Was Isaac Newton wrong

[Skins]

I watched a science documentary that suggested that "gravity may be an illusion" and argued a case that entropy could be a possible cause of what we consider is gravity and effect of gravity could be a cause rather than a fundamental law as suggested by Newton. In the argument are some good cases were put forward such as LIGO has been looking for a gravity wave for ten years and has not found one (apparently it has discovered the chirping of crickets).

 

It made me think. Let's suggest there is no such thing as gravity. Now consider that space has many of the properties of liquid. It transmits waves, light etc. It is expanding and hence flexible and according to Einstein space - time can be stretched and I believe this.

 

Now instead of considering that matter is attracted to matter what if matter acted more like a plug hole and the fabric of space - time was more like water.

 

When you pull the plug out of a basin the still water flows into the hole causing a distortion in the water, the edge of the whirl pool is very much like the event horizon on a black hole.

 

Now what it matter acted very much like that with space. Instead of a plug hole in the basin consider a cricket ball or just a spherical shape that space flows into from all three (or four if you include time) dimensions. But the ball never fills and space continually flows into it. This would still create the time-space curvature around an object as predicted by Einstein.

 

This space-time curvature is always curved towards the matter but from all dimensions. While I am suggesting this I am thinking of a large object such as the earth. Consider what effect this would have on the moon. It would still circle in the curvature of space without the need for gravity. This would not violate any laws such as F=G m1.m2

d²

 

It may be that the constant in this formula is relative to the curve of space.

 

Since gravity waves have still not ever been measured there is no concrete evidence that gravity actually exists and it may be an effect from another action occurring. I don't think this idea is so outlandish.

 

I think Einstein's theory of relativity would also hold true. So that moving through space would also cause a displacement of time.

 

Does the apple fall because of gravity or does it fall because there is a curvature of space possibly caused by space flowing into matter. (perhaps space can flow into matter and end up in another dimension or disappear, I don't know where is goes but I am sure there are a lot of people that would suggest there was nothing there to start with so nothing is disappearing)

 

What do others think??

 

 

[swansont]

The Einsteinian curvature of space is gravity. This is not an either/or situation.

[imatfaal]

And the observed behaviour of fast rotating pulsar / binary star pairs fit the predictions of spin rate loss if and only if gravitational waves are being emitted - the system needs to disperse energy if it is to to inspiral in on itself (as is observed) and this can only be explained by gravitational waves. Gravitational waves are well evidenced via secondary observations - it is only in the direct measurement that we are struggling; and gravitational waves are a firm prediction of straight GR

[MigL]

Your model predicts a dependence on the size of the 'plug'.

But gravity, and its associated space-time curvature, is dependent on mass-energy.

[Strange]

Now instead of considering that matter is attracted to matter what if matter acted more like a plug hole and the fabric of space - time was more like water.

 

The Gullstrand-Painlevé metric is a solution to the Einstein Field Equations of General Relativity that describes gravity in pretty much those terms. Here is a non-technical explanation: http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html

 

It may be that the constant in this formula is relative to the curve of space.

 

Well, as G appears in the Einstein Field Equations, it is safe to say it has some connection.

[Skins]

Thanks Strange for the informative reply. I had a read and it was probably non technical enough I could handle it. It is good to see I am not the only one that has thought along this line, and for it to be a Nobel prize winner doesn't make me feel too bad.

 

I was hoping this idea was completely original and while it seems similar I don't think Gullstrand's explanation was one to explain an alternative to gravity, he certainly does argue that space falls into a black hole rather than the notion that space is distorted as a result of the mass of the black hole.

Your model predicts a dependence on the size of the 'plug'.

But gravity, and its associated space-time curvature, is dependent on mass-energy.

 

MigL I don't think my idea has a dependence on the size of the plug or hole. I do think the size of the plug would be dependent on mass-energy. The more mass-energy the object then the faster is would drain space around it and so the more space time would be distorted around it. No different than current models.

