# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: What is the mechanism of gravity?  (Read 16440 times)

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2769
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #25 on: 06/06/2014 04:51:22 »

My thought, gravity is simple thing,,matter-density.
That's wrong. Matter is the source of gravity. It's not the mechanism. The source of a field is quite different than the mechanism that generates it.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2769
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #26 on: 06/06/2014 05:09:09 »
Quote from: Phractality
The warp of space-time is a mathematical description of the effect of gravity, …
I assume by ”warp” that you really mean “curvature”.  The term “warp” as defined at
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/warp
is not a synonym for curvature.

And curved spacetime is not a mathematical description of the effect of gravity. It’s the description of gradients in the gravitational field.  It’s what Newton would have called a tidal force. Gravity and tidal forces are not the same. They are merely related to each other. As I explained above you can have a gravitational field with no spacetime curvature. I fact that was the very first gravitational field that Einstein himself considered.

Quote from: Phractality
Space-time is curved because gravity bends the path of light in Euclidean space, and Minkowski redefined "straight line" as the path of light.
Actually you have it backwards. Spacetime is not curved merely because gravity bends light. You can bend light in flat spacetime as a matter of fact. You made a serious mistake here. Spacetime is not Euclidean. For a space to be Euclidean it has to use the metric that is used in Euclidean space. Flat spacetime is not Euclidean because the metric is non-Euclidean. Also Minkowski did not redefine ”straight line.”  Mathematicians such as Gauss and Riemann came up with the idea of how to generalize the concept of straight line in a curved space by introducing the concept of the geodesic. But the assertion that Minkowski redefined "straight line" as the path of light is quite wrong.

Quote from: Phractality
I believe gravity, ….
Why? A belief without a good reason for it is absolutely useless.

Quote from: Phractality
and all the other forces of nature, result from exchange of momentum between regular energy and dark energy.
Quite wrong. Absolutely no justification for such an assertion. Nobody knows anything about Dark Energy so making such a claim is wishful thinking, not physics.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2769
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #27 on: 06/06/2014 05:35:00 »
Quote from: Bill S
Then there is Mark McCutcheon!!!  He believes there is no gravity.  He believes that all the matter in the Universe is expanding.  If we drop something, what we perceive is not that object falling to the ground, it is the ground coming up to meet the object.
I heard this back in the sci.physics newsgroup many years ago. I explained to that person why he was wrong (i.e. what observations of the world around him contradict his claim) and I was promptly ignored. :D

Suppose he was right.  Then the earth would be getting larger and larger and larger while the same thing would be happening to the sun. Since, according to him, there’s no gravitational force both the earth and the sun move in straight lines. If what he said were actually true then both the earth, moon and the sun would be getting larger and larger with time. That means that the surface of all three of those heavenly bodies would be getting closer and closer to each other. Since observation tells us that this is not the case it follows that Mr. McCutcheon is quite wrong. However I doubt he’d admit it.

People like that must truly think that each and every physicist in the world is an absolute moron.

#### jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #28 on: 06/06/2014 07:18:18 »
You forgot to give me a bullet.  [xx(]

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2769
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #29 on: 07/06/2014 01:45:32 »
You forgot to give me a bullet.  [xx(]
Sorry. Here you go. |==>

#### jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #30 on: 07/06/2014 04:05:06 »
Massless bullet?

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2769
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #31 on: 07/06/2014 04:26:27 »
Massless bullet?
Considering the fact that I have no idea what you're talking about with this whole bullet thing you shouldn't complain and be happy with what you got.

#### jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #32 on: 07/06/2014 05:28:30 »
I meant you debunked many posts in this thread. Why not mine?

I suggested a mechanism to explain gravitation. What's your thought about it? Thanks

#### jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #33 on: 12/06/2014 04:06:07 »
Although gravity is clearly related to the mass or matter of a body, what is the mechanism which causes bodies to attract?
Mass splits up grains of an ether and throws away them. Shared grains slip through other mass and do not touch it. The return stream of large grains of an ether touches mass and pushes it to the big mass. Shared grain of an ether gradually incorporates in the whole. [:I]

Sounds like quantum gravitation theory. Cheers!

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2769
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #34 on: 12/06/2014 04:58:42 »
Quote from: jccc
I meant you debunked many posts in this thread. Why not mine?
Because I had no idea that was what you wanted. All this totally irrelevant stuff about a bullet didn't help me understand what you wanted. I can’t even imagine why you thought I’d understand that.

Quote from: jccc
I suggested a mechanism to explain gravitation. What's your thought about it? Thanks
Your problem is one of electrostatics, not gravity. There are certainly classical arrangements of charges where there are an equal number of positive and negative charges in each body making each body having a total charge of zero but for which the net force is not zero. A simple example is two electric dipoles. The net force between them is not zero. However when the force is proportional to charge and not mass and therefore the rate at which they accelerate towards each other will depend on the mass of the accelerating body. However gravitational acceleration is independent of a body’s mass so therefore this can’t be viewed as gravity.
« Last Edit: 13/06/2014 06:12:02 by PmbPhy »

#### jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #35 on: 13/06/2014 05:17:50 »
[/quote
Your problem is one of, not gravity. There are certainly classical arrangements of charges where there are an equal number of positive and negative charges in each body making each body having a total charge of zero but for which the net force is not zero. A simple example is two electric dipoles. The net force between them is not zero. However when the force is proportional to charge and not mass and therefore the rate at which they accelerate towards each other will depend on the mass of the accelerating body. However gravitational acceleration is independent of a body’s mass so therefore this can’t be viewed as gravity.

I am confused. Isn't mass proportional to its total charges?  If 1 kg of gold carries 10^27 electrons, 2 kg of gold should carry 2 x 10^27 electrons.

Put those two gold balls R from Earth, the net electrostatic force between Earth and two balls is proportional to their charges, therefore 1:2. The mass ratio is 1:2, F=Ma=Mg, therefore gravitational acceleration is independent of a body’s mass.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2769
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #36 on: 13/06/2014 07:01:29 »
Quote from: jccc
You’re very welcome.

Quote from: jccc
I am confused. Isn't mass proportional to its total charges?
No. For example; if you have an atom that is electrically neutral then its charge to mass ratio is zero. If you have the same atom and remove an electron then it becomes charged. The atom now has a non-zero charge to mass ratio. If you now remove another charge then the charge to mass ratio will change once again.

Quote from: jccc
If 1 kg of gold carries 10^27 electrons, 2 kg of gold should carry 2 x 10^27 electrons.
That’s correct. But not relevant to the current problem.

Quote from: jccc
Put those two gold balls R from Earth, the net electrostatic force between Earth and two balls is proportional to their charges, therefore 1:2.
Actually the net electrostatic force will be zero. On each body, i.e. golf ball and earth, there are exactly the same number of electrons as there are protons making each body electrically neutral. When that happens the force between the body is exactly zero.

Quote from: jccc
The mass ratio is 1:2, F=Ma=Mg, therefore gravitational acceleration is independent of a body’s mass.
That’s    quite incorrect. Consider a positively charged spherical body of total charge Q with uniform mass distribution whose center is located at the origin of the coordinate system. This charge configuration has the same electric field as a point charge located at the origin. Take a negatively charged particle of mass m  and charge q and place it on the x-axis at x = r. Then the force on the particle is

F = kQq/r^2 = kQq/x^2

Since F = ma we have

ma = kQq/x^2
or

a = (q/m)kQ/x^2 = CkQ/x^2

The value C = q/m is the charge to mass ratio that I was talking about and depends on the intrinsic properties of the particle and has a different value for each different body. Therefore different particles fall at different rates. And negative charges would  “fall up” which doesn’t happen with gravity.

However you’re under the mistaken impression that the electric force between two bodies is never zero, which is quite wrong. There’s no reason to assume such a thing to be true. The distances between the positive and negative charges in an atom is so small that an atom with the same number of protons as neutrons is electrically neutral and thus when separated by a macroscopic distance from another atom (e.g. one micrometer) the force is zero for all practical purposes.

What you’re doing is using generalizations and thinking off the cuff. The problem with that is that you never sit down and do the calculation and this never see the error in your argument. Next time do the calculation. Had you tried the simple example I gave which led to

a = (q/m)kQ/x^2 = CkQ/x^2

then you’d have see the problem and not needed help.

#### jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #37 on: 19/06/2014 18:57:43 »
Pete, thank you very much taking the time teaching me.

I am still confusing.

We knew atoms are each electrically neutral, but they attract to each other in short distance to form matter. The same force in long distance should be still there, acting as gravity.

F=M1M1/R^2,   M1=m1+ + m1-,  M2=m2+ + m2-.  F=cQ1Q2/R^2

Can you see the connection? Mass is proportional to total charges in a body.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2769
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #38 on: 20/06/2014 00:39:25 »
Quote from: jccc
Pete, thank you very much taking the time teaching me.
You're most welcome, sir! :)

Quote from: jccc
I am still confusing.

We knew atoms are each electrically neutral, but they attract to each other in short distance to form matter. The same force in long distance should be still there, acting as gravity.

F=M1M1/R^2,   M1=m1+ + m1-,  M2=m2+ + m2-.  F=cQ1Q2/R^2

Can you see the connection? Mass is proportional to total charges in a body.
No. I can't see the connection because it's not there.

You've got it all wrong. I keep telling you that when the force is caused by the electric force that the bodies accelerate towards each other as a function of the charge to mass ratio which depends on the particulars of the body. But when its gravity that doesn't happen. The body which falls is independant of anything. Do you have the mathematical abilities to work out an example? If so then work out the acceleration between an electric dipole and a gravitational dipole. If not then let me know and I'll do it for you.

Besides. You're forgetting that particles that don't have any charge is also attracted by gravitating bodies. Light is a perfect example. Photons fall in a gravitational field. A beam of light is bent by the sun as it passes by it.
« Last Edit: 20/06/2014 05:43:10 by PmbPhy »

#### jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #39 on: 20/06/2014 01:07:47 »
Light bend by gravity is because the medium of light is denser near sun/matter/body, the medium they called ether, I call it enertron, a tiny tiny negative charged particle that fills the space. Light also bend by air or water or glass that has different density of enertron than vacuum.

The only thing in the space that attracts enertrons is positive charges. Therefore, enertrons form ball shape field around proton/protons/nucleus and matters.

Around any heavy mass, enertron density is proportional to its mass.

My theory so far no one agrees, but all you smart minds please give it a chance, think about it.

If we shoot electrons at matter, what stops electrons hit straight on nucleus? They attract each other with strong force, plus electron has momentum towards nucleus?

If nothing stops electrons hit nucleus, nucleus reaction should be everywhere and we won't be here.

Is any question more simple than this one?  What stops electrons reaching nucleus?

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2769
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #40 on: 20/06/2014 01:21:18 »
Quote from: jccc
Light bend by gravity is because the medium of light is denser near sun/matter/body, the medium they called ether, I call it enertron, a tiny tiny negative charged particle that fills the space.
Sorry but I have no interest in your theory. It doesn't even belong in this forum. It belongs in the New Theories forum. You can't just claim that an ether exists and is the medium of light. The motion of light in such a medium was shown to be independant of such a medium over a hundred years ago. There's too many things wrong with it and you haven't even thought about it being consistent with all other branches of physics and all observations.

#### jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #41 on: 20/06/2014 02:39:24 »
Opinion various, Pete.

The theories you hold as Bible today was new yesterday.

If light was particle, why light beam expending with distance? Why is light change speed in different matters? If most space within matter is vacuum then light particles should pass through with same speed.

Sound wave is EM force passing between atoms/matters, light wave is EM force act between enertron field which is space. Any wave needs medium.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2769
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #42 on: 20/06/2014 05:40:14 »
Quote from: jccc
If light was particle, why light beam expending with distance?
I don't know what expending with distance means. Do you mean that the intensity decreases with distance? If so that's simple. Whenever photons are emitted from some place they aren't all emitted in the same direction. Consider a laser beam. Ideally the laser beam is a collimated beam of photons whose intensity ideally does not decrease with distance. However nothing is ever perfect and there is a very small divergence of the beam. This happens because the beam leaves the laser from an aperture and when that happens the photons, due to the wave-particle duality, diffracts at the edge of the aperture due to the photons wave properties.

Quote from: jccc
Why is light change speed in different matters?
The propagation of light through matter can be viewed as an absorption of a photon by one atom which is excited to a higher energy state. A short time later the atom de-excites to a lower energy level where a photon of the same energy is emitted in the same direction. This property repeats until the photon is all the way through the material. Since the excitation/de-excitation process is not instantaneous there is a slight time delay. This is why the light appears to travel at a slower speed in matter.

Quote from: jccc
If most space within matter is vacuum then light particles should pass through with same speed.
So? What’s your point? Space is not mostly vacuum. It’s filled with atoms. Light doesn’t pass straight through an atom. The atom absorbs the photon. You’re thinking in classical terms like a point particle is moving through empty space that has many point particles in it from the atom. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t use classical thinking in atomic physics or you’ll get it all wrong.

Please don’t post that stuff about enertron any place other than the new theory section where it belongs.

#### jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #43 on: 20/06/2014 07:12:52 »
If we shoot electrons at matter, what stops electrons hit straight on nucleus? They attract each other with strong force, plus electron has momentum towards nucleus?

If nothing stops electrons hit nucleus, nucleus reaction should be everywhere and we won't be here.

Is any question more simple than this one?  What stops electrons reaching nucleus?

What is energy level? How it works? How is photon move as wave? Isn't QM a self explanatory theory?

#### evan_au

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4130
• Thanked: 249 times
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #44 on: 20/06/2014 12:33:40 »
Quote
If we shoot electrons at matter, what stops electrons hit straight on nucleus?

If you have some type of wave (eg an ocean wave, a sound wave or a radio wave) striking an obstacle which is much smaller than the wavelength, the wave effectively goes around the obstacle and keeps on going (with perhaps a small amount of diffraction).

Electrons in an electron microscope have a much larger wavelenegth than the size of an atom (and much larger than the proton in the central nucleus). So an electron often just passes on by the atom (with a bit of diffraction).

Quote
They attract each other with strong force, plus electron has momentum towards nucleus?
There is a mechanism with the German name of Bremsstrahlung radiation, or "braking radiation", which occurs when a high-speed electron passes close to a proton. This might happen if you collided a beam of protons and electrons.

In this case, the electron's path is deflected, and it produces a photon. The electron does not actually react with the proton.

Quote
If nothing stops electrons hit nucleus, nucleus reaction should be everywhere and we won't be here.
To borrow a Solar-System analogy from another thread: If a planet hits the Sun, it is burnt up, and ceases to exist as a separate planet. If an electron passes through a nucleus, it usually does not react with the nucleus, and they continue to exist as a separate electron and proton.

So you don't need to worry about ceasing to exist because of your electrons reacting with your protons (unless you have the misfortune to be caught in the center of a star going supernova, and then you would already have bigger problems!).

#### JP

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3366
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #45 on: 20/06/2014 13:24:35 »
jccc, please keep posts on your enertron theory to the new theories section of the forum.  This section is for discussion and Q&A on mainstream physical theories.  Thanks!

#### jccc

• Hero Member
• Posts: 990
##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #46 on: 20/06/2014 19:11:35 »
JP, understood, thanks.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?
« Reply #46 on: 20/06/2014 19:11:35 »