# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: The Repulsive Principle  (Read 16887 times)

#### Butterworthd

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #25 on: 09/12/2009 17:25:50 »
First in response to the elevator theory.  Lets reduce Acceleration to its simplest form; increasing space coverage for a unit of time.  If we were sitting on a spinning merry-go-round and we let go, we would experience movement off the merry-go-round because of the centrifugal force. We are moving from the smaller space to the larger space.  Same thing happens with the subspace, there's a centripetal force moving us from the smaller space to the larger space.  With a mass the larger space is within it.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #26 on: 09/12/2009 17:35:34 »
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.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #27 on: 09/12/2009 17:36:49 »
But the rest is mostly true - sorry :()

#### Butterworthd

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 18
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #28 on: 09/12/2009 17:50:54 »
There is a relationship between gravity and electromagnetic in my subspace theory.  In my view light comes from a particle and goes to a particle. This is saying a) charge only exists on particles and b) space only exists through subspaces.  When two subspaces (dark matter) reacts with each other they make space which is actually 2 two-dimensional planes interacting with each other.  This interaction is described by Maxwell; it is Electromagnetic interaction.  Now the question of charge is important since accelerating charge is the mechanics of electromagnetic interaction.  That's means that all fundamental particles have charge since they react with light.  Composite particles and atoms have no overall charge but the charges are still there or they could not react with light. You can not have gravity without light interaction.  Now you are back to dark matter.

#### PhysBang

• Hero Member
• Posts: 588
• Thanked: 14 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #29 on: 09/12/2009 18:03:23 »
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.
I have no idea what the whole sentence means, nor what the different identifiable parts of that sentence mean.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #30 on: 10/12/2009 06:25:39 »
What do you need to understand what i said?

#### PhysBang

• Hero Member
• Posts: 588
• Thanked: 14 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #31 on: 10/12/2009 14:22:48 »
Could you please just tell us what you think the point of the elevator experiment was? In a little detail?

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #32 on: 10/12/2009 14:36:23 »
''us''? Are you trying to say i am not clear with anyone here? All i ever do is try and make things clear.

Einstein's thought experiment was one which argued you cannot tell the difference between accelerational forces to that of gravity - noting also the person cannot see from inside the elevator.

#### PhysBang

• Hero Member
• Posts: 588
• Thanked: 14 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #33 on: 10/12/2009 15:20:37 »
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?

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #34 on: 11/12/2009 04:21:53 »
It's a thought-experiment. Generally, imagine you where in a spaceship which was stationary, and about 100 miles directly below your ship is a massive wire that can pull on your spaceship. To cut a long story short, the wire begins to pull, and you will feel the force of that pull and eventually whilst you may be remaining static in zero-gravity, your feet will eventually meet the ground of the spaceship. So the acceleration required to keep your feet safely on the spaceships floor is due to the similar charactericts of how a gravitational-acceleration is derived.

Rotation only really has great purposes in relativity when frame-dragging is considered.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #35 on: 11/12/2009 04:23:02 »
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?

Not sure i understand your question though..

#### PhysBang

• Hero Member
• Posts: 588
• Thanked: 14 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #36 on: 11/12/2009 13:52:44 »
All you seem to have done is define "antigravitational force" to be any force that is repulsive. That doesn't get us anywhere.

Is there supposed to be something more? If so, what?

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #37 on: 11/12/2009 13:55:42 »
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.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #38 on: 11/12/2009 13:57:19 »
I would eat my hat with humbleness though. Physics, and science in general never has cared to much for people to assert even the most exotic of theories. Nor has science got where it has without them.

#### PhysBang

• Hero Member
• Posts: 588
• Thanked: 14 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #39 on: 11/12/2009 14:27:35 »
Why not?
Well, because we can already imagine all kinds of things. Simply declaring that all repulsive forces are antigravitational forces adds nothing.
Quote
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.
Antimatter is well understood and we know its gravitational properties and its electromagnetic properties quite well. We can indeed distinguish between them on the basis of behaviour and measurement.
Quote
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.
What principle? Could you please restate, clearly, what you imagine your principle to be?

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #40 on: 11/12/2009 14:58:39 »
Why not?
Well, because we can already imagine all kinds of things. Simply declaring that all repulsive forces are antigravitational forces adds nothing. (1)
Quote
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.
Antimatter is well understood and we know its gravitational properties and its electromagnetic properties quite well. We can indeed distinguish between them on the basis of behaviour and measurement. (2)
Quote
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.
What principle? Could you please restate, clearly, what you imagine your principle to be?

(1) - That's your opinion. But one which is quite cloudy, because if you follow your own logic, you would not be asking the questions you are unless it were so easy.

(2) - On the microscopic scale, we believe we do understand. But as i have made more than clear, we have not tested any of the antimatter properties (incuding) their effects on macroscopic scales, and thus your own postulations against the principle does not hold.

(3) - I hate repeating myself more than three times. Please read the OP again.

