0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Are you aware of any particles, with or without mass that appear and then disappear? Has something to that effect thus-far been observed?
TheBox, I don't believe there is any way that I can explain my idea that anyone is going to understand at this time. Basically the "void thing" you had concerns about. I cannot prove my point, but it was my contention that void did exist ( I know what a void is), and that the substance I refer to, having substance, would be impelled to occupy the void, however because it already occupies void in its current space it cannot shift position due to it being more difficult to create a new void than to fill one, however interactions (energy) cause voids currently occupied by substance, to become momentarily unoccupied by substance, which basically results in gravitational pull. It is brief and likely wont be understood, and I could be wrong, but there is the idea in a nutshell. I think it is highly possible that gravity has everything to do with the void all substance exists within, and the void that exists with no substance. And when I say "the void all substance exists within" I think that it is fair, if "Time" can be given fundamental quantity, I think I can do the same with "Void".
Let's get back to the plot for a moment.Gravity is adequately defined as either the attractive force between massive objects that is described by F = Gm1m2/r^2 or the warping of spacetime by the presence of a massive object. Since these are the definitions that everyone else uses, there is no point in inventing a new meaning for the word, any more than you might want to redefine "elephant".The interesting questions about gravity include(a) why do we not see a repulsive force, as with electrostatics?
(b) why is gravitational mass apparently identical to inertial mass?
(c) if you move one massive body, how long does it take for the change in its gravitational field to affect another body (i.e. what is the speed of gravity?)
If you can answer any or all of these questions without inventing undetectable substances or particles, you will have made a substantial contribution to human understanding. Otherwise, you are probably wasting your time.Meanwhile, to whet the appetite for a bit of science fiction, you might consider this:The gravitational field behaves mathematically like the photon field, with its inverse square property. So suppose gravity is transmitted by gravitons. What are their properties? Well (1) unlike every other particle, they have negative momentum because instead of pushing the target away from the source, they attract it. And (2) they don't have mass (negative or positive) because the source mass doesn't change with time. So suppose we have a huge source (say the sun) radiating gravitons into space, and we discover a static field that can bend their trajectory through 90 degrees. That means that we have a tractor beam (remember gravitons suck) that can accelerate a spacecraft tangentially to the source without expending energy. So we switch on our graviton bender and the spacecraft accelerates into an increasingly higher orbit. Now dream on.....
.. I was originally going to refer to the Ger as the aether, as I was aware of the aether theory, but was afraid that I may be redefining something that was already defined and I didn't want to step on any toes.
Alan, I believe that the Ger I refer to has possibly been detected already, and possibly named, it can be renamed at anytime, I already assumed that the "ger" would likely be renamed at a later time, but due to my ignorance, I have named it such for clarity within my definition only. Since this ger likely is drawn in by the voids created within mass, of which I have described, and then quickly vacates, it is likely that such an observance has already been made. Are you aware of any particles, with or without mass that appear and then disappear? Has something to that effect thus-far been observed?
Quote from: alancalverd on 27/07/2015 17:15:53(c) if you move one massive body, how long does it take for the change in its gravitational field to affect another body (i.e. what is the speed of gravity?)QuoteThat is the 64 million dollar question.If gravity is regarded as an inflowing, or sink flow medium, and if it is incompressible, frictionless, and under constant pressure, the so-called speed of gravity would be instantaneous. If the sun were to disappear there would be a hydraulic lock at what used to be the center of the sun, the medium would cease flowing, and all the planets (with their satellites), would immediately head off on a tangent.
That is the 64 million dollar question.
Not sure if such an experiment as I am about to explain would provide proof or disproof of the idea I presented in my last posts.
Colin2b,I may not have to define its composition to test the mechanism for gravity I have described, if resonance particles would do the trick, I believe it is already known how to create them. its just a matter of whether they can be created and controlled on a level needed to perform the experiment.
but that is not my greatest problem. no laboratory, no equipment to perform experiments, those rank pretty high. Likely will never happen. Hey, life is short, I have already accepted that I will never be the mad scientist I have dreamed of and take over the world. lol
Quote from: jeffreyH on 27/07/2015 22:21:10Quote from: alancalverd on 27/07/2015 17:15:53(c) if you move one massive body, how long does it take for the change in its gravitational field to affect another body (i.e. what is the speed of gravity?)QuoteThat is the 64 million dollar question.If gravity is regarded as an inflowing, or sink flow medium, and if it is incompressible, frictionless, and under constant pressure, the so-called speed of gravity would be instantaneous. If the sun were to disappear there would be a hydraulic lock at what used to be the center of the sun, the medium would cease flowing, and all the planets (with their satellites), would immediately head off on a tangent.