The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Gravity Defined  (Read 7944 times)

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Gravity Defined
« on: 25/07/2015 17:47:32 »
I have developed a definition that I believe supports the idea that interactions with variances in density of a smallest substance and the void it exists within is responsible for gravity, as well as the existence of all particles and the energy they possess.
 
http://www.gravitydefined.com/ [nofollow]
 
please keep in mind that I am not a physicist, so this hypothesis may not be what one is use to, but please  offer your feedback.


 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #1 on: 25/07/2015 18:18:14 »
Quote from: Dreamian
I have developed a definition that I believe supports the idea that interactions with variances in density of a smallest substance and the void it exists within is responsible for gravity, as well as the existence of all particles and the energy they possess.
 
http://www.gravitydefined.com/
 
please keep in mind that I am not a physicist, so this hypothesis may not be what one is use to, but please  offer your feedback.
This is the wrong forum for this. It belongs in the New Theories forum. Just to let our members know, this new theory was posted in another forum, i.e. at http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/28473-gravity-defined/

Dreamian asked for a critique on his new theory. The words I chose to use were things like "garbage." Unfortunately Dreamian misunderstood my intentions and though that I was insulting him which is not true of course. I'd never insult someone I just met or who hasn't insulted me first.

Dreamian - If you think that I insulted you then I apologize for it. I wasn't going to critique this because there's too much work to critique it. However, since today is a slow day for me I'll critique a little of it so that you can get an idea of what I meant. I'll print it out, sit down, and go through it line by line. However there are going to me a large number of comments regarding your writing style, i.e. the way you wrote it I found very confusing. For example;
Quote
If it is not a difference in density, and the void it exists within, that is responsible for it's interactions, than what else? ?
Please do me a very big favor and do not explain what this means in this thread until I've heard from at least one other member as to what they think that it means. The reason for this is my way of  critiquing what you wrote. I can't  critique something that I don't know what it means, but I also want to explain the problem with the way you expressed your idea.

So after I've gone through it, and you choose to no longer insult or attack me like you did in the other forum because you misunderstood what I meant, I'll come back and post my analysis. That is, if I choose to finish it. I might get bored or it might be too confusing to critique. And that's the main problem that I see, i.e. it's very confusing.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Thanked: 154 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #2 on: 25/07/2015 18:36:57 »
Quote
Obviously there has to be a smallest substance; that not only exists as the smallest substance, but it must exist in varying degrees of density for interaction to be possible. Interactions within this substance obviously must occur in order for energy to exist. Interactions and the energy it creates is what allows for this substance to form the particles that create the elements.

Sorry, friend, but this is all nonsense.

I appreciate the bold step of beginning an argument with "obviously" but whilst it is used by politicians, priests and philosophers, it doesn't work in physics. Where is the experimental evidence or hypothetical imperative for any of this paragraph?

Later on, the text wanders into anthropomorphism, matters of personal belief, and various other unscientific sillinesses. 

There being no apparent malice, I'll shift it to New Theories where it may strike a chord with other believers in aether and fairies.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3925
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #3 on: 25/07/2015 19:23:46 »
I have developed a definition that I believe supports the idea that interactions with variances in density of a smallest substance and the void it exists within is responsible for gravity, as well as the existence of all particles and the energy they possess.
 
http://www.gravitydefined.com/
 
please keep in mind that I am not a physicist, so this hypothesis may not be what one is use to, but please  offer your feedback.

I briefly looked at your site. Firstly, you don't use mathematics. Therefore you have no theory. Secondly, you did ask for opinions so I will oblige. I am an amateur myself. The difference between us is I have put years of effort into reading and learning the physics. I am only now beginning to get some insights. Teaching youself is like climbing a mountain without any equipment. Simply understanding the meaning of some of the symbols used in physics and their meaning can take a while. Even after all this effort I have no theories. I don't know enough yet. So you can understand, I hope, why I don't take you seriously.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #4 on: 25/07/2015 19:35:56 »
Quote from: alancalverd
Sorry, friend, but this is all nonsense.
That's almost the exact same thing I said in the other forum. I thing I used the phrase "total garbage" myself.

