The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Gravity Defined  (Read 7922 times)

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #50 on: 28/07/2015 01:18:24 »
Alan,  I believe that the Ger I refer to has possibly been detected already, and possibly named, it can be renamed at anytime, I already assumed that the "ger" would likely be renamed at a later time, but due to my ignorance, I have named it such for clarity within my definition only.  Since this ger likely is drawn in by the voids created within mass, of which I have described, and then quickly vacates, it is likely that such an observance has already been made. Are you aware of any particles, with or without mass that appear and then disappear?  Has something to that effect thus-far been observed?
There are many particles like that. They have a very brief existence/lifetime. If you go to the FermiLab or CERN website I'm sure that you'll be able to find a list of them.  They're called resonance particles. See http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/modern/dudley.html
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #51 on: 28/07/2015 01:23:59 »
Thanks PMB

Thanks colin2B

After thinking on it today, I made another edit to my definition on the website. I added the following to the definition:


Another possible problem with this definition of Gravity is that it would appear to be a push-pull type mechanism such that if the push was equal to the pull there would be no Gravitational effect. However,  the additional pull from the vast void that couples with the voids created within the mass to cause the tension between the masses, would have to have the effect of causing the Ger to vacate in the direction of that pull/force so that it fills in the space vacated by the body or bodies of mass as the mass shifts position.  This effect would be aided by the mass shifting position, as that space would have to be filled. The closest source of filling that space is the mass itself, or rather the Ger vacating the mass. Therefore the result would be a purely, or near pure, pull mechanism.
« Last Edit: 28/07/2015 01:43:50 by Dreamian »
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #52 on: 28/07/2015 01:32:50 »
Perhaps I am not real clear on why the vast voids I speak of that exist on the outskirts of all ger play such a vital role in creating the tension between the bodies of mass. I will likely work in that clarity later, but i will state here that if it wasn't for the vast voids, the voids created within the mass itself would simply be filled refilled by the substance that created it in the first place. as voids are being created, others are being filled. There would have to be more void than not for effect of gravity to take place. It is the vast voids which cause the effect of more void than not within mass. . . when more than one body of mass is present.
« Last Edit: 28/07/2015 02:25:40 by Dreamian »
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #53 on: 28/07/2015 06:17:39 »
Not sure if such an experiment as I am about to explain would provide proof or disproof of the idea I presented in my last posts. However, if the Ger does vacate and fill in the space vacated by mass as it is shifting positions in space as it Gravitates toward another body of mass; if it were possible to create an abundance of Ger, or perhaps resonance particles (even if they are not the same they may possibly occupy that space), and then could somehow direct those Ger like particles to fill a vacuum, shouldn't it slow a marbles fall ever so slightly? The more Ger, the slower the fall you would think, as it should fill in the space vacated, as well as lesson the tension. I would think you should get it to hover.

It is possible that the differential would remain constant however due to the vastness of the vast void, and its possible profound effect. But what the hell, if I had the means, I would definitely try it.
« Last Edit: 28/07/2015 06:45:52 by Dreamian »
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #54 on: 28/07/2015 15:11:23 »
I have considered, in regard to planets or moons orbiting another celestial body, such as the earth orbiting the sun, that the Ger always has a place to vacate as the earth shifts its position within its orbit, the spinning of the planet also may aid, and the spin may even be aided by, the vacating Ger into that space.

Yes, there would be Ger displaced when the planet shifts position, and that Ger would perhaps be taken on by the planet and then simply redistributed in the space vacated, but it is possible that during the process, the vast voids play their profound effect upon the Ger. A process that happens fast enough to matter.

Like I have said;  the vast void must exist, the role  it plays is vital to my definition of gravity.

However, unlike a planet orbiting, another mass falling to a planet is  displacing Ger, but the Ger being displaced between the 2 masses has tension, as I have explained, and would probably contain less Ger than that which is vacating the space previously occupied. The vast void has played A part already. . .
« Last Edit: 28/07/2015 15:50:20 by Dreamian »
 

Offline Phaedrus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
    • Hydrocosmica.com
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #55 on: 28/07/2015 17:21:00 »



(c) if you move one massive body, how long does it take for the change in its gravitational field to affect another body (i.e. what is the speed of gravity?)

Quote
That is the 64 million dollar question.

If gravity is regarded as an inflowing, or sink flow medium, and if it is incompressible, frictionless, and under constant pressure, the so-called speed of gravity would be instantaneous. If the sun were to disappear there would be a hydraulic lock at what used to be the center of the sun, the medium would cease flowing, and all the planets (with their satellites), would immediately head off on a tangent.
 
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #56 on: 28/07/2015 22:48:20 »
Not sure if such an experiment as I am about to explain would provide proof or disproof of the idea I presented in my last posts.
You have at least 2 problems:
1. You cannot yet identify or define Ger sufficiently to know it's composition
2. Even if you did you would then have to find a way of making it
You have a long way to go!

