The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?  (Read 16706 times)

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #25 on: 28/12/2005 23:27:55 »
Andrew.  Magnetic anomalies have nothing to do with gravity.  Gravitational anomalies associated with denser bits of material in the earth's crust exist and are an important technique used in prospecting for oil and other minerals.

Eotvos carried out many extremely accurate measurements of gravitational attractions of different materials and gravitational screening a long time ago and absolutely no gravitational dependance on material or screening down to parts per million has ever been detected.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #26 on: 29/12/2005 10:53:40 »
Eth, to see your bull bearing paradigm work, you would have to place it in a location free from the earths influence. a better model would be the balloon popped during space flight when the water expanded outwards initially then all of it was attracted back to its somewhat distorted mass forming into its pre-popped state, this was shown on a goldfish in space discussion on here. Furthermore, the ball bearings are cast in steel, so can never interact properly with each other as each has a permanent state.

Maybe, if the ball bearings were polarised by magnetism prior to them being added to the mass it would give you a better picture of the way gravity aligns the particles.

I suspect this would indeed provide us with a better understanding of how it all works.

believing that gravity can only attract does not cut it for me also Eth. I am absolutely convinced that the pushing forces of gravity is responsible for the heating of the core in planets, as atoms unload their force against opposing atoms on the opposite side of the mass, not canceling it out, but interacting with each other to excite the atoms into producing an enormous amount of friction as they push against each other and jostle about.

Having offloaded the burden of the pushing force, the atoms jointly increase their pulling capabilities, bringing in more material from decaying planets.

Interesting post Eth, thanks

Hope the rib gets better soon, and I don't think you really hate me that much [8D]

« Last Edit: 29/12/2005 11:14:05 by Andrew K Fletcher »
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #27 on: 29/12/2005 11:17:18 »
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/SCIStudypart1.pdf

Soul

download the pdf file and scroll to the bottom to see how gravity affect multiple sclerosis. the tables are from an independent analasis of an early pilot study using a five degree head up tilt on a bad over a prolonged period to determine if gravity does play an important roll in the onset of many neurological conditions

"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #28 on: 29/12/2005 13:05:07 »
I have skimmed through your report and found it quite interesting.  As far as I can see your thesis relates to the orientation of your body with respect to gravity particularly while sleeping. suggesting that it is best to sleep with ones head slightly uphill.  I am quite prepared to accept that this could be slightly better than sleeping exactly flat.   In fact most nights I sleep in an adjustable bed myself and find that having the head raised a bit is quite good.

However other aspects give me cause for concern.  Firstly I see no reason why you should be so obsessive abouit small changes in the magnitude of gravity  on the earth (which is where this discussion originated)  Also your statistical presentations do not contain anything like enough data to be valid and look like a rather naive way to belabour a point that has been made at great length.

Finally your discussions with respect to densities of solutions being critical are not clearly expressed and appear at quick reading take little account of the osmotic pressure effects that are known to be important in fluid transport particularly in plants.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
« Last Edit: 29/12/2005 13:09:36 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #29 on: 29/12/2005 16:28:02 »
Andrew I have now had time to look at other aspects of your work on the IOP and Tree huggers web pages.  Although I would expect some cohesion between water molecules I am quite surprised you managed to get a sbig a value as you did.  This discussion is way off the topic here and so is probably best continued elsewhere but I would like to know why you don't like the osmotic pressure aspects of physics.  They are based on valid models and scientific demonstattions at least as effective as yours.  Other important transport mechanismas inside cells are peristalsis and molecular ratchets.

To return to Dr Beaver's original gravity questions.  You must remember that the gravitational field near to an irregularly shaped object (like your three ball bearing model) IS irregular it is only at large distances where the difference between squares of the distance to the nearest part and the most remote part can be neglected that the centre of gravity simplification is valid.  The sphere is a special case because of its symmetry and the gravitational field over the surface of a uniform sphere is constant and equal to the effect of having all the mass concentrated at the centre.

Also looking at your original question there is some fundamental wrong thinking about quantum interactions when you talk about things "knowing" what to do,then exchanging particles this is not the way it is.  The particle that is exchanged IS the knowledge that the other particle is near.  This is best described aby two electrons colliding and bouncing off each other by coulomb repulsion  the energy changes associated with the interaction are eplained in terms of the exchange of a photon between the two electrons.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #30 on: 29/12/2005 16:58:06 »
quote:
You must remember that the gravitational field near to an irregularly shaped object (like your three ball bearing model) IS irregular it is only at large distances where the difference between squares of the distance to the nearest part and the most remote part can be neglected that the centre of gravity simplification is valid. The sphere is a special case because of its symmetry and the gravitational field over the surface of a uniform sphere is constant and equal to the effect of having all the mass concentrated at the centre.