Quote from: alancalverd
I appreciate the bold step of beginning an argument with "obviously" but whilst it is used by politicians, priests and philosophers, it doesn't work in physics. Where is the experimental evidence or hypothetical imperative for any of this paragraph?
We're certainly on the same wavelength my friend! Here are my responses to that part
Quote from: pmb
You use terms like "obviously" to refer to things that make no sense at all.
...
I already showed you one error, i.e. you're attempt at arguing a point which is clearly wrong to any physicist but you claimed it's "obviously" the way you thought it was. That's not an argument.
...
Your entire article is filled with "I think" and "I believe" which makes it an unscientific paper. Physicists don't argue the validity of their theories with what they think or believe. It's only what they can demonstrate or logically argue that counts. And all arguments are based on axioms and there are no well-known axioms in your article.

His argument for it's use is that he uses it when it's "obvious" to him. Certainly not a scientific or logical argument by any means. I told him that I don't have time to read garbage like that. He responded to that and my critique by saying
Quote
and yet you take your precious time to insult me. That speaks a lot about you.  If I use the word "Obviously" then it is obvious to me. i can't expect it to be obvious to everyone.  You also read too much into what i said. I never claimed any theory to be wrong, i claimed they do not make sense, that they do not give a proper definition in my opinion. I have the skills to reason this, even without a phd. Now,  the fact that they are categorized as theories and not as facts, means they are not necessarily correct.  I would think as bright as you claim to be you would understand this. If you can take the precious time to insult me, then at least have the honor to take the time to point out my mistakes, otherwise you are just blowing a lot of hot air.
That's how he argues. To him "doesn't make sense" is not the same thing as being wrong. So to him the theory of gravity is fine even if it doesn't make sense. How do you reason with someone who uses that kind of logic?

Read the rest of his response, Alan. You'll get an idea of what to expect from him regarding your criticism. I'm almost certain that he's going to claim that you insulted him.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #5 on: 25/07/2015 19:37:25 »
Quote from: jeffreyH
I briefly looked at your site. Firstly, you don't use mathematics. Therefore you have no theory. Secondly, you did ask for opinions so I will oblige. I am an amateur myself. The difference between us is I have put years of effort into reading and learning the physics. I am only now beginning to get some insights. Teaching youself is like climbing a mountain without any equipment. Simply understanding the meaning of some of the symbols used in physics and their meaning can take a while. Even after all this effort I have no theories. I don't know enough yet. So you can understand, I hope, why I don't take you seriously.
Don't let Jeff's modest confuse you. He's quite knowledgeable in physics and very bright.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #6 on: 25/07/2015 20:06:10 »
I have developed a definition that I believe supports the idea that interactions with variances in density of a smallest substance and the void it exists within is responsible for gravity, as well as the existence of all particles and the energy they possess.
 
http://www.gravitydefined.com/
 
please keep in mind that I am not a physicist, so this hypothesis may not be what one is use to, but please  offer your feedback.
Your enthusiasm should be honored my friend and I always give credit to those with new ideas for the courage and persistence they radiate. However, I'm offering you some friendly advice and I recommend you take it if you hope to spare yourself much grief.

Your theory is much akin to the Aether theories that have long since been disproven. I would hope that you check into the current scientific reasons why this theory was abandoned many years ago. Unless you acquaint yourself with the scientific evidence available today that details why physicists understand gravity the way they currently do, you risk locking yourself into preconceived opinions that will impede your potential progress in learning the realities of gravity.

You would do yourself a favor if you spent some quality time learning why our present gravitational theory makes more sense than those out-dated Aether theories.

Good luck to you my friend.....................................Ethos



 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #7 on: 25/07/2015 20:19:49 »
I really was looking for feedback regarding my hypothesis and not my writing style or choice of words.

When I used the word "Obviously" in regard to the existence of a smallest substance, I did not in my wildest dreams believe that it would be the center of critique of the hypothesis that I was trying to present to this forum.  As I pointed out in the other forum, I think that a lot of physicists must think it obvious that there must be a smallest substance, as they spend a great deal of time trying to discover it.