You might like to read the following:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/04/21/gravitys-shadow/
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #57 on: 29/07/2015 06:55:04 »
Colin2b,

I may not have to define its composition to test the mechanism for gravity I have described, if resonance particles would do the trick, I believe it is already known how to create them. its just a matter of whether they can be created and controlled on a level needed to perform the experiment.

but that is not my greatest problem.  no laboratory, no equipment to perform experiments,  those rank pretty high. Likely will never happen.  Hey, life is short, I have already accepted that I will never be the mad scientist I have dreamed of and take over the world. lol

 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #58 on: 29/07/2015 10:31:18 »
Colin2b,

I may not have to define its composition to test the mechanism for gravity I have described, if resonance particles would do the trick, I believe it is already known how to create them. its just a matter of whether they can be created and controlled on a level needed to perform the experiment.
If the particles are already know then I don't think it will be long before someone at CERN etc checks them out, so no worries.

but that is not my greatest problem.  no laboratory, no equipment to perform experiments,  those rank pretty high. Likely will never happen.  Hey, life is short, I have already accepted that I will never be the mad scientist I have dreamed of and take over the world. lol
Since when did all of that stop us dreaming?
Don't give it up, and above all don't stop thinking. There's a lot out there to think about. Read, think and enjoy!
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #59 on: 29/07/2015 14:40:14 »
I would love to study resonance particles, observe they're interaction with other matter.

If someone were to perform the experiment I have roughly outlined, it is possible that the vast void would maintain the difference between the 2 bodies of mass and the mass surrounding them so that there would be no noticeable effect. However, since these resonance particles are, from what I have read, the result of other particles decay, and it is my thoughts that the Ger makes up these particles, than the product of the decay would be the Ger, therefore what should be looked for in this experiment would be either a change of direction  where the resonance particles turn in the direction of the bodies of mass, especially when directly between them, or a shorter life of the resonance particles when directly between 2 bodies of mass.  Either of those observances would support the mechanism of gravity as I have explained. Of course actually floating the marble I think would prove it.
« Last Edit: 29/07/2015 15:15:33 by Dreamian »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #60 on: 29/07/2015 18:31:11 »



(c) if you move one massive body, how long does it take for the change in its gravitational field to affect another body (i.e. what is the speed of gravity?)

Quote
That is the 64 million dollar question.

If gravity is regarded as an inflowing, or sink flow medium, and if it is incompressible, frictionless, and under constant pressure, the so-called speed of gravity would be instantaneous. If the sun were to disappear there would be a hydraulic lock at what used to be the center of the sun, the medium would cease flowing, and all the planets (with their satellites), would immediately head off on a tangent.

You need a force that drives mass towards a point, the centre of gravity. The only logical way to view this is that this force originates at the centre. Even if it were an inflow something has to attract it so that reasoning doesn't get round the problem. It just removes it by one step. In which case it would be a combination of a force and the flow resulting from that force. Since mass moves towards the centre of gravity that in itself is the flowing medium.
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #61 on: 31/07/2015 17:56:41 »
Quote
David Cooper

You seem to be saying that this stuff can't fill the space that's available for it to expand into because it's being pulled out into all the space that's available for it to expand into. That's not great reasoning. If the pressure can push it apart at all, it can keep pushing it apart until it has reached a fairly even pressure through the whole of space.

It is my idea that the ger is stretched out in every direction as far as it can be, it is the interactions, the gravitational forces themselves which maintain mass, and the current state of the ger within the space which surrounds mass; which is effected by the presence of more than one body of mass as I have explained so as to create gravitational pull.


Quote
David Cooper

So you now have mass creating ger-voids in matter, and these cause a tug-of-war in the ger outside? Shouldn't it be a push-of-war as they try to fill the void inside the matter? But the matter will maintain that void, so the push will have the same effect as if the matter was full of ger and lacked a void - nothing will happen if the ger pressure inside the matter is maintained as it is.

The vast void, which is infinite, has profound effect upon mass, such that it allows for there to be more void than not within the mass, any excess ger would be forced to vacate into the space left vacant behind a body of mass as it shifts position due to gravitational pull.

Does any of this make sense?

I am trying to address any concerns which would make my definition/mechanism of Gravity not viable.

I really need to figure out the math and come up with a fundamental quantity to give "void" Then perhaps I can come up with a proper equation for solving for gravitational effect.