 

By distorting space as the space drains into the matter then other objects within the vicinity would be drawn towards it as a result of the distortion, like water flowing down an incline.

[MigL]

OK sorry for misinterpreting your post.

 

In GR, space-time is simply a co-ordinate system, and as such, it doesn't flow, or move about.

However we can introduce a 'distortion'' or a 'sink', with math, into the model.

Whether you interpret this as a space-time curvature gradient or an actual flow of space-time into the 'sink' probably makes little difference.

[Skins]

Actually the program I watched was "through the wormhole Series 5 episode 7 Is gravity an illusion". It is on youtube. I thought it was a good program if anyone was interested. I have tried to provide a link but wasn't able to.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Skins

[Phi for All]

Actually the program I watched was "through the wormhole Series 5 episode 7 Is gravity an illusion".

 

You completely missed the question mark at the end. If you'd seen that, you'd have known to invoke Betteridge's Law.

[Skins]

 

You completely missed the question mark at the end. If you'd seen that, you'd have known to invoke Betteridge's Law.

 

You're right I did. And if I did know Betteridge's law then it may have been a Freudian slip but I didn't and thx for enlightening me.

 

I feel a bit like I am just climbing out of the primordial soup compared with the understanding you guys have got. But thx for persevering with me in what is likely to be infrequent input.

 

This was a good program and it was enough to get me thinking and until gravity waves are confirmed nothing is set in stone so posing alternative lines of thought is still an option on gravity.

 

Based on Betteridge's law I should have put a question mark at the end of the topic heading.

[Phi for All]

I feel a bit like I am just climbing out of the primordial soup compared with the understanding you guys have got. But thx for persevering with me in what is likely to be infrequent input.

 

I was really just talking about the video program title (Is Gravity an Illusion?). I can't believe I missed the one in the title of your thread. I can fix that if you like.

 

The vast majority (I usually mean 75%+ when I use the term) of people who come here with speculative ideas that contradict mainstream science are adamant about their claims. They start threads like this, BUT, they make assertions, they state that this is really the way things are.

 

You didn't do that. You explained your thought process, you posed some conditions, you asked questions, you sought advice.

 

You get a whole different experience here when you do that, I've noticed. People stop just demanding you provide evidence for your assertions, and they work to help get you out of the soup instead.

 

Thanks for being open to the rigors of scientific criticism.

[studiot]

 

The vast majority (I usually mean 75%+ when I use the term) of people who come here with speculative ideas that contradict mainstream science are adamant about their claims. They start threads like this, BUT, they make assertions, they state that this is really the way things are.

 

You didn't do that. You explained your thought process, you posed some conditions, you asked questions, you sought advice.

 

You get a whole different experience here when you do that, I've noticed. People stop just demanding you provide evidence for your assertions, and they work to help get you out of the soup instead.

 

Thanks for being open to the rigors of scientific criticism.

 

 

It is Christmas after all. +1

 

[Skins]

 

I was really just talking about the video program title (Is Gravity an Illusion?). I can't believe I missed the one in the title of your thread. I can fix that if you like.

 

Thx. I'm happy with a question on the title, and thx for the kind words. I would like to think a few people that visit this site think outside the box. I'm certainly one of them.

 

I have got a question. Is there any evidence the Higgs Boson actually mediates gravity or is it still conjecture. I know when they discovered it, it was declared the god particle that was the solution for gravity but is that concrete.

[Strange]

I have got a question. Is there any evidence the Higgs Boson actually mediates gravity or is it still conjecture. I know when they discovered it, it was declared the god particle that was the solution for gravity but is that concrete.

 

The Higgs doesn't mediate gravity (that would be the graviton, which is still purely hypothetical). What it does it give mass to (some) particles.

 

It is called the "god particle" because of a moronic marketing decision by a book publisher. (The author wanted to call his book "The Goddamn Particle" because it was proving so hard to find. The pathetic publisher apparently thought this might offend people and changed it.)

[Phi for All]

I would like to think a few people that visit this site think outside the box. I'm certainly one of them.

