs field. Hence the perceived something from nothing illusion.

 

In part it is probably thrown off and in part collected. A 3 D game of super conductive billiards. And you can assume the spinning mass to be in strings (several lumps spinning and forming a string) that spiral. Edit 3: Spiral in the horizontal plane is measured as spin 1 and counter clock wise spin 1/2 and in the vertical measured as 0 or something along those lines (a photon must be made up out of two interlocked counter rotating spirals because it can travel in a straight line. Hence then measured spin 0, I guess)). The spin I'm talking about (for want of no other way to verbally describe it) is the spin of a toy gyro around its own axis that can wobble out in a rotational way when the point of rotation is outside its center. Yet perceived 3 D it is if you could observe it passing by a spiral and traveling with it a sphere when in spin rotation (i.e. partly un-spun). Edit 3b: bear in mind that the measurement of spin (1, 1/2 or 0) is done whilst the earth is turning and spiraling around the sun, whilst turning around the center of our galaxy (+/- 100.000 km/h) and the galaxy as a whole also accelerating through the continuum. This will cause inherent measurement problems and make a difference whether something is turning to the left or to the right relative to the observer. So the simple act of turning the same quantum spiraling object upside down will on average change the outcome of several parameters that can be measured. Or at least that is to be assumed.

 

If two spirals hit head on it is a matter anti matter collision. If they are married and interlocked they form a super symmetric pair and move in a straight line through the continuum of the Higgs field. Otherwise they either spiral to the left or right (boson / fermion? Lepton?.)

 

Edit 2: if no Higgs field would be present then all lumps would fly absolutely straight and their respective speed dependent on the amount of spin. The energy would remain the same. To become un-spun it needs the Higgs field as an at least super conductive railway track, of sorts. (Then the question is: what sort of track could it be to cause a waving motion? & The question where does the spin come from? & The question where is the more order than current science can explain come from?)

 

Edit: and thus this makes QM consistent with Newton and Newton consistent with GR. No conflict whatsoever.

Edited April 16, 2013 by kristalris

[Popcorn Sutton]

Let me explain why I used the term membrane. I probably should've used the word parameter instead. It seems to me that usually the center of gravitation for all orbiting systems require a unit with more energy at the center, and if it has observable mass, then it is not the real center of gravitation. If you trace all these surreal centers of gravitation back to their origin, you'll find something so energetic that it can't have mass. This is basically necessity for something like recognition to occur. Furthermore, how could you recognize without having a substance that will react to the energetic fluctuations. There must be a substance, all known substances have a parameter. Usually the outermost parameter of the point of interest is the least observably energetic, which is often followed by at least one other unit with a separate point that has mass, but it doesn't take the form of a substance, and it's usually solid. This is the second parameter (and hence, part of the membrane), and it continues outward until the outermost ridge where one energetic point of interest is either matched or superseded by the energy of the next point of interest. Recognition occurs when the shape of these points are altered. If gravity is a pushing force, then there will be a noticeable change in the "gravitational" effects of the origin on the point of interest when the shape of the origin is altered.

 

Furthermore, the most energetic and free unit in the system is absolute and necessary to convert minimal units to maximally recognizable occurrences. I call it the mind, among other things.

 

Also, I don't know if I've proposed this in these forums yet, but the one thing that I can think of that travels faster than the speed of light is spatial vibrations. It moves everything between two points.

 

So technically, under these assumptions, you can tell if something is going to hit the planet by watching the geological activity because the space would be pushing at that point. Taking it a step further, maybe all geological activity is actually a result of changes in position of material surrounding the planet. If something sudden was to happen, it would cause an earthquake or something along those lines. Tornados could be space twisting at those points.

[md65536]

Let me explain why I used the term membrane. I probably should've used the word parameter instead. [...] This is the second parameter (and hence, part of the membrane), and it continues outward until the outermost ridge where one energetic point of interest is either matched or superseded by the energy of the next point of interest.

So to explain "membrane", you switch to a new term "parameter", use it as if it's a thing without explaining what it is, but still use "membrane" along with some other undefined terms that seem to be added in too. And instead of explaining previously made claims, you just pile on new ones! No worry that this speculation on gravity doesn't explain gravity, it could also explain all geological activity!

 

I'm glad you're not daunted by people who say they come to the forums to laugh at people. If you're trolling, well done. Personally I think it's terrible that all the energy around here goes into fighting the people who don't give up on a bad argument, and none goes into encouraging scientific imagination in those who do. Those who would be put off by someone laughing at their ideas are encouraged to stay away, or to not even bother trying to think of scientific ideas.

