The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The Repulsive Principle  (Read 16960 times)

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Repulsive Principle
« on: 03/12/2009 19:10:35 »
The Repulsive(*) Principle

As a proposal in a thread i made previously http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26884.msg284923#msg284923 - I can deduct that if there is an indestinguishability of some kind of gravitational force which is negative in interpretation when a proton and a positron come to meet, then it's also pointed out that there is a fundamental principle which takes this into aboard. I propose it, as the title says it, the Repulsive Principle, and it states:

''If you cannot decifer experimentally the difference of antigravitational forces from that which may be experienced and called and even wholey due to some existence of a charge, then the prediction is that there is no difference. It is an antigravitational force being observed, rather than one that is wholey-associated to some presence of a charge.''

Without us being sure that these effects are not antigravitational, we need to suspect them on a macroscopic scale would equal the same result. This is why the electric charge is not invariant on these levels because electromagnetism cancels out between to macroscopic bodies, or atleast, so theory seems to dictate. But could an entire star made from positrons still resist normal gravitational effects to that of a proton star? In General Relativity, they would fall towards each other because it essentially lies on charge (or lack thereof making gravity the overwhelming force) in the given example, but i question that they would given by the principle demonstrated.

*The name is a game on the words, as for my understanding of physics could be seen as completely repuslive to even think about (simply because it maybe interpreted that i am mistaking electric charge soley down as an antigravitational effect), though, it does itself argue the indestinguishability of an antigravitational effect on a microscopic scale that is similar to the experience between a proton and an antielectron (positron).
« Last Edit: 03/12/2009 19:13:32 by Mr. Scientist »


 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #1 on: 04/12/2009 08:58:34 »
Is no one critical of the principle i've conjectured...?
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #2 on: 04/12/2009 18:14:36 »
I can't understand the principle. There are obvious ways, in principle, to detect the differences in forces when a proton and a positron approach each other.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #3 on: 04/12/2009 22:17:24 »
The force is indestinguishable from antigravitational forces - as much, the scientist can say it being a by-product of charge.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #4 on: 05/12/2009 13:36:23 »
What is an antigravitational force?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #5 on: 05/12/2009 18:47:12 »
To me by definition, some kind of mass which repels the attractiveness of another mass.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #6 on: 06/12/2009 14:05:35 »
That doesn't seem to be a very interesting definition. Two magnets are therefore antigravity devices. But that doesn't tell us anything at all, since we still have to explain the magnets in terms of electromagnetic theory.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #7 on: 06/12/2009 14:07:05 »
No... two magnets are well known as an electrostatic repulsion without the immediate need for positrons.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #8 on: 06/12/2009 14:08:33 »
Hence why i said ''the repulsive theory'' - it won't be liked for sure, but i can make the conjecture because we are yet to test macroscopic antimatter bodies interconnecting, or not, with ordinary matter at macroscopic levels.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #9 on: 06/12/2009 19:21:52 »
But we know that a proton and a positron repel each other just like magnets do.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #10 on: 06/12/2009 19:52:00 »
But can we destinghuish that effect from something we might attribute to antigravitational forces?

It's a rhetorical question. The principle above does have a solution, and that is that the actions between a proton and a positron may be the closest thing to an antigravitational force, meaning that antigravity may not even exist.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #11 on: 06/12/2009 19:53:07 »
Electrostatic repulsion is easy to explain. It's the indestinguishability which counts only. To disprove the conjecture, you would need to experiment antimatter with matter on a macroscopic level.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #12 on: 06/12/2009 20:01:44 »
But can we destinghuish that effect from something we might attribute to antigravitational forces?
I don't care whether or not we can destinguish the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron from antigravity.

Given your definition, the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron is an antigravitational force. But this is a useless definition, because, we can distinguish between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force between them.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #13 on: 07/12/2009 03:50:59 »
I don't care whether or not we can destinguish the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron from antigravity.

Ahem, that's the whole point of the conjecture and if you ''dont care''then don't take part.

Given your definition, the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron is an antigravitational force.

(Indestinguishable) - is the word you are looking for. On higher levels (macroscopic levels), the indesinguishability may quite indeed dissipate.

we can distinguish between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force between them.

You're just not getting it are you? How can i put this another way...

...right... imagine we think we know nothing - we don't know what a macroscopic world is. In fact, we are pointlings... tiny creatures that exist. Being so tiny, it has taken many of the pointlings many years to understand that there maybe another force other than their little innate charges. They found out, that their mass also contains a gravitational charge, and they where overwhelmed by this, because they thought their mass was wholey down to ther charge.

But one day, one pointling decides to have a radical thought... what if there is an antigravitational force...? The rest of them laughed at him and said, ''don't be stupid... we are very small and such things do not matter.''

But he pondered this antiforce, and he could imagine massive objects which made his tiny world, al repelling each other in this antigravitational force, so he said the next day... there is one way to test it. Get my friend positron and the boy from down the road... what's his name... proton...  that's it. Now... if they as we know, cannot come together, could someone who is much larger than us know?