My entire hypothesis is being shunned on writing style and the like. That seems very surreal to me! 

True, I am not a physicist, nor do I make use of math as a physicist would in their hypotheses, I was pretty straight on that from the beginning.  I do have reasoning skills, and those skills I believe may have come up with a possibility that explains Gravity and the existence of energy.

I am not trying present my hypothesis as being proven fact, therefore the use of the word "believe" etc, resulting in yet more unbelievable critique.

Thats Ok,   My hypothesis is still there for those who actually get the points I am trying to make. I do "believe" my points are valid, and that they present a very real possibility. 

I believe that my definition makes much more sense than blindly believing that mass warps space time or something to that effect. Yes, I use phrases like "makes sense" another area of unbelievable critique" but I would rather follow a path that makes sense, than one that does not; therefore something must make sense to me before I would stake my belief in it.

I asked a question in that other forum and did not receive an answer

is it your stance that like so many believe in that a higher deity just is, that energy just is? or that electric charge just is?

I have offered a possibility that does "make sense", although not proven or fitting the requirements of an actual theory, that may well explain how energy is, or electric charge is, as well as Gravity is.
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #8 on: 25/07/2015 20:36:22 »
Thank you Ethos,  I was aware of the aether, I was not aware that it attempted to explain gravity, or that it was disproved. I believed that there could be conflict there as far as my referring to this substance as the Ger, but I also did not want to redefine a substance that has already been defined and named. I will have to check into why it was disproved and see if I can reason why it should or should not disprove my idea. Although, if it uses physics math, it will likely be too far over my head to understand. I really don't know if at my age I want to take the time to learn the math.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #9 on: 25/07/2015 21:23:30 »
Quote from: Dreamian
I really was looking for feedback regarding my hypothesis and not my writing style or choice of words.
I gotta tell ya, Dreamian. It's very frustrating when you keep repeating this same old rhetoric claiming that we haven't explained the problem with your essay and that all we did was whine about a few words that you chose to use. This is one of the several reasons I chose not to help you. When we get people posting new theories and they're so bad that we can barely understand what the OP is trying to say because its all very unclear then its always been the case that the OP can't understand the criticism and will, instead, turn on the people criticizing their theory. Do you think we should rush in and let you insult us merely because you're not catching on to what we're trying to say? In essence we're all saying that it's shear nonsense. Got it? I hated doing it but I did take a small amount of time to show a few examples.  But every single day in all forums there's always people peddling their new theory and claim that they've got it all figured out and the entire physics community has had it wrong all these years. Yup. All 22,000 of us physicists in the US have it wrong but that one person "who doesn't need math" has proved them all wrong. Ya! Right!

You're totally missing the point. It's not about your words. It's about what they mean and what you meant by them. You're arguing about what you believe to be obvious. We've explained to you that such a term can't be used in a scientific essay. The reason is because it's subjective. By that I mean that what's obvious to you, the opposite could be obvious to everyone else. For example; you claimed that
Quote from: Dreamian
Obviously there has to be a smallest substance; that not only exists as the smallest substance, but it must exist in varying degrees of density for interaction to be possible.
There is absolutely nothing obvious about what you're claiming to be the case. Even if I believed otherwise it wouldn't mean others would find it obvious. That means that it's subjective and you can't use subjective concepts in a scientific deduction because the conclusion would also be subjective meaning the reader could rightly conclude that you're argument is wrong.

Quote from: Dreamian
When I used the word "Obviously" in regard to the existence of a smallest substance, I did not in my wildest dreams believe that it would be the center of critique of the hypothesis that I was trying to present to this forum.
Once again you failed to understand the point. That was only used as an example. Clearly you didn't pay attention to what I wrote before that, i.e. where I wrote You use terms like .. Later when I mentioned it all I did was say that when you use notions like what you believe to be obvious it doesn't constitute an argument.

You're very confused about the criticism because you believe we're complaining about your grammar when in fact we aren't. We're complaining about your logic. All theories or arguments require logical deductions. All logical arguments include three main components. Two of which are propositions and one is the actual logic itself.  The two propositions are the premise(s)s and the second is the conclusion(s). A logical argument can sometimes have the form "If A then B."  What you have is "I think A and it seems to me that B is true. The former is a scientific type argument. The later is a casual conversation.

You claim to use reason and logic but none of the ingredients of a logical deduction or argument are present in that essay.

I already told you one thing that was wrong and you claimed that I didn't. That's why I really don't want to continue, i.e. because if I did you wouldn't recognize it as a logical scientific criticism. You claim that all you did was study one physics course in college. I, on the other hand, did not only that but got a BA in both physics and math and went on to graduate school, almost completing an MS in physics. That means I have a great deal more knowledge and experience in reading, studying and forming logical scientific arguments and proofs.

So let's start with the first part of your essay which contains some substance. The first sentence of the second paragraph is what I'm talking about. What proof, evidence or reason do you have to substantiate your assertion that To understand gravity and to define it, you need to break things down, dissect mass to it's smallest parts.? I.e. why? Currently we don't need to know anything about the structure of matter to be able to describe the gravitational field in a region of space and how matter will behave when placed in that region. So what reasons do you have that the current understanding is wrong?

Then regarding elementary particles you claim
Quote from: Dreamian
... these cannot be studied with a microscope, but must be reasoned out logically within the mind, using what knowledge we have of our environment
There's no reasoning that can tell you things like this. Although we can't use a microscope to study matter at that level we can certainly study it using other equipment such as particle accelerators. We've learned a great deal from the data collected from experiments which used particle accelerators.

Quote from: Dreamian
It reasons that A smallest substance must exist.
"It reasons" is not an argument. You can't merely say "It reasons" and expect someone to accept what follows. If you claim that it "reasons" then you have to state the reasoning. You go on
Quote from: Dreamian
Obviously there has to be a smallest substance..
Again with the "obviously". Why is it obvious this time? What does the term "substance" mean in this case? When it comes to particles the smallest particle is the ones that are truly elementary and have a radius of zero, i.e. point particles. But that has nothing to do with any theory of gravity. A theory of gravity must take the distribution that exists of matter in a region of space and predict how particles will move when placed in the gravitational field produced by that matter. This is a non-quantum theory since there isn't a quantum theory of gravity yet and what you wrote is an essay on classical gravity.

Later on you go on to claim
Quote from: Dreamian
Interactions and the energy it creates is what allows for this substance to form the particles that create the elements
This too is an assertion with no justification for it.

Later on you go on to claim
Quote from: Dreamian
For Gravity to exist, not only must vast amounts of total void exist within the universe, but also varying degrees of density of the smallest substance that for clarity I will now refer to as the "Ger".
Yet another unfounded claim and the introduction of something which is unclear what it is or why you gave it that name. What does "varying degrees of density of the smallest substance " mean anyway?

That's the problem with it all. There's no logical derivation here. All there is are your claims with no justification to them. And to boot it's all extremely poor and terribly put together making it extremely confusing. This isn't a theory or a deduction by any means. In fact it really isn't anything at all. All it really is, is a statement of your beliefs. And not very interesting or reasonable beliefs either.

Sorry, but d'ems the facts. :)
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #10 on: 25/07/2015 21:24:35 »
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_fisica36.htm [nofollow]

I haven't read it all yet, but this has been pretty interesting so far,  It claims that the aether theory was dismissed due to an experiment that has since been found faulty and so the aether theory is back. but like i said, not done reading it yet. I have a poker game that is very relative at this point.

There is a big difference in my definition of gravity than with the aether theory.  without a proven theory in existence, I think my idea is still a real possibility.

That letter verification seems more of an eye exam than anything else lol
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #11 on: 25/07/2015 21:40:09 »
Well,  poorly put together or not, I do believe I am on the right track.  physicists use reasoning all the time to come up with ideas, and ideas for experiments to prove their ideas. Which sometimes can be dis-proven, likely from another physicist having reasoned and then proven otherwise, or maybe just reasoned otherwise. 

I lack proof, and the skills to present it properly so that it would even be taken seriously, all I have is an idea I reasoned to make sense at this point. but it really is unlikely that I will ever possess what is needed to prove my idea.