« Last Edit: 31/07/2015 18:06:22 by Dreamian »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #62 on: 31/07/2015 21:45:49 »
How about running a computer simulation with a thousand ger particles and a couple of objects with mass, then see if you can make anything do anything with voids such that the two objects with mass move closer together. Then try to work out how the voids do what you imagne they must do. You could try running it manually first with rice and two napkin rings (if you have such things - I certainly don't, but improvisation is allowed) on a table and see if it makes any mechanistic sense at all.
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #63 on: 01/08/2015 00:52:19 »
I think I want to spend some time thinking about the math first, see if I even stand a chance at coming up with a fundamental quantity for "void". And then take that value and see what role in can play in solving for G
« Last Edit: 01/08/2015 00:54:37 by Dreamian »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #64 on: 01/08/2015 04:55:09 »
Quote from: Dreamian
I think I want to spend some time thinking about the math first, ...
May I ask what your math skills are at this point? E.g. do you know calculus?
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #65 on: 01/08/2015 06:30:46 »
No  I don't know calculus.  I have solved some fairly tough equations, such as the instantaneous voltage equation, and could probably learn, given enough time.  so just thought I would look into it, think on it awhile, and go from there, decide if I have the time. But what i really want to think on right now, is if there is a possible method to determine what value to give void, what units to use etc, possibly using math I have already used.

Since gravity is directed toward the center of mass, which well fits my mechanism, as the tension would be greatest there, the void is felt greatest there; it is possible I only need use diameter of spheres for my equations, given like densities, and not mass, in solving for void. 

Determining a method of what fundamental quantity to give void . . . is it possible?
« Last Edit: 01/08/2015 06:59:26 by Dreamian »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #66 on: 01/08/2015 07:43:47 »
The absolute best advice that I could give you is to learn calculus and physics. It's a long and very hard journey. Don't you think that if it could have been done the way you're thinking that someone would have though of it by now? There are about 22,000 physicists in America today. Odds say that at least a few dozen would have tried that path already and found it unworkable.
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #67 on: 01/08/2015 08:08:38 »
I would have thought so, yes,  But, if that were the case, it should be easy enough for one of them to explain why it is not workable. David Cooper offered some explanation as to why it might be unworkable.  However, I think I have explained how those concerns are not a factor in this mechanism.  I would have thought that electron flow would have been figured out long before it actually was, however, those of us who know will just have to keep in mind that electrons flow from - to +, and not the direction they thought for so many years.

I would have actually thought that they would have proven a viable mechanism for how gravity works by now, but have they?  shouldn't they have thought of that by now?

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, however I think it is possible that Einstein knew better and deliberately deceived the masses so as to distract them from the truth.  We can't have people floating marbles can we?

Black hole theory in my opinion is a huge distraction, I would have thought they would have realized that is an impossibility by now. But that is just my opinion. The "Einstein ring" could be exactly the type of effect you might expect surrounding a void, not due to intense gravity, but due to not having a medium to travel through. But then, what effect would running out of medium have upon light? that is another topic in itself.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2015 08:53:26 by Dreamian »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #68 on: 01/08/2015 09:08:38 »
Quote from: Dreamian
Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, ...
Okay. You're a conspiracy theorist.  ;D

Quote from: Dreamian
... I think it is possible that Einstein knew better and deliberately deceived the masses so as to distract them from the truth. 
The problem with that, and all other conspiracy theorists, is that there is a lack of motivation for doing so. It's pretty much a fact that all physicists would absolutely love to win the Nobel prize in physics. If its possible to use relativity to prove what you hold to be true then it would have been done a very long time ago. David Hilbert was in a race with Einstein to create the general theory of relativity. Why would both of them lie? Why aren't current physicists doing it right to win the Nobel prize and collect the monetary award. In 2012 the amount was 8 million dollars! Who would lie and for what reason in order to give up that kind of money?
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #69 on: 01/08/2015 09:21:46 »
in physics doesn't something have to be proven with time in order to be eligible for a nobel prize? like 20 years or so?  But none the less, it is a good theory, but does not provide a viable mechanism for gravity in my opinion.

The motivation for possible deceit? Can you imagine a delivery system for an atomic weapon if gravity was not a factor? deceit is a common tactic during war time.  when aren't we at war?  He won the nobel prize. He got the money and recognition for great accomplishment, he may have done it while hiding the truth, and would have likely been by instruction to do so.

You do make good points though.  Maybe it is because, from what I can tell, impossible to give "void" a fundamental quantity. lol

While on the correct path, at first the path may be heavily worn, and so many will see the footprints heading the other way and so turn around and follow them, others will continue on until the path becomes over grown and hard to follow before turning around. The truth is out there, you just have to remember to bring along a weed eater.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2015 09:56:30 by Dreamian »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #70 on: 01/08/2015 10:12:31 »
Excellent idea to learn more maths and physics
No  I don't know calculus.  I have solved some fairly tough equations, such as the instantaneous voltage equation,
Would be useful to know where your knowledge level is so please give us an idea of what the tough instantaneous voltage equations are. If you don't know calculus it's clearly not Fourier analysis, which you could find useful.