So the story has a twist. One day, a man discovers the wierd repelling world of particles. He starts to write out mathematical formulea, decribing what he sees... gives them innate properties like charge - which covers also a gravitational charge. But the man realizes that he knows next to nothing about gravity unlike the other forces. The closest thing he could ever imagine being similar to an antigravitational force is something a bit like how a proton and a postron try to meet... they just don't.

So a conjecture was proposed... what if the world where positrons and protons repelling each other was not only like antigravitational forces, but is by definition the only kind o antigravitational forces there is?

The name antigravitational forces is misleading. It doesn't necesserily have to mean that charge is not involved. But if it was on the scale of planetery systems, then it must cancel out and gravity (a positive attractive gravity) is finally observed. But the ''Repulsive Principle'' states that antigravitational forces are indestinguishable between a proton and a positron (which both contain a mass) - so whether or not true antigravitational forces on the macroscopic level exist, is what i am hoping for the future to find out.


 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #14 on: 07/12/2009 04:17:19 »
I don't care whether or not we can destinguish the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron from antigravity.

Ahem, that's the whole point of the conjecture and if you ''dont care''then don't take part.
What I am trying to understand is if you even have a conjecture here. I'm not sure whether or not you are using technical terms you have invented or not, since if you are simply misspelling words then you aren't making any sense.
Quote
Given your definition, the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron is an antigravitational force.

(Indestinguishable) - is the word you are looking for. On higher levels (macroscopic levels), the indesinguishability may quite indeed dissipate.
I don't know the word, you are going to have to define it. But given your definition of "antigravitational force", electromagnetic force is a kind of antigravitational force, but this is trivial.
Quote
we can distinguish between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force between them.

You're just not getting it are you? How can i put this another way...

...right... imagine we think we know nothing - we don't know what a macroscopic world is. In fact, we are pointlings... tiny creatures that exist. Being so tiny, it has taken many of the pointlings many years to understand that there maybe another force other than their little innate charges. They found out, that their mass also contains a gravitational charge, and they where overwhelmed by this, because they thought their mass was wholey down to ther charge.

But one day, one pointling decides to have a radical thought... what if there is an antigravitational force...? The rest of them laughed at him and said, ''don't be stupid... we are very small and such things do not matter.''

But he pondered this antiforce, and he could imagine massive objects which made his tiny world, al repelling each other in this antigravitational force, so he said the next day... there is one way to test it. Get my friend positron and the boy from down the road... what's his name... proton...  that's it. Now... if they as we know, cannot come together, could someone who is much larger than us know?

So the story has a twist. One day, a man discovers the wierd repelling world of particles. He starts to write out mathematical formulea, decribing what he sees... gives them innate properties like charge - which covers also a gravitational charge. But the man realizes that he knows next to nothing about gravity unlike the other forces. The closest thing he could ever imagine being similar to an antigravitational force is something a bit like how a proton and a postron try to meet... they just don't.
But your story doesn't even have the most basic internal logic. If we know the mass of these particles and we know their electric charge then in any interaction between them we can effectively account for both of these forces and look for anything left over. There is no room for any extra force, except for when we get to the level of the nuclear forces.
Quote
So a conjecture was proposed... what if the world where positrons and protons repelling each other was not only like antigravitational forces, but is by definition the only kind o antigravitational forces there is?
Are you saying that there is no force that repels mass except electromagnetism?
Quote
The name antigravitational forces is misleading. It doesn't necesserily have to mean that charge is not involved. But if it was on the scale of planetery systems, then it must cancel out and gravity (a positive attractive gravity) is finally observed. But the ''Repulsive Principle'' states that antigravitational forces are indestinguishable between a proton and a positron (which both contain a mass) - so whether or not true antigravitational forces on the macroscopic level exist, is what i am hoping for the future to find out.
This still doesn't make sense. If this antigravitational force is simply electromagnetism, then obviously it's the same for both, because they have the same charge. If it is something else then it doesn't seem to exist at all. If it was going to be something that depended on mass then it should be measurable because the positron and the proton have a significant difference in mass.
« Last Edit: 07/12/2009 04:22:10 by PhysBang »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #15 on: 07/12/2009 04:49:13 »
I don't care whether or not we can destinguish the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron from antigravity.

Ahem, that's the whole point of the conjecture and if you ''dont care''then don't take part.
What I am trying to understand is if you even have a conjecture here. I'm not sure whether or not you are using technical terms you have invented or not, since if you are simply misspelling words then you aren't making any sense. (1)
Quote
Given your definition, the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron is an antigravitational force.

(Indestinguishable) - is the word you are looking for. On higher levels (macroscopic levels), the indesinguishability may quite indeed dissipate.
I don't know the word, you are going to have to define it. But given your definition of "antigravitational force", electromagnetic force is a kind of antigravitational force, but this is trivial.
Quote
we can distinguish between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force between them.

You're just not getting it are you? How can i put this another way...