 

People say this, but it's pretty irrational, actually. It doesn't work this way at all.

 

You need to know what's inside the box before you could successfully think outside it, right? Right? What you're saying by using this phrase is that you make guesses about things you don't know much about.

 

It takes a true expert in the field to think outside the box, but our culture has mistakenly made it seem like anyone who can think can do it.

[MigL]

What, no Christmas presents for the rest of us, Studiot ?

"Bah, Humbug !"

Edited December 4, 2015 by MigL

[DevilSolution]

 

People say this, but it's pretty irrational, actually. It doesn't work this way at all.

 

You need to know what's inside the box before you could successfully think outside it, right? Right? What you're saying by using this phrase is that you make guesses about things you don't know much about.

 

It takes a true expert in the field to think outside the box, but our culture has mistakenly made it seem like anyone who can think can do it.

 

Sometimes they get trapped though, and need a little if misguided inspiration from the box they have found themselves stuck in.

 

The more you distil a belief upon someone the stronger it becomes, to the point they wont accept any other truth.

 

We sit in a box, watching a box while typing into a box.

 

Anyone who's able to think in abstract terms has the inclination to think outside the box. Thereby defining exactly what the box is.

Edited December 4, 2015 by DevilSolution

[imatfaal]

 

Sometimes they get trapped though, and need a little if misguided inspiration from the box they have found themselves stuck in.

 

The more you distil a belief upon someone the stronger it becomes, to the point they wont accept any other truth.

 

We sit in a box, watching a box while typing into a box.

 

Anyone who's able to think in abstract terms has the inclination to think outside the box. Thereby defining exactly what the box is.

 

We are a long way from whether Isaac Newton was wrong - but I am certain that you are.

 

Firstly "the box" as a concept is a nightmare when applied to a rigorous academic discipline; it is easy to work and think outside the box in TV-programme conceptualization and other areas needing "blue-sky thinking" - but in Physics, in Philosophy, in Psychology, and Pure Mathematics the entire notion becomes meaningless and counter-productive. These topics are so mind-numblingly vast, so tortuously complex, and so beyond simple human encapsulation that the notion of a box, of any limit to knowledge, of even a clearly defined boundary merely demonstrates a lack of comprehension in the promoter of "thinking outside the box". I think of it as if someone who had been shown a chess set and has been told it is a game who then reprimands Kasparov for not learning to juggle with the pawns.

 

Secondly the clarion call "to think outside the box" is hugely insulting to working researchers and academics. If there had been any interaction between those calling for "thinking outside the box" and those who are actually actively researching in industry or academe (or personally motivated) then there would be a sudden realisation of the flights of imagination of the working Physicist, of the daring insight and neglect of obvious everyday solutions of the Mathematician, of the refusal by Psychologists to limit the scope of their investigations and to accept given facts on society and humanity, and of the openness of Philosophers to internal contradiction, to new thinking and new methods of analysis. To condemn academic researchers as dull and leaden without even scratching the surface of what they have done, what they do, and their dreams of future action is an act of hubris of the highest order. Take a look at what some of the individual academics on this site and other websites actually do when they are not teaching - it is mind-blowing!

 

Yes we do need imagination and daring insight - but we already have it in vast amounts in our universities and research establishments around the world. And yes we do need to ensure we do not become entrenched in staid and dogmatic thinking - but the academy has always shown that it is at the forefront of new thought; it is politics, religion, and the media who cleave to the past and refuse to admit to the benefits of progress and the possibility of sea-changes.

[swansont]

I would like to think a few people that visit this site think outside the box. I'm certainly one of them.

 

A problem here is that in many cases, "Think outside the box" is merely shorthand for not being burdened by the restrictions of well-established science. IOW, not having your idea reflect (or be reflected by) reality, which is one thing that distinguishes science from daydreaming.

[Skins]

You guys are funny. I suggest an alternative theory on gravity and get a couple of comments then I mention thinking outside the box and all of a sudden the philosophers in you can't resist the topic. This is as much a philosophers forum as it is a science forum. I've learnt about Betteridge's Law and not to mention the term thinking outside the box. That's enough of a start.