#### PhysBang

• Hero Member
• Posts: 588
• Thanked: 14 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #41 on: 11/12/2009 20:36:36 »
(1) - That's your opinion. But one which is quite cloudy, because if you follow your own logic, you would not be asking the questions you are unless it were so easy.
Indeed, it is not my opinion, it is simply the fact of the matter. I keep asking questions because you keep going on as if you have said something profound. I am trying to find out if you are simply misguided or if there is something that you simply have trouble communicating.
Quote
(2) - On the microscopic scale, we believe we do understand. But as i have made more than clear, we have not tested any of the antimatter properties (incuding) their effects on macroscopic scales, and thus your own postulations against the principle does not hold.
You are simply mistaken. We have lots and lots of tests about the nature of antimatter. Why should we imagine that there is some sort of special behaviour for antimatter at large scales? How would we test it? Until there is some test, why should we take seriously claims that it does behave differently?
Quote
(3) - I hate repeating myself more than three times. Please read the OP again.
Frankly, everything you have written so far is incomprehensible. I've had to read a lot of physics, and what you have written simply does not make sense and where it does make sense it is trivial. So, please, try one more time to give me your principle.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #42 on: 12/12/2009 07:05:50 »
''You are simply mistaken. We have lots and lots of tests about the nature of antimatter.'' -

ok... I'm sorry. I cant continue this discussion with you. You have very little intentions for being serious.

#### PhysBang

• Hero Member
• Posts: 588
• Thanked: 14 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #43 on: 12/12/2009 14:02:20 »
Your problem is that I am taking what you write as seriously as it should be taken. I am apparently taking your proposal more seriously than you take it, since you are apparently ignorant of the very basics of antimatter.

You may find the following informative, for your shame:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2797
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193019.htm
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/kellerbauer/en/

Now, I don't really care about your poor grammar, spelling, and concepts. You have shown yourself to be a buffoon, at least in this area.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #44 on: 12/12/2009 15:17:42 »
We have never observed large lumps of antimatter. My proposal if it weren't so bold would never have been posted in the new theories - so whether you regard me as a ''buffoon'' is completely irrelevent.

But if you want to take this attitude with me, we can go right into mathematical details. Or if you like, we can have a serious discussion on something else - but my principle, for it's not that i don't understand current theory, it's about seeing a new side to that current theory. Why the heck did you think i called it the repulsive principle? I already explained it would have been mostly disliked - i never promoted it from the beginning that it had charasmatic details.

It's a principle of indestinguishability - get over it. Move on.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #45 on: 12/12/2009 15:30:47 »
But - as i read through these... very basic articles..

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2797

Good - if they can do this on a macroscopic scale, i would be most pleased. It would either prove or disprove the repulsive principle on the basis antimatter contains an antigravitational force that is indestinguishable from what is believed to be soley down to charge.

What next..

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193019.htm

I can see where you're going with this, and no... this does not disprove the conjecture one bit. It just means we've been able to make more antimatter than previously and still not on the type of conditions to test in the conjecture of the OP.

''The first collisions between beams of normal protons and their antimatter twins''

And? It's not impossible to make matter and postulations of antimatter collide. Gravity is very very weak at these levels they speak of... i'm not impressed at all by your defences so far.

http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/kellerbauer/en/projects/antimatter.htm

Oh... you're the baffoon afterall. Did you see the bottom of the page...? They hope to check and see if antimatter on a macroscopic level has a negative repulsion of -g.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #46 on: 12/12/2009 15:32:58 »
Just in case you went on a random search and you're not sure were to look now

http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/kellerbauer/en/projects/antimatter.htm

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #47 on: 12/12/2009 15:37:21 »
Physbang... did you even read these articles... I'm very tempted to know now.

#### PhysBang

• Hero Member
• Posts: 588
• Thanked: 14 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #48 on: 13/12/2009 13:52:22 »
The purpose of posting the articles was to show that there is a great deal of experiments with actual antimatter, something you denied. They are popular articles because that is your speed, or perhaps these articles were a bit too heady for you.

Your reference to the "Proposed antimatter gravity measurement with an antihydrogen beam" project mis-characterizes the project. Given that, like any crank, want to simply make grand predictions about physics without actually learning any, this is no surprise. The proposed experiment is a test of the equivalence principle, not whether or not antimatter behaves in some opposite manner to gravity.

You really should take the time to learn what antimatter is and why scientists believe that it has the properties that it does. Once you actually understand that, then you can make reasonable claims about what we might find for larger collections of antimatter.

#### Mr. Scientist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1451
• Thanked: 2 times
##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #49 on: 13/12/2009 14:25:37 »
Please qoute me where i have ''supposidly'' have said this:

a great deal of experiments with actual antimatter, something you denied.

By the way... by your logic bold claims are only made by cranks it an utter nonesense. And since ALL or MOST of your arguements have challenged the main idea that antimatter WILL NOT have an antigravitational force makes your following sentance sound hypocritical:

''You really should take the time to learn what antimatter is and why scientists believe that it has the properties that it does.''

Afterall, it was quite obvious you never even read the articles yourself, because the last one you dealt proved to me that scientists are already thinking along this line - and you would never have posted it to suit my principle - if anything, you're attempting to wack it down by calling me names.

Quite pathetic really.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### The Repulsive Principle
« Reply #49 on: 13/12/2009 14:25:37 »