OK, thanks for the clarification.

 
quote:
Also looking at your original question there is some fundamental wrong thinking about quantum interactions when you talk about things "knowing" what to do,then exchanging particles this is not the way it is. The particle that is exchanged IS the knowledge that the other particle is near. This is best described aby two electrons colliding and bouncing off each other by coulomb repulsion the energy changes associated with the interaction are eplained in terms of the exchange of a photon between the two electrons.


I understand that about electrons, but it's not really what I was getting at. Maybe my phraseology was a bit off.
What I meant was, if an object is sending out gravity particles willy-nilly, it will lose something unless an equivalent number of particles are captured. If gravitons are the particles that carry gravity and they're being emitted without a similar number being captured, the gravity of the object will gradually diminish. That is blatantly not the case. So, my point was, is there some other process involved that "tells" the object when to send out gravitons? Or are you implying that maybe there is a graviton cloud similar to, but obviously much larger than, an electron cloud?
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #31 on: 29/12/2005 17:53:25 »
You've still not got it.  Two gravitating objects are NOT sending out gravitons willy nilly. Nothing at all happens until they interact when they EXCHANGE gravitons to complete the interaction.  the exchange of a graviton IS the knowledge of the interaction nothing else

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline Solvay_1927

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #32 on: 06/01/2006 23:08:09 »
Hang on a mo, Ian.

If gravity is mediated by particles, how do the particles "know" when to interact?  I would have thought it reasonable to assume that the gravitating objects have to be exchanging and receiving gravitons ALL the time. Otherwise, what would cause them to "switch on" the exchange and suddenly start interacting?  And is that any different to the idea of the continuous sending out of gravitons in all directions (and receiving back different gravitons from different sources in every direction)?

Like with electromagnetic repulsion between two electrons - they never actually touch, so they must be continually sending out and receiving photons. (Like Eth talked about earlier, they're surrounded by a cloud of virtual photons - but I don't believe that's a cloud of finite size, that's just a probability cloud that continues into infinity, but very quickly gets very "improbable" as you move away from the electron.)
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #33 on: 07/01/2006 01:16:14 »
quote:
If gravity is mediated by particles, how do the particles "know" when to interact? I would have thought it reasonable to assume that the gravitating objects have to be exchanging and receiving gravitons ALL the time. Otherwise, what would cause them to "switch on" the exchange and suddenly start interacting? And is that any different to the idea of the continuous sending out of gravitons in all directions (and receiving back different gravitons from different sources in every direction)?


That's my point
 

Offline Rincewind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #34 on: 13/01/2006 00:12:00 »
quote:
Am I alone in thinking that all gravity comes from the past, that being the singularity at the begining of our universe.
That while Time flows in one dirrection the attractive force of gravity acts as if it is trying to take us back in time.

Tomorrow lies outside our universe without it there would be no tomorrow.

by Mad Mark


You're on similar lines to my idea.  I think gravitational attraction is soething to do with our passage through time.  Like maybe the vortex created by our wake.  
And as for the singularity at the beggining of time; if such a thing as the singularity or even a beginning of time does exist, there is no denying the fact that it is, as you say the origin of gravity.  And also everything else.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #35 on: 13/01/2006 09:57:47 »
You are all forgetting the effct of quantum mechanical uncertainty on the interaction.  If you have large obects, OK they are exchanging gravitons and photons all the time however if you, for example have two electrons colliding with each other and changing direction as a result of electromagnetic repulsion the measurement limits imposed by uncertainty mean that you just can't tell how many photons that they exchange but the result is just the same as if they had only exchanged one during the interaction.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #36 on: 13/01/2006 22:10:24 »
Ian - I think you're still missing my point. You keep talking about the actual exchange of particles. I'm asking about what happens BEFORE the exchange. Are gravity particles just emitted willy-nilly on the offchance of an exchange or is there a mechanism that initiates the exchange.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #37 on: 13/01/2006 23:52:14 »
Nothing happens before the exchange of particles.  That's the point and one of the imnportant things about quantum wierdness.

It is possible to visualise an electron moving through the quantum mechanical vacuum as being surrounded by a haze of virtual photons but these are continually being emitted and reabsorbed.  If they were emitted and lost the electron would loose energy and in the absence of anything else that just cannot (and does not) happen so they must be reabsorbed witihn the time and space limits set by the uncertainty principle.  Things start happening only when two objects get close enough to interact.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
« Last Edit: 13/01/2006 23:53:55 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline Solvay_1927

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #38 on: 14/01/2006 02:58:05 »
quote:
Nothing happens before the exchange of particles.

So the question then is, what triggers the exchange when it does occur?  How do the particles "know" they're close enought to interact and start exchanging?
 
quote:
If they were emitted and lost the electron would loose energy and in the absence of anything else that just cannot (and does not) happen so they must be reabsorbed witihn the time and space limits set by the uncertainty principle.