[Bignose]

Also, I don't know if I've proposed this in these forums yet, but the one thing that I can think of that travels faster than the speed of light is spatial vibrations. It moves everything between two points.

I think you'll find that vibrations are also limited to the speed of light. If you had a solid rod in Houston and the other end on the ISS, and Houston smacked their end with a hammer (i.e. made lots of vibrations), the ISS would not register them any faster than the speed of light, and actually significantly slower than c.

 

md65536, on 16 Apr 2013 - 11:40, said:

Personally I think it's terrible that all the energy around here goes into fighting the people who don't give up on a bad argument, and none goes into encouraging scientific imagination in those who do. Those who would be put off by someone laughing at their ideas are encouraged to stay away, or to not even bother trying to think of scientific ideas.

'None' is an awfully strong word used here. You have to admit that it gets tiresome 'encouraging' people when they refuse to listen to any kind of reason or known verified results.

 

As I wrote in the thread on why speculations are so popular -- science needs new ideas. Craves them. Hungers for them.

 

But to do science requires that you follow scientific rules. And when someone's new idea conflicts with data that is already known, that means the idea is flawed. But so, so, so often people don't want to hear that.

 

A relatively recent example:

 

Person A doesn't believe in quarks and proposes something different. I say, "that's fine, but use your model to re-create the classic Briedenbach 3-point-like body experiment wherein quarks were first experimentally verified"... and nothing. Again, science craves new ideas! We know for sure our current models are at least incomplete, if not dead wrong! But, unless you can come up with awfully convincing reasons that Briendenbach's and all the subsequent quark-verifying experiments were falsisifed or wrong.... that data is out there. So the proposed different-than-quarks model has to be able to recreate the known data the quark model creates today.

 

Really, I think the best example of this is general relativity and Newtonian mechanics. GR is an improvement over Newtonian mechanics, but it doesn't just destroy Newtonian mechanics. In fact, in the right limits, the predictions GR makes are identical to Newtonian mechanics. GR, as the improvement, predicted everything Newtonian mechanics predicts and then some. If someday a better GR is created -- call it super general relativity (SGR) -- then it too will have to continue to make the same really quite good predictions GR makes. See, for example, this paper: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/

 

So, to wrap this up... it gets hard to continue to 'encourage' people when they refuse to accept the above. It gets hard to 'encourage' people when their idea is not immediately awarded a Nobel prize. It gets hard to 'encourage' people when flaws are pointed out and they snap back that you must be part of the religious-scientific-military-industrial-unicorn cult. It is hard to 'encourage' when upon having a flaw pointed out, they just throw some more scientific sounding buzzwords into a nonsensical phrase and act like that solves everything.

 

When the speculators don't fell like any kind of rules apply to them, 'encouragement' will easy fall through the cracks.

 

In the end, science is actually quite, quite easy: the model that makes the most accurate predictions win. End of story. If you don't like the current model, show how your model makes more and better predictions than the current one. Done. 'Encouragement' really has nothing to do with that at all... except to encourage speculators to actually make predictions and show how they are better than the current model predictions.

 

I can honestly say, I have never seen a single thread get to that point in this section. Never.

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

So, I guess really, regarding this thread then:

 

Popcorn Sutton. Demonstrate that your pushing model of gravity makes better predictions than the current attraction model. If you can do that, then you may have something. If you can't, then your idea is story telling, fiction, and a forum favorite non sequitur: word salad.

 

This is not personal, nor do I think it is unencouraging to arrive at that conclusion. Every single scientist has made mistakes. The good scientist goes back and revises until their model is better than any other one out there. Or concedes that their model isn't better than the current one. Again, no shame in that. If your model doesn't make better predictions, then it doesn't make better predictions. That's all there is to it.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Bignose

[Ophiolite]

Thank you BigNose. That saves me a bunch of work.

 

Popcorn Sutton, what drives you to be so seriously wrong? I'm intrigued.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Ophiolite

[Popcorn Sutton]

You can't say something like that without justifying it. I troll because I'm a troll. It's not a bad thing though. I'm wrong when I'm wrong because that is what helps us reach a better understanding. I don't intentionally say things that are wrong. I provided an equation to put a numerical value on the tension between two points, thats a prediction there, and yet, no one had said a word about it. Isn't that against the rules?

 

G = P(u|o)*m(u)/ir^2

 

I might want to change up a variable or two but there is your prediction guys. It does what GR does and more.

