0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Your principle is insanely trivial. You have defined any force that repels mass as being "antigravitational force". So what? Why do we need this piece of definition. Absolutely nothing in physics changes, nor will it ever change, based on this definition.
Let me propose a different twist. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is simple concept. At a given point away from a mass there is a delta change in space and time. This is the essence of the force. Its a natural occurrence so we can cause "antigravitational force" once we understand the reason behind the change in space and time in the same way we could cause unnatural electrical discharges once we understood electromagnetic interactions.My concept is throw away the concept of space and to explain everything in terms of subspaces. Two spinning subspaces, perpendicular to each other, creates space with the gravity between them. This gravity space adds with all of the other gravity spaces to create the universe. This is the question on how gravity adds to itself. The quark theory like my own has particles made from larger particle (Matter-Antimatter) both having positive gravity and yet the composite particle has only the gravity of the Matter-Antimatter difference. The energy that is given up matches the change in the gravity. How is the gravity changed and at what rate?
Quote from: PhysBang on 07/12/2009 12:34:20Your principle is insanely trivial. You have defined any force that repels mass as being "antigravitational force". So what? Why do we need this piece of definition. Absolutely nothing in physics changes, nor will it ever change, based on this definition.So? Was not Einstiens elevator theory quite trivial?
WRONGIt was a gravitational distinguishabity - it was the corner stone of physics, or atleast his own theory which has worked remarkably well.
Nope - you said he did not use the elevator experiment to help or not help being the case, to dinstinguish gravitational forces with that of acceleration.
And how did Einstein enact this similarity between gravity and acceleration? Through the demand that physical laws be written in a generally covariant form.Note too that the elevator example does not include rotation, which is still an absolute acceleration in general relativity.So, what can we possibly do with your repulsive principle?
Why not?
If there is somewhere in the fudamental universe we cannot destinguish the forces by my definition, then the definition itself could hold as true as saying that on a cosmological scale, there could be an antigravitational repulsion in the form of antimatter in the distant and yet not observable universe.
Is this a kind of prediction you wanted me to assert? Because it's only a postulation, but my principle holds true that is until we find an actual antigravitational mass.