But what if the photons are lost and then replaced by other photons (from the ZPE / Quantum vacuum, or even from the photons that are constantly being emitted by everything around us that is above absolute zero)? How do you know the same virtual photons are re-absorbed?
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #39 on: 14/01/2006 13:05:13 »
This is the best way of describing things as I understand them.

The terrible truth is that all the particles in the universe "exist" everywhere and at all times! It is just that it is very improbable that you will find them where they aren't supposed to be!  that is one of the best ways of describing quantum wierdness.  When two particles start to approach each other and interact the probability that they will interact rises and the way they will interact is defined by basic classical physics overlaid bt quantum uncertainty.  At some point they interact witin the statistical range of their interaction and then it is possible to observe the effect of that interaction.

As far as emission and reabsorbtion this again is just a mental model and you just cant tell if it is the same photon or a different one the bookds just have to balance in the end

You have to be satisfied that there are some things that you just can't know.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline Mad Mark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #40 on: 17/01/2006 01:34:30 »
Everything has to have an opposite even gravity.The only problem is our understanding of gravity is so limited that until that question is fully answered we cannot begin to look for the opposite.
Is it not possible that the flow of time is the opposing force to gravity?

Tomorrow lies outside our universe without it there would be no tomorrow.
 

Offline Mad Mark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #41 on: 17/01/2006 02:06:34 »
Before energy had time to form into matter in our early universe time would have had a free run of the place and without that opposing force it ran away with itself.
Localy matter bends space in on itself but in the absence of matter time bends it outwards.
As for gravity and kenetic mass increase as you increase speed where you may expect the mass to effect gravity the opposite may happen, as the  speed of the object will slow time locally its opposing gravity will decrease accordingly.

Tomorrow lies outside our universe without it there would be no tomorrow.
 

Offline Rincewind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #42 on: 17/01/2006 23:08:28 »
I definitely think you've got an interesting theory, Mark.  Mass in increasing gravity is like light in an increasingly dense medium, yeah?  So if the mass or light is travelling perpendicular to the gravity or density gradient, it would (and does) turn towards the increase.

You're probably like me and don't know many details, just go with your gut.

unidirectional:    Gravity (only attracts)                      Time (only forward)
two way       :    Electromagnetism (attracts/repels)           Space (forward and back)

Parallels on a different scale.  Maybe the medium in which gravity travels is time, not space.  IN the same way that light doesn't experience time, gravity doesn't experience space.
 

Offline Andrew K Fletcher

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2331
  • KIS Keep It Simple
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #43 on: 18/01/2006 18:16:34 »
Mad Mark, you are absolutely correct! Gravity cannot simply attract, it has to repel also, just the same as a magnetic force.
With respect of gravity, the pushing force is occurring at the centre of the planet, generating the friction / reaction that maintains the heat at the Earth's core. Each atomic particle pushing against the opposing particles on the opposite side of the planet.



"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct."
K.I.S. "Keep it simple!"
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #44 on: 18/01/2006 18:47:02 »
Mark, rincewind and andrew what you are saying is a total load of tripe and has no foundation in physics.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
 

Offline Rincewind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #45 on: 19/01/2006 01:14:38 »
Okay, do you concede that, though relativity talks about space-time as one thing, it also states that anything travelling at the speed of light does not experience time, it exists in an instant (from its own point of view)?

So why couldn't the inverse be true (something experiencing time but not, from its own point of view, space)?

I'm not a highly trained physicist but I got an easy A at A level and had a ****in genius teacher who took us way beyond what was necessary for the exams.  That was long ago and informal though.

I mean, gravity does not affect light's actual velocity.  It just increases the frequency of the wave. In that respect it speeds it up.  If you do the same thing to a massive body (ie increase the frequency of the wave associated with its kinetic energy), it increases its velocity.

I'm finding it hard to say what I'm trying to say.  But I'm sure if we spoke face to face you'd have a fun, if turbulent time (depends how tired I am - I'm very tired at the moment so a bit all over the place).  

It's like, 'stationary' matter can be thought of as travelling along the time axis of a space time graph.  Light travels perpendicular to it, along the space axis.  As matter accelerates, its direction (on the graph) rotates towards the direction of light.  It tends towards being energy, all that anchors it is its rest mass.  What would happen if matter turned the other way, from rest?  It becomes energy/movement rather than acquiring more.  Hmm.  So what way is light travelling on the space axis again?  Either, because time is not an issue.  It doesn't know the difference between its start and its end.

These ideas that I throw out - they may be a bit far fetched and/or undisprovable and/or they don't add anything to accepted theories.  To be honest I don't know (my maths is weak, I only got a B at A level and that was with hard work), but something I say might make a more adept physicist think along lines they wouldn't have, where they can make something useful out of it. You never know.  They do have their foundation in physics, though more advanced physics might say they're stupid.