...right... imagine we think we know nothing - we don't know what a macroscopic world is. In fact, we are pointlings... tiny creatures that exist. Being so tiny, it has taken many of the pointlings many years to understand that there maybe another force other than their little innate charges. They found out, that their mass also contains a gravitational charge, and they where overwhelmed by this, because they thought their mass was wholey down to ther charge.

But one day, one pointling decides to have a radical thought... what if there is an antigravitational force...? The rest of them laughed at him and said, ''don't be stupid... we are very small and such things do not matter.''

But he pondered this antiforce, and he could imagine massive objects which made his tiny world, al repelling each other in this antigravitational force, so he said the next day... there is one way to test it. Get my friend positron and the boy from down the road... what's his name... proton...  that's it. Now... if they as we know, cannot come together, could someone who is much larger than us know?

So the story has a twist. One day, a man discovers the wierd repelling world of particles. He starts to write out mathematical formulea, decribing what he sees... gives them innate properties like charge - which covers also a gravitational charge. But the man realizes that he knows next to nothing about gravity unlike the other forces. The closest thing he could ever imagine being similar to an antigravitational force is something a bit like how a proton and a postron try to meet... they just don't.
But your story doesn't even have the most basic internal logic. If we know the mass of these particles and we know their electric charge then in any interaction between them we can effectively account for both of these forces and look for anything left over. There is no room for any extra force, except for when we get to the level of the nuclear forces. (2)
Quote
So a conjecture was proposed... what if the world where positrons and protons repelling each other was not only like antigravitational forces, but is by definition the only kind o antigravitational forces there is?
Are you saying that there is no force that repels mass except electromagnetism? (3)
Quote
The name antigravitational forces is misleading. It doesn't necesserily have to mean that charge is not involved. But if it was on the scale of planetery systems, then it must cancel out and gravity (a positive attractive gravity) is finally observed. But the ''Repulsive Principle'' states that antigravitational forces are indestinguishable between a proton and a positron (which both contain a mass) - so whether or not true antigravitational forces on the macroscopic level exist, is what i am hoping for the future to find out.
This still doesn't make sense. If this antigravitational force is simply electromagnetism, then obviously it's the same for both, because they have the same charge. If it is something else then it doesn't seem to exist at all. If it was going to be something that depended on mass then it should be measurable because the positron and the proton have a significant difference in mass.

(1) - If there are any spelling mistakes, its probably because i a crap speller. But trust me, i hardly ever use terms which have not been used by the scientific community.

(2) - For once,i agree. But quite possibly not for the same reasons.

(3) - How did you deduct that?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #16 on: 07/12/2009 04:51:30 »
''If this antigravitational force is simply electromagnetism, then obviously it's the same for both, because they have the same charge. If it is something else then it doesn't seem to exist at all.''

Yes, that is how the conjecture is solved, at least in my eyes. There is no such thing as an antigravitational force and the effect between a proton and a positron appears to be the closest thing we will ever come to it.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #17 on: 07/12/2009 04:54:13 »
''I don't know the word, you are going to have to define it. But given your definition of "antigravitational force", electromagnetic force is a kind of antigravitational force, but this is trivial.''

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indistinguishability

And its hardly trivial now... i think the latter part here

But given your definition of "antigravitational force", electromagnetic force is a kind of antigravitational force, but this is trivial.

says it all. Afterall, this is what the conjecture is, no matter how trivial you may think it is.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #18 on: 07/12/2009 12:34:20 »
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.
 

Offline Butterworthd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #19 on: 07/12/2009 14:27:52 »
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?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #20 on: 09/12/2009 13:26:17 »
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.

So? Was not Einstiens elevator theory quite trivial?
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #21 on: 09/12/2009 13:28:30 »
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?

Maybe gravity is the rate of change in field srength of the electromagnetic force? That would make some sense also, not only to your own twist on my most repulsive theory, but also that which means that there cannot be a fundamental mediator (graviton)?
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #22 on: 09/12/2009 15:03:23 »
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.

So? Was not Einstiens elevator theory quite trivial?
Einstein didn't have an elevator theory. He had a way of elucidating the general covariance of physical laws that enables one to dispense with certain differences between acceleration and gravity. This leads to different predictions that one can use to verify the theory.

As far as I can tell, you are simply calling every repulsive force, "antigravity." This does absolutely nothing.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #23 on: 09/12/2009 16:17:14 »
WRONG

It was a gravitational distinguishabity - it was the corner stone of physics, or atleast his own theory which has worked remarkably well.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #24 on: 09/12/2009 16:53:41 »
WRONG

It was a gravitational distinguishabity - it was the corner stone of physics, or atleast his own theory which has worked remarkably well.
Are you saying that Einstein didn't use the general covariance of physical laws in his theory? Don't you know that's the point of the evelvator example? The example you brought up that is supposed to be a basic way of expressing a small part of his theory?

Or are you saying that there is more content to your own claims. If so, what are they? What is "antigravitational force"?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #24 on: 09/12/2009 16:53:41 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums