The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Could gravity be a repulsive force rather than attractive?  (Read 9977 times)

Offline Bamboozled

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Although I'm a super NooB I did read the post 'How do we know that gravity is an attractive force?' but it was quite old and the users on it may be dead and gone by now so apologies if I am stepping on any toes by starting a new one.
Anyway, I've been thinking about gravity a lot lately. My internet search revealed that in all honesty 'Nobody really knows' but I'm going to ask anyway.
I was wondering if gravity could be a universally repulsive force similar to that displayed by electromagnetism when poles are reversed.
In the case of gravity, however, could matter (and to a far lesser extent photons) act as a shield or a sail capturing gravity by not allowing it to pass through but instead exert force on it. IE the greater the atomic weight of a particle or object the more resistance it offers to gravitational force.
In the case of gases their atoms are dispersed so gravity passes through them without exerting that much force on them whereas when the same particles are frozen or compressed into solids there are more particles closer together which means gravity is unable to pass through them and therefore exerts a far greater force on the object giving it a greater weight.
In the case of a black hole anomolly the particles become so dense the gravitational force has no way to pass through the object and the entire weight of the universe perhaps creates an inversion scenario of some sort where the compressed particles are destroyed to become gravity itself along with other forms of energy.
It might also explain why we cannot 'see' the socalled dark matter that makes up so much of the universe. Anyway, its just a thought but I'd love to know what somebody who has really studied this stuff thinks.


 

Offline Bengt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
Yes, you are right.
Gravity involves (almost) as much repelling as it does attracting.

Gravity between two bodies is the result of a very large number of forces. They are all electrostatic forces between electric charges in the two bodies. 50% of these forces are repelling and 50% are attracting. Because of posturing between the charges the distances between attracting charges become minutely shorter than those between repelling. As a result attraction dominates by a minute margin. For more details see www.dipole.se.
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Around the time of Newton, two guys named Fatio and Lesage promoted a concept of gravitons pushing on matter as they bounce off of it, and matter particles shading each other from the gravitons. Supposedly, matter is pushed less in the direction of other matter, resulting in a net attractive force. There are several problems with that concept.

If the gravitons bounced off of matter like perfectly elastic spheres, then the particles of matter would not appear any darker than the background. It's the same as perfectly reflective spheres hanging in a uniformly white room. To a perfectly white observer in the room, the spheres would be invisible except for the reflected pupil of the observer's eye.

For the gravitons to impart momentum to matter, some of them must be absorbed. The concept calls for the gravitons to be billions of times faster than light, and they would therefore pack billions of times as much energy as light-speed particles. Multiplying the imparted momentum by the velocity of the gravitons would yield as much energy as the matter's energy equivalent in less than a picosecond.

Van Flandern attempted to explain the disappearance of all that energy by hypothesizing a medium which he called Elysium. Supposedly, for each absorbed graviton, at least 10^20 gravitons are reflected, and the energy of the absorbed gravitons is transferred to the reflected gravitons via the Elysium.

According to my own Fractal Foam Model of Universes, regular energy and matter consist of aethereal shear waves which propagate at the speed of light, and gravity is transmitted by dark energy, which consists of aethereal pressure waves which are billions of times faster than light. Shear waves pass thru each other without exchanging momentum, and pressure waves pass thru each other without exchanging momentum, but when pressure waves pass thru shear waves there is an exchange of momentum. Thus, the shear wave alters the flux of pressure waves in a particular pattern, and pairs of shear waves affect the amount of momentum that each receives from the flux of pressure waves. Unfortunately, I am not enough of a mathematician to quantify this effect, so my explanation is only qualitative.

I believe all the forces of nature result from this exchange of momentum between shear waves and pressure waves. The most fundamental particles of matter consist of pairs of shear waves (photons) held in orbit around one another by the strongest force, which bears a resemblance to the Higgs force. Orbiting converts the photons' energy to the rest mass of the particle. The pressure-wave flux disturbance around each orbiting photon gets spun into a spiral pattern around the particle, and pairs of these spirals may mesh to form larger particles. As larger and larger particles form, the flux disturbances get more and more smeared, so the forces between particles get weaker. Gravity is the weakest of these forces that we know of; it is a net effect of the flux disturbances around the orbiting shear waves.