I would have thought that electron flow would have been figured out long before it actually was, however, those of us who know will just have to keep in mind that electrons flow from - to +, and not the direction they thought for so many years.
I think people often confuse electron and current flow. Charge carriers can be either + or -, so current flow is a convention not related to electron flow. Current flow was set in the 1700's whereas electrons were only identified at the end of the 1800's, even then they were initially thought to be cathode rays.

I would have actually thought that they would have proven a viable mechanism for how gravity works by now, but have they?  shouldn't they have thought of that by now?
You could use that argument for everything we don't know, so as we clearly don't know everything the argument must be false.

I think you are on the right track to learn more maths and physics, if nothing else it will be fun and keep the ol' grey cells working!


 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #71 on: 01/08/2015 11:30:51 »
Quote from: Dreamian
in physics doesn't something have to be proven with time in order to be eligible for a nobel prize? like 20 years or so?
No. Not at all. For example: Murray Gell-Mann created the Eightfold Way in or about 1964. He won the Nobel Prize for it in 1969, just five short years later!

Quote from: Dreamian
None the less, it is a good theory, but does not provide a viable mechanism for gravity in my opinion.
Please don't be offended by what I'm going to say because I don't mean to offend you at all. What I want to point out at this point is that its beliefs like this that make me suggest the things that I do such as picking up a physics text or a philosophy of physics text just so that you know where the problem lay. In this case you don't have a solid grasp of what physical theories are all about. Therefore I highly recommend that you read the following chapter from a great text that I have: http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/philosophy_physics.pdf

It explains what theories are for and their relationship to explanations.

So my response to what I quoted is "So what?" That is not the purpose of a theory. No theory will provide the mechanism for how things work. What a theory does is to provide laws of nature that can be used to explain various things such as a quantum theory of gravity. Such a theory would tell you where the postulates of GR came from. When that theory is invented then we'll have a mechanism for understanding why Einstein's field equations are what they are. Right now all we can do is postulate it. The goal is to some day to describe it.

the nature of theories. All theories start with postulates. A postulate is something that must be assumed to be true because it can't be proven otherwise. Therefore such things cannot provide a mechanism just by their nature.

Quote from: Dreamian
The motivation for possible deceit? Can you imagine ...
I'm sorry but I will never entertain thoughts on conspiracy theories. They're all logically wrong and I don't want to waste my time arguing over whether something is logically wrong or not when I can use that time more constructively. So I won't respond to anything like that ever again.
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #72 on: 01/08/2015 15:00:33 »
Quote
so current flow is a convention not related to electron flow.

hook a polarized capacitor up in a circuit without paying attention to electron flow and you will quickly learn that you should have  :D  They do however mark them with little + and - signs, so as long as you can follow a circuit, you shouldn't make that mistake.

My degree is in electronics engineering. although my line of work now days doesn't make use of that so much anymore, so of course I am very rusty on most of the math as well.

I am thinking I may be too old to take on learning all there is to know about calculus and physics. So of course I am looking for shortcuts. I am also feeling a little impatient as far as finding a proper value of force to give to void in its relationship with mass and gravity. Until I can give void a value, and demonstrate how that value is very relative, void's relationship in my definition/mechanism for gravity is simply a postulate. It may not happen. But I will keep investigating my options. 

am i using the word "postulate" correctly? because, i have described the role it plays in the mechanism for gravity. However, giving void a value would go a long way in proving its role.


Thanks for the suggestions.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2015 15:19:49 by Dreamian »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #73 on: 01/08/2015 15:32:13 »
Quote
so current flow is a convention not related to electron flow.
hook a polarized capacitor up in a circuit without paying attention to electron flow and you will quickly learn that you should have  :D  They do however mark them with little + and - signs, so as long as you can follow a circuit, you shouldn't make that mistake.
The + and - signs are for voltage and current conventions - current being the opposite of electron flow, as you remember from your degree, so you have to be doubly careful not to confuse reality with convention ;)

My degree was electronics so I'm surprised to hear you didn't do calculus, it was a major part of our course.
Don't be put off though, there is still a lot to learn and it is great fun.
 

Offline Dreamian

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #74 on: 01/08/2015 15:46:11 »
Perhaps that was calculus,  I just thought of it as electronics math.  Hey, maybe I have a start.

What I remember is conventional current flow is positive to negative, and electron current flow is negative to positive. yes, you are correct, the + and - signs reference voltage polarity, yet they are relative to current/electron flow.  Really don't need to know that, as long as you hook up the polarity correctly, but true none the less.
« Last Edit: 01/08/2015 15:56:00 by Dreamian »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Gravity Defined
« Reply #74 on: 01/08/2015 15:46:11 »

 

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