Thx

[Phi for All]

You guys are funny. I suggest an alternative theory on gravity and get a couple of comments then I mention thinking outside the box and all of a sudden the philosophers in you can't resist the topic. This is as much a philosophers forum as it is a science forum. I've learnt about Betteridge's Law and not to mention the term thinking outside the box. That's enough of a start.

Thx

 

We ARE funny. We're like Smokey the Bear trying to stamp out forest fires before they get out of hand. We're stamping hard on you because you've shown a different side than most speculators, a willingness to learn. Your mistakes in your alternative hypothesis were easy to correct.

 

This, however, is not a simple correction. This concept of "thinking outside the box" is not a school kid getting a bad mark, it's more like that school kid is walking to school and decides to take the route through the dark tunnel that leads into the endless forest. The path to The Dark Side.

 

The perception that you can somehow magically think of something that a professional has overlooked is REALLY appealing. As swansont mentions, it means you're unburdened by the restrictions of current understanding. You feel like you don't need to learn as much as anyone else, because you're special and can use your unburdened thoughts to reach conclusions people who've studied MUCH more than you could never reach.

 

I recommend you re-read what imatfaal said last as well. I want to make that post a sticky, because it highlights so many of the misconceptions related to "the box".

[DevilSolution]

 

We ARE funny. We're like Smokey the Bear trying to stamp out forest fires before they get out of hand. We're stamping hard on you because you've shown a different side than most speculators, a willingness to learn. Your mistakes in your alternative hypothesis were easy to correct.

 

This, however, is not a simple correction. This concept of "thinking outside the box" is not a school kid getting a bad mark, it's more like that school kid is walking to school and decides to take the route through the dark tunnel that leads into the endless forest. The path to The Dark Side.

 

The perception that you can somehow magically think of something that a professional has overlooked is REALLY appealing. As swansont mentions, it means you're unburdened by the restrictions of current understanding. You feel like you don't need to learn as much as anyone else, because you're special and can use your unburdened thoughts to reach conclusions people who've studied MUCH more than you could never reach.

 

I recommend you re-read what imatfaal said last as well. I want to make that post a sticky, because it highlights so many of the misconceptions related to "the box".

 

Pretty dramatic response to free thinkers, my post wasn't meant to offend anyone, i think its a pretty accurate representation of the truth. I wasnt being specific.

 

If you look at any establishment its usually embellished within itself or perhaps tunnel vision is a better way of describing it, a politician cares for politics not science or understanding, a scientist cares for maths of nature, a philosopher cares only to think, an actor acts...Each discipline or sub discipline constrains tighter and tighter rules on what is and isnt allowed (or true) such as a politician cant get drunk in public.

 

To expand on that, eventually after many years of learning and understanding, whatever it is that you've learned then becomes distilled as fact. History is a great a example, if you study history to high level, degree or above, then you will take what you have learn as being fact. Someone thinking outside the history box might question why japan would attack pearl harbour for example, when you actually look at it, why would they? if they were going to be involved in the war (and were already in the midst of a land grab with china) why would they then attack the worlds most powerful nation? now ask a student of history and they will tell you exact dates and that they needed to get to the dutch east indies and such but when you sit back an analyse the information it doesnt add up. Atleast not to me a non historian. But thats from a non historians perspective, I ovcourse dont have dates and names so by extension what i have to say really amounts to nothing in the historians eyes. In all fairness it may amount to nothing anyway BUT if i were to explain the thinking to them, it was fall on deaf ears because they have the facts.

 

Now im not trying to say history is false or Einsteins theories are false, im simply showing how someone in the box are just that, in the box, To think outside the box you must abstract what you know and then apply logic to it. Which is precisely how i previously defined it. Anyone capable of abstract thinking has the ability to think outside the box, be able to make obscure assumptions or relationships that people without that ability will never comprehend. And its people like Einstein who did that, he took what was at the time a fact of science and changed it into what it is now using abstract thinking. He completely re-invented parts of science.

 

I dont or havent claimed that people without that ability or people who dont care for that ability are any less intelligent or highly capable, but they will always fit inside that box. And then there are some who with a little nudge or push in the right direction could actually access idea's and concepts they didnt think they would be able to understand and from there they can build their own new idea's.

 

If you want to define everyone who claims to "think outside the box" as people with less knowledge that come say a science forum and claim to have a ToE or to have solved some unsolved problem within science then i can perfectly understand. Everyone would likes to invent the wheel. and we know we know the wheel already exists but to them, its like unravelling some truth.

 

I dont claim to be an abstract thinker or a scientist so i know where i stand, i simply want answers to questions. Sometimes an answer leads to a question to another answer etc

[Phi for All]

If you want to define everyone who claims to "think outside the box" as people with less knowledge that come say a science forum and claim to have a ToE or to have solved some unsolved problem within science then i can perfectly understand.

 

Could be the lack of sleep, but your "perfect understanding" is wrong. That's not how I want to define anyone who claims to think outside the box. I quite clearly said that it takes someone with quite a bit of knowledge ABOUT the box to think outside it. And as imatfaal mentions, TOtB is not as readily applicable in science as it is in fields where creativity is needed for problem-solving.

[Skins]

And the observed behaviour of fast rotating pulsar / binary star pairs fit the predictions of spin rate loss if and only if gravitational waves are being emitted - the system needs to disperse energy if it is to to inspiral in on itself (as is observed) and this can only be explained by gravitational waves. Gravitational waves are well evidenced via secondary observations - it is only in the direct measurement that we are struggling; and gravitational waves are a firm prediction of straight GR

 

 

 

We ARE funny. We're like Smokey the Bear trying to stamp out forest fires before they get out of hand. We're stamping hard on you because you've shown a different side than most speculators, a willingness to learn. Your mistakes in your alternative hypothesis were easy to correct.

Phi for all. I am willing to learn and I read a range of articles over the net, many of them go over my head. I can tell you guys work in this academic area and are extremely intelligent and I could read all I like I am not going to have the understanding most of you have but....

 

I presented an alternative and most likely far fetched hypothesis to gravity but only Imatfaal made a suggestion as to why this is not possible but I don't necessarily agree (and that might be because I don't have a good enough understanding of this phenomena). I would suggest that if two objects were close to each other both causing an overlapping distortion in space time then energy would be lost.

 

The earths rotational spin has been slowing for thousands of years and that is thought to be due to the gravitational effect of the moon. What if it was due to the energy required to distort space-time or a frictional coefficient due to the distortion of space-time between the two.

 

I still in no way would contend that my hypothesis is correct but to completely discount it, an argument should not be contestable.

 

So I would suggest that if from the model I presented a ball would not roll down a hill because of gravity but because as space flows into matter then time-space is warped and the ball would be following the contours of space-time which should converge toward the centre of the earth.

 

And as it has been put forward there is plenty of inferred evidence of gravity waves but none have been measured yet and so any inferred evidence may be explained in other terms.

 

I think I am in a great position because I have no credibility to lose in making perhaps outlandish hypothesis', I don't think many of you can do that because you have too much credibility to put on the line.

 

String theory was well maligned when it was first presented and while there is no primary evidence of it, it is well accepted now.

 

My head will start hurting soon but the conversation has been good.

[imatfaal]

 

...To expand on that, eventually after many years of learning and understanding, whatever it is that you've learned then becomes distilled as fact. History is a great a example, if you study history to high level, degree or above, then you will take what you have learn as being fact. ..

 

This is rubbish - I have studied history (the history of criminal jurisprudence) to a high level and the main thing you learn from a study of history is the contingency of everything and how nothing in society is as factually objective as one might wish. There are papers and papers written about this very topic - my research was a discourse analysis of the criminal confession - and the take home message is that even with highly documented areas of history there is very little agreement on what actually happened but a lot of people telling what they would like you to believe happened.