Unlike the Fatio/Lesage model, my model balances the energy in each collision, rather than transferring energy of one graviton to many others. There is no absorbing or reflecting of pressure waves. Instead, each pressure waves is diffracted by a tiny fraction of a degree, and the shear wave is diffracted billions of times more severely.
 

Offline Guthers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
This idea was put forward in The Cosmic Ecosystem, by Alan Johnston, published 1980.
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
This idea was put forward in The Cosmic Ecosystem, by Alan Johnston, published 1980.
Which idea? Are you saying that he presented the idea of Fatio & Lesage? Or did he beat me to my idea? I don't doubt that his cosmology shared one or two elements of mine, but I'd be very surprised if he had more than that.

I don't see any summary, review or exerpt of his book online. Guess I'll have to buy the book.
 

Offline Guthers

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
This idea was put forward in The Cosmic Ecosystem, by Alan Johnston, published 1980.
Which idea? Are you saying that he presented the idea of Fatio & Lesage? Or did he beat me to my idea? I don't doubt that his cosmology shared one or two elements of mine, but I'd be very surprised if he had more than that.

I don't see any summary, review or exerpt of his book online. Guess I'll have to buy the book.
From memory it seems like Fabio & Lesage's (and Bamboozled's) idea, but it is a long time since I read it. I would offer to sell you mine but there are loads on Amazon at 1p.
 

Offline Bamboozled

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Okay I understand the concept explained at ( newbielink:http://www.dipole.se/ [nonactive]) if not the math however it still reaches the same conclusion of 'we don't really know'.
In particular they seem to be trying to fit math, based on electrostatic and atomic reactions that are measurable, to explain a force which is currently measurable by observation of the reactions on bodies around it rather than direct identification of the force or the particle creating that reaction itself.
This seems like something of a back to front approach to me which is based on assumption derived from observed reactions. Furthermore there is the unresolved mystery of negative and positively charged baryon particles which physicists are using to balance up the 'weight' of the universe. I found a helpful article relating to this at
newbielink:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101129102456.htm [nonactive]
However once again the theories hit a brick wall as explained in this article where it says:
"Dark matter -- first hinted at nearly 80 years ago -- is an elusive material inferred to exist from measurements of its gravitational effects on visible matter in galaxies, background radiation, and the Universe as a whole. It interacts very weakly with ordinary matter and, while playing a key role in our Universe, is almost undetectable."
What I am proposing is that the reason dark matter is so unpredictable is the fact that scientists are looking for miniscule particles that act and react on tiny, atomic and subatomic levels.

What if the the individual particles of dark matter are in fact MASSIVE?

What if these particles hold nothing but negative force due to the fact their atomic structure is made up from only one particle like a single 'electron'? Since there is no other particle in the Anti-atom to create the electrostatic reaction it pushes out continually until it reaches other, solid matter or other particles of antimatter by which time its individual force is weakened considerably.
Imagine the dark matter (antimatter) particles as large air or gel-filled balloons surrounded by grains of sand representing positive matter in an otherwise empty swimming pool floating free of the effects of earth's gravity. The balloons of antimatter both push the sand particles away from each other in all directions as well as forcing them to congregate in galactic clusters.
This analogy is not perfect however as the tensile surface of the balloons does not allow for the antimatter to wrap entirely around the sand but the basic idea is still there.

The reasons this makes sense to me are as follows:

1. Light Waves are waves and have to be passing through something that is entirely transparent but still holds mass that is perfectly interlocked with every other antimatter particle around them in order to transmit the waves themselves. Therefore there must be something between us and the light on the other side of the galaxy or there would be no darkness. Would massive anti-matter atoms containing a single subatomic particle account for the interruption in the waves of light while also allowing it to pass through over time?