But, I really don't care, if it offends anyone, then they really don't need to read it or respond.

I felt insulted in the other forum because you did not offer what I considered criticism, if you had I would have had a means of responding.  How do you respond to "its complete garbage"?  There lies the insult.

It felt like an insult, it even seemed to possess the purpose of being insulting. I would do the math to prove that theory, but I wouldn't know where to begin. All I have is my reasoning skills and a keen desire to know the truth.
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #12 on: 25/07/2015 21:51:25 »
Actually I do have ideas on what could prove my idea, but those ideas are very much a work in progress and will not be shared at this point.

But perhaps you could help. Are there devices that can measure changes in gravity, small changes as well as direction of the force?  without doing any research, I reasoned that perhaps capillary tubes filled with water, perhaps another liquid or treated water might aid in such a measurement, but direction would be a problem.

any ideas?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #13 on: 25/07/2015 21:52:11 »
Quote from: Dreamian
physicists use reasoning all the time to come up with ideas, and ideas for experiments to prove their ideas.
Absolutely they do. Is that what this was supposed to be? A mere step to where you want to end up? You presented it as if it was a finished work and that's a great deal different than how you get to a theory.

Quote from: Dreamian
I lack proof, and the skills to present it properly so that it would even be taken seriously, all I have is an idea I reasoned to make sense at this point. but it really is unlikely that I will ever possess what is needed to prove my idea.
If you weren't so rude and extremely insulting to me while I was trying to help you then I would have offered to help you hone those skills. However due to the horrible way you treated me and Alan I won't have anything to do with you. I'll merely make one suggestion and let it be done with. Carefully study the following two books:

The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper
Practical Logic: An Antidote for Uncritical Thinking by Douglas J. Soccio and Vincent E. Barry
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #14 on: 25/07/2015 22:25:11 »
I really did not feel I was being rude to you and alan. I am just being straight forward as to how I felt about your response. I don't recall having ever insulted either of you.

Please don't feel insulted by my disagreeing with your assessment, but I did not at any point present this as a finished product. I stated in the first paragraph that this was a work in progress and feedback was important to me.

I did not mean to insult you by pointing out that "complete garbage" was not the kind of feedback that would be helpful to me, and that if was insulting to me.

I would like to point out something in regard to my last post, I think that atmospheric pressure on such a device, being unstable as it is, wind pressure etc, would not allow for that accuracy I would require.

still looking for ideas.

 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #15 on: 25/07/2015 23:42:02 »
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_fisica36.htm

I haven't read it all yet, but this has been pretty interesting so far,  It claims that the aether theory was dismissed due to an experiment that has since been found faulty and so the aether theory is back.

There remain a few stubborn individuals that call themselves scientists that continue to preach one form or another of an Aether Theory. If one wishes, they can find many such offerings on the internet today. And this is the proof about what I was warning you about. If someone becomes so invested in their pet theory that no amount of good evidence will ever change their mind, they have become locked into their own delusion. Sadly, there are an abundance of such cases readily available on the internet. Before you get too heavily invested in personal intuitions, take my advice and learn a little more about what mainstream science has to say regarding the issue.

A good and honest scientist will accept his errors because truly, the truth is more important to him than his personal biases.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #16 on: 25/07/2015 23:46:31 »
Quote from: Dreamian
I really did not feel I was being rude to you and alan.... I don't recall having ever insulted either of you.
You most definitely were, without doubt. More so in the other forum where you wrote
Quote
and yet you take your precious time to insult me. That speaks a lot about you.
which I take offense at. It wasn't meant as a compliment, that's for sure. You either intended to insult me or were oblivious to that fact that you did. What do you claim that the purpose of that comment was? Then there are irritating comments like
Quote
I would think as bright as you claim to be you would understand this.
which is a lie. I never claimed that I was bright, although, in all modesty, I am. And that's coming from my peers. E.g. a friend of mine is a PhD astrophysicist at MIT who tells me that I'm very very intelligent. I never say those things about myself. I will only quote those people who say them about me.