 

Gravity is equal to the probability of a unit given the origin times the mass of the unit divided by the radius squared multiplied by the imaginary number to make it a negative tension between the two points.

[Bignose]

In part I agree. Yet in part not. It is not about encouraging people, but about application of incorrect norms. The norm of perfection is an incorrect norm for the furtherance of scientific knowledge.

Where did perfection come from? I didn't say perfection. I said a model that proposes to supercede another one has to make more and better predictions than the one it wants to supercede. That doesn't equal perfection.

 

Science is ultimately conservative, because it doesn't support anything that doesn't have evidence.

 

E.g. you talk about faster than c speeds. Ok, demonstrate it. It hasn't been demonstrated before. Same thing with your ideas about quarks, and all that other stuff. Demonstrate it. I'm certainly not just taking your word on it, no matter how logical it seems to you. At one point in the history of mankind it was logical that the Earth was flat and the moon was made of cheese. Logic alone is insufficient.

 

You can't say something like that without justifying it. I troll because I'm a troll. It's not a bad thing though. I'm wrong when I'm wrong because that is what helps us reach a better understanding. I don't intentionally say things that are wrong. I provided an equation to put a numerical value on the tension between two points, thats a prediction there, and yet, no one had said a word about it. Isn't that against the rules?

 

G = P(u|o)*m(u)/ir^2

 

I might want to change up a variable or two but there is your prediction guys. It does what GR does and more.

 

Gravity is equal to the probability of a unit given the origin times the mass of the unit divided by the radius squared multiplied by the imaginary number to make it a negative tension between the two points.

Great. Demonstrate this equation makes better predictions than the equation we use today. Just throwing out an equation alone isn't worthy very much at all. Make a plot showing measured value, the predictions made with the mainstream formula and your formula.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Ok. But I feel I need to point a few things out. Relativity is assumed in the equation, meaning that the mass of the unit causing the tension between the two points is relative to a known unit. So if a baseball is measured, and the relative unit is a helium atom, then if the baseball is exactly the mass of 10 million helium atoms, then the mass of the baseball is 10 million [helium atoms].

[John Cuthber]

Ok. But I feel I need to point a few things out. Relativity is assumed in the equation, meaning that the mass of the unit causing the tension between the two points is relative to a known unit. So if a baseball is measured, and the relative unit is a helium atom, then if the baseball is exactly the mass of 10 million helium atoms, then the mass of the baseball is 10 million [helium atoms].

That's not a problem. Now, please demonstrate how your formula does a better job than the conventional one.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

OT discussion on entanglement and non-mainstream gravity has been split http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/74379-mod-thinks-this-has-to-do-with-relativity-and-entanglement-split-from-pushing-gravity/

[ydoaPs]

G = P(u|o)*m(u)/ir^2

 

I might want to change up a variable or two but there is your prediction guys. It does what GR does and more.

 

Gravity is equal to the probability of a unit given the origin times the mass of the unit divided by the radius squared multiplied by the imaginary number to make it a negative tension between the two points.

This is complete gibberish.

 

First, your conditional probability in there is meaningless. What's a 'unit'? The probability of the unit doing what, exactly, given the origin? Given what about the origin? Why on earth would this undefined probability be dependent on some undefined thing about an arbitrarily chosen point in space?

 

What does it even mean to multiply a probability by number with a unit?

 

It's generally not accepted to leave imaginary numbers in the denominator, so I'll go ahead and multiply the numerator and denominator by the complex conjugate for you:

 

[latex]G=-P(u|o){\times}\frac{m(u)}{r^2}i[/latex]

 

So, let's do some unit analysis. Your units for gravity are ikg/m² since probabilities are unitless. Yeah, that's not a unit of force. And even if it was, we've got the negative back, so it's not even a pushing force like you wanted.

[Popcorn Sutton]

It's designed to show the linear tension between two points.

 

If you look at it like this, it might make more sense. The question is about the tension caused on earth because of one photon coming from the sun.

 

The probability if one photon is 1, and the mass of a photon relative to a photon is 1. So let me calculate really quick.

 

If thr radius of the earth squared comes out to 10billion photons, then the gravitational tension between the earth and the sun because of one photon comes out to .0000000001G

 

All calculations relative to the photon

[Bignose]

Popcorn Sutton, on 17 Apr 2013 - 09:14, said:

It's designed to show the linear tension between two points.

 

If you look at it like this, it might make more sense. The question is about the tension caused on earth because of one photon coming from the sun.