2. We know that when we remove subatomic particles from an atom, the resulting force is directed outwards as energy and creates an explosion rather than implosion.

3. We know that under extraordinary conditions subatomic particles can be removed from or inserted into other atoms so having them removed almost entirely from an antimatter particle is not inconceivable. Conversely particles could be added to the antimatter and as such would allow for the balancing of forces in the universe.

5. What if black holes are the result of an implosive atomic reaction where the forces at the core of the supernova smash exponentially growing amounts of subatomic particles into individual atoms. The surrounding anti-matter atoms made up of single subatomic particles are thereby attracted to the overloaded atoms as they attempt to balance themselves thereby causing the distorion in the effects of the garvitional field.

OH and BTW I really appreciate the thought you lot have put into this. Thanks a heap.
 
« Last Edit: 10/05/2012 01:58:45 by Bamboozled »
 

Offline katesisco

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
I read Miles Mathis papers and he proposes that there are two forces, attractive (electrons) and repulsive and that our current solar system is unbalanced due to an excess of matter which translates into more gravity.  Worth reading.  And, of course, the implications are worth considering.  How did we get unblanced as one supposed the normal state is balance.  his main point is that charge is not virtual, its real and that is a whole new ball game. 
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
How does density play into the "repulsive" theory?

Say one had two planets of equal size, but one made entirely of lead, the other made of, say, granite.

The lead planet would have a mass of about 4x the granite planet, but both having the same size.

How would the repulsive theory deal with the surface gravity?
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
I was wondering if gravity could be a universally repulsive force similar to that displayed by electromagnetism when poles are reversed.
No. There is nothing in nature that would even hint at such a thing. Sorry to disapoint you. Also, there is no such thing as a gravitational shield.
 

Offline richolland

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Could gravity be a repulsive force rather than attractive?
« Reply #10 on: 12/07/2012 17:27:17 »
Bamboozled, et al;
   In the recent PBS presentation, The Fabric of the Cosmos: What Is Space?, professor Brian Greene "is going to let you in on a secret: 'We've all been deceived. Our perceptions of time and space have led us astray.'"

  In this broadcast, space is visually depicted as producing an outward force and he refers to an experiment where two nearby objects with minimal space between them are apparently pushed together by this undefined force from the larger, surrounding space. (Hendrik Casimir; 1948.)
 
  Albert Einstein had predicted that space itself could exert a force that would drive galaxies apart but had to add his "cosmological constant" to make it work. This may be what is now called 'dark energy'.
 
  Then, it seemed to me that the next obvious step was to explain how these various aspects of space represent a single process resulting in the effect of gravity. However, Prof. Greene stopped short and made no further implications that would change the current teachings. Maybe he's saving that for his next book?

--
PBS' NOVA, transcript available: newbielink:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-space [nonactive]

--end--
 

Offline pacecorp

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Could gravity be a repulsive force rather than attractive?
« Reply #11 on: 03/01/2013 18:05:44 »
Uhle’s Theory of Mass and Gravity

Okay, here’s the mental game I’ve been playing for a few years; I’ve read the other theories and this seems to be similar to others but with a different wrinkle:
What if gravity is a force that repels mass, shielded only by mass?  If we have an infinite universe sprinkled with bodies, this force measured at any point in space would be equal from all directions, except as “shadowed” by nearby objects.  Imagine this force as light forming an umbra, a penumbra, and an antumbra by every object, relative to every other object.  The size of the shadow is determined by the size of the shielding body and the “darkness” of the shadow is determined by the density of the body.  If this is the case, I cannot think of a single example (including black holes) of interacting bodies that would not behave exactly as we now accept the behavior caused by attractive gravity.
If there is an “edge” to the universe or a reduction of density in the distant universe, this would also explain the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. 
As for how all this relates with the idea of dark matter, I need help thinking it through but have a wild guess that it’s some sort of illusion.  All comments are welcome…poke away.  It’s a fun topic!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Could gravity be a repulsive force rather than attractive?
« Reply #11 on: 03/01/2013 18:05:44 »

 

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