Quote from: Dreamian
I am just being straight forward as to how I felt about your response.
In retrospect I now see that it was a poor choice of words. It was very hard to find a word to describe how I felt about it so I chose the word that kept coming to my mind, i.e. garbage. However I now see that I should have taken into account your possible feelings.

Quote from: Dreamian
Please don't feel insulted by my disagreeing with your assessment, ...
Then in the future never claim someone is insulting you when, after your request, they criticize your work. Got it? Nuff said.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #17 on: 25/07/2015 23:50:00 »
The concept of the aether was created because physicists thought that electromagnetic waves needed a medium to travel in, ie to support the undulations. It was later determined that no such medium is required. Therefore there was no reason for the aether at that point. However some scientists argued that just because we don't need it, it doesn't mean that it's not there. And on it goes.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #18 on: 25/07/2015 23:59:15 »

Then in the future never claim someone is insulting you when, after your request, they criticize your work. Got it? Nuff said.
And I agree completely with Pete here. Pete could help you greatly if you would respect his expertise and fairly consider the points and positions he's trying to describe for you. There is an old saying:

"Don't look a gift horse in the mouth!"

If you truly want to learn physics, you'll need to  become a much better listener. Many of the scientists here will be willing to help you in this regard but you will need to abandon what we often call: "crack-pot theories". Hopefully, you understand that I in no way am intending to insult you.......................................Ethos
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #19 on: 26/07/2015 00:30:57 »
See what I mean? Not one person answered my question as to what you meant when you wrote
Quote
If it is not a difference in density, and the void it exists within, that is responsible for it's interactions, than what else? ?
What does that tell you?
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #20 on: 26/07/2015 02:34:27 »
Sorry  nothing has been said thus far that convinces me that my idea is garbage or crack pot, i am sure that you have had access to information that has convinced you of that, but I have to make that decision based on facts, that i have had the ability to analyse myself, and not hearsay.  i will continue to read the newest theories and try to make sense of them.  I will indeed be looking into the experiment that proves that electromagnetism does not require any kind of medium to travel through.  I have not read the details of that yet. In college in my electronic communication classes we simply touched on that little. Until I have had opportunity to think on it myself, analyze the evidence;  I am still leaning toward the idea that it does.

So, nobody is aware of a device for accurately detecting gravity?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #21 on: 26/07/2015 07:51:12 »
Quote from: Dreamian
Sorry  nothing has been said thus far that convinces me that my idea is garbage or crack pot, ...
Of course not. People who write their own theories like this are never able to be convinced that they made a mistake. They're blind to it. It's due to a lack of understanding of the physics involved. You'd have to set yourself on a strict course of study in physics to see it.

Quote from: Dreamian
So, nobody is aware of a device for accurately detecting gravity?
Of course we are. Let go of two objects of different masses. If they fall at the same rate then there's a gravitational field present. You know there's a gravitational field in your room don't you? All you have to do is drop a marble and a bowling ball at the same time. You'll find that they hit the ground at the same time. That's what a gravitational field does. Don't tell me that you weren't aware of this all too simple fact?

There are also two devices to detect (1) gravitational acceleration and (2) gradients in the gravitational field. The device to measure the first is an gravimeter (or accelerometer). The device to measure the second is a gravitational gradiometer.

See
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_gradiometry

No matter how many times I read this over I can't make any sense out of it. It appears that you're basing everything on the axiom that there exists some sort of substance that you define as "the smallest substance." However you don't say what "smallest" means. I.e. you don't say whether "small" refers to physical size or to its mass. If you mean physical size then there is no unique entity which can be called "the smallest" because many particles are point particles, i.e. have zero radius. Then you give this "smallest substance" the name "Ger" (why did you choose this as the name?).

Almost every single line is an unfounded assumption and as such it has no more substance to it than a fairy tale. That's not an insult. It's an analogy.
« Last Edit: 26/07/2015 08:22:11 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #22 on: 26/07/2015 09:03:55 »
Hi Dreamian,I have read your link, I am not a physicist but know some physics, I am sorry but I do not even understand what you are trying to say, it seems vague and confused.