 

The probability if one photon is 1, and the mass of a photon relative to a photon is 1. So let me calculate really quick.

 

If thr radius of the earth squared comes out to 10billion photons, then the gravitational tension between the earth and the sun because of one photon comes out to .0000000001G

 

All calculations relative to the photon

And how does that prediction compare to measurement and the mainstream formula? You are still just tossing out numbers without any context at all. What you post here in no way demonstrates how well your model compares to the mainstream.

 

I still want that plot of measurement, your prediction, and the mainstream prediction. Your post #87 seemed to indicate that you could do that. Can you? And if so, when?

[Popcorn Sutton]

I don't know if I can. I can definitely draw it out and put it in my drive and link to it, but it's going to be sloppy. I also anticipate changes to the equation. I think that instead of using mass, I might just use length (because of my claim about the shielding effect). So right now, I think the equation will come out to something like this.

 

G = P(u|o)*len(u)/.5(len(poi))^2

 

I'm almost certain it's going to give a constant force though. I might need to add a delta in there to measure the movement of the unit and use that to calculate the variable force. So something like this.

 

G = (P(u|o)*len(u)/.5(len(poi))^2)*(len(poi+space+u)t1)-(len(poi+space+u)t2)

 

This equation should provide a numerical value that would show whether the force is a push or a pull depending on it's movement wrt the poi(point of interest). Another problem is that the gravitational connection between the unit and the poi could be... dare I say... infinitesimally small, so G could only be affecting one neutrino or so depending on it's distance from the poi, but still G would be an accurate and constant numerical representation of the force, but the area affected on the poi might be the entire poi, or an extremely small point. So I'd have to come up with an equation to measure the area affected by G, unless someone else wants to beat me to it.

 

And NB, this is completely 2 dimensional.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[ydoaPs]

If you look at it like this, it might make more sense. The question is about the tension caused on earth because of one photon coming from the sun.

 

The probability if one photon is 1,

The probability of one photon doing, what, exactly?

and the mass of a photon relative to a photon is 1.

4-mass is invariant and photons are massless. Period.

If thr radius of the earth squared comes out to 10billion photons,

Photons don't have spatial extent. Do you mean wavelength? And what's the radius of the Earth got to do with anything? Are we measuring from the photon being at the surface? If so, we can't treat the Earth as a point particle.

then the gravitational tension between the earth and the sun because of one photon comes out to .0000000001G

What do you mean by 'tension'?

[Popcorn Sutton]

See my most recent post for an update. I'm still working out the details. But in regards to your point about photons having no mass, thats off topic. The idea is that the mass (now updated to length) of a photon wrt a photon is 1. Same goes for anything. Earth wrt earth is 1 as well, but photon wrt earth is way less than 1. You can also use the equation for waves, it gives the same result.

 

The probability is incorporated via shrodinger hypothesis. It affects the force exerted on the poi.

[ydoaPs]

Earth wrt earth is 1 as well, but photon wrt earth is way less than 1.

1 what? In a meterstick's reference frame, it's still a meter. I'm still shy of two meters tall in my frame, no the ambiguous '1'.

The probability is incorporated via shrodinger hypothesis. It affects the force exerted on the poi.

So, this is a state vector?

[Popcorn Sutton]

Although I do think that the whole probability thing could be an absurdity because if theres only a 30% chance of a unit being at a certain point, then G would be significantly lower but the point would still exert G.

 

I don't know anything about vectors sorry

 

Consider earth as a unit of measurement. How many earths is earth? 1 is the answer

Edited April 17, 2013 by Popcorn Sutton

[Ophiolite]

I don't know anything about vectors sorry

Then what makes you think you are entitled to pontificate on matters such as these?

[Bignose]

and no one else has a mind prove me wrong

This is what is completely backwards about this thread.

 

We don't need to 'prove you wrong' about your formula up there. We have a good working formula right now. (It really is quite excellent.)

 

If you want our attention, you need to demonstrate that yours is even better.

 

We in no way whatsoever have to 'prove you wrong'. YOU have to provide evidence that what you have is meaningful at all.

[Popcorn Sutton]

The prove me wrong part was in regards to everyone else not having a mind. Sry, I let the beast out for a moment. It was fun while it lasted

 

To further respond on what ophiolite said, this time with sincerity, the reason I'm working with the numbers is because 1 swansont prompted me to do so, 2 defining a numerical value was part of the procedure, and 3, if I'm right, the equation could be useful for predicting atmospheric and terramorphic events.