I have to say, a lot of accepted ideas in physics are complete tripe.  Like the idea that there was 'nothing' before the big bang.  'Nothing', by definition, doesn't exist, never has, and never will.  Just as an example.


If you didn't bother reading the rest read this:


Knowledge is a barrier to understanding.  The more knowledge you have, the harder it is to understand.  A lot of graduates come out of uni chock full of knowledge but without enough understanding (I'm not including you in this).  Me and Mark, I think, understand all we know and our understanding has shot out the end of our knowledge, with momentum but no knowledge resisting it, just sparse factlets or whatever.  So we have fun stringing together what we do know.

But sorry if we're inturrupting your discussion.  I'll chill on the mad theories when I get a decent night's sleep:)
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #46 on: 19/01/2006 09:59:07 »
I agree with you in that I see that as within our universe matter and energy are conserved there is no sense in thinking that it is not conserved within all space and time ie the appearance of our universe out if nothing is silly.

So the multiverse (everything there is including our universe and anything that may be outside of it) is of undifined (or infinite if you prefer it) space and time by definition.  our universe is clearly defined in that it appears to have a dense hot and very smooth beginning and a cool quiet end.  It appears to me and many other people that this is the simplest and most probable final cosmology. ie our universe is just one of many universes which start live for a while and then die (just like everything else) These are not parallel universes related to our own but totally independant and unknowable.

We are already aware of other "universes" spawning off from within our universe in the form of black holes the inside of which we cannot observe.  These also have defined lives.

I realise the attraction that there must be a repulsive force to balance gravity but stop and think for a moment, gravity attracts very weakly at our scale but quite strongly when you think of stars and galaxies.  Why don't they collapse immediately?  what is the opposing force that stops them?  The opposing force is angular momentum this is the reason why the universe continues to exist and in the words of a presentation that I am currently working on  "Angular momentum the strongest force in the universe".

Look up and learn about the Virial theorem which describes how the conservation of angular momentum affects any distributed material that is trying to collapse under gravity.  This has been known about and applied for more than 100 years

Also look up and learn about rotating black holes.   Most of the descriptions of black holes talk about non rotating ones and it is just about impossible to create one of these.  Rotating black holes are very different and much more complex.

Learn, create, test and tell
evolution rules in all things
God says so!
« Last Edit: 19/01/2006 10:05:35 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline Rincewind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #47 on: 22/01/2006 21:52:35 »
I'd be interested in reading/hearing your presentation (depending on who you're presenting it to cos it might go way over my head) because angular momentum is something that has recently started confusing me.

Why is linear movement apparently completely relative while angular movement seems to be absolute?  What's the frame of reference?  What are particles/planets/whatever rotating relative to?

Rotation, or a mismeasurement thereof, seems like another likely candidate for the reason behind dark matter/energy to me.

Do dark matter and energy seem just silly to anyone else?  It really seems to me there must be a simple explanation for the gaps between theory and observation.  It seems far more likely there's a problem with the theory rather than there's a load of matter and energy that we can't see for some reason.  


Your summary of the lifetime of our universe made me think; space must have been/must be/must be going to be much bigger than what's in it, if you see what I mean.  The cool end that you talk about is the ultimate heat death, right?  Everything is much more spread out (obviously) than it was in the beginning.  My question is, what's it growing in?  What's it growing relative to?  Because if it was hot in the very beginning when there was just energy, how can it be cool at the end, when it has all returned to energy.  Where's the extra space come from?  You say a black hole is a seperate universe from ours.  The only way a black hole gets bigger is if we drop something into it, ay?  The event horizon only expands because we've added to the mass and the internal density (presumably, insofar as we can say it exists) remains the same.
 

Offline ukmicky

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3011
    • View Profile
    • http://www.space-talk.com/
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #48 on: 22/01/2006 22:37:55 »
quote:
Do dark matter and energy seem just silly to anyone else? It really seems to me there must be a simple explanation for the gaps between theory and observation. It seems far more likely there's a problem with the theory rather than there's a load of matter and energy that we can't see for some reason.


http://www.physorg.com/news9830.html
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/09_warp.shtml
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/2/14  
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7056
« Last Edit: 22/01/2006 23:04:07 by ukmicky »
 

Offline Rincewind

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #49 on: 23/01/2006 02:13:34 »
Cheers for those links Mickey, but I still think we're all gonna be laughed at by physicists of the future for this dark matter invention.

What evidence have we got that G, the 'universal' gravitational constant, is indeed universal and completely constant (for example, that's not my favourite possible explanation though)?

I'm gonna carry on reading (I got as far as the second one then branched off into MOND)
« Last Edit: 23/01/2006 02:20:12 by Rincewind »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Gravity... are we making a grave mistake?
« Reply #49 on: 23/01/2006 02:13:34 »

 

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