Gravity mechanism which you seek is something at a quantum level in my opinion, but mentioning voids confuses things, voids are empty of everything including light and all mass.
Explaining something you imagine happens is not science alone, I have learnt that much from science.  Gravity is a force, an attractive super glue if you like, between all matter is a bond, in the space between matter there is an unseen and undetected linkage for this bond, maybe we could say that electromagnetic radiation or CBMR is a gravity conduit, and matter is coupled to matter through this conduit.
But even saying that does not tell us what gravity actually is. We could say that gravity is simply protons attracted to protons, but again it still limits our understanding.
Great scientists from history know maths is needed to explain the processes of physics. This way we can mimic the process and repeat and predict. i.e land on the moon or orbit a satellite.
Your idea needs to have a use or it just becomes meaningless.
 

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1307
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #23 on: 26/07/2015 12:09:02 »
Hi there Dreamian

I feel compelled through sheer sympathy to reply to your thread. :)

I am not here to insult you and can, through my own experience, sense that you have had an idea that you are clearly having some trouble expressing... In that I have experienced this phenomenon myself I have some advice for you.

DO NOT let the descriptions "crackpot" and "nonsense" put you off.  These are descriptions that are applied to all "ideas" until they are proven.  Relativity was once considered a crackpot notion despite the clear mathematics provided, and it was only in the 1960's that it really became mainstream. (So I've read).

But... It is really IMPORTANT that you get past these descriptions of your idea and take on board what other posters say.  This is a LEARNING process if you can get with it.

I cannot understand your idea myself tbh.  It is imperative that you refer your notions to experiment and explain where your idea differs to established theoretical physics and where it touches base with "proven" physics.  You have to show how your idea links portions of established theoretical physics and proven physics together in a "probable" fashion.  To achieve this without a solid base in mathematics is very difficult, you have my sympathy!

The advice above regarding learning is valid.  I recommend that you read a book called "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin.  This book outlines where physics is proven, where it is based on supposition and where the current theories do not mesh together.  If I were you I'd be looking at redshift and the electromagnetic in relation to the phenomenon of gravity.  This book also touches on particle physics and "may" provide you with some essential physics terminology.  I've found that using the correct terminology is paramount to communicating with physicists/scientists on these sites. (Still working on that one myself :) )

All the best to you...
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #24 on: 26/07/2015 15:39:35 »
Quote from: timey
DO NOT let the descriptions "crackpot" and "nonsense" put you off.  These are descriptions that are applied to all "ideas" until they are proven.
That's not right at all. Ideas that become theories are very different than ideas that remain only as ideas. Theories are required to have postulates that correspond to observations in nature or for which an experiment can be done to verify the postulates. The theory must also be able to make predictions, i.e. have predictive power. Otherwise they're of no use. This predictive power comes from using the postulates to derive results using logic to arrive at conclusions which may then be tested. Dreamian's essay has none of these elements. It's not a scientific theory in any sense of the term. It's merely a set of beliefs. But then again so is religion and that's hardly scientific at all.

Quote from: timey
  Relativity was once considered a crackpot notion ...
Warning: This is misinformation. Relativity was never considered to be a crackpot theory. It was recognized to be a great new theory shortly after it was published. Scientific evidence came in shortly after.

See:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#early_experiments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

Quote from: timey
... and it was only in the 1960's that it really became mainstream. (So I've read).
You mean to tell me that you don't know the connection between special relativity and the atomic bomb they dropped in 1945?

Quote from: timey
I cannot understand your idea myself tbh.  It is imperative that you refer your notions to experiment and explain where your idea differs to established theoretical physics and where it touches base with "proven" physics.
There is nothing in that page about any definition or theory of gravity.

One major lack in his essay is that while he claims that he's not satisfied with what gravity is or a "proper definition of gravity" but makes no effort to tell the reader what he holds to be unsatisfactory about gravity and its definition. It's not even clear to me that he even knows how gravity is defined in physics. He says that he's giving a definition of gravity but there's no definition of it anywhere in that page.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #24 on: 26/07/2015 15:39:35 »

 

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