The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: gravity theory...again  (Read 4123 times)

Offline L_D

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
gravity theory...again
« on: 10/03/2007 03:33:00 »
Hello everyone,

I've recently found this site, I have a theory on gravity that I have put on another science site and thought I'd put it here for discussion as well.

This theory is a very simple one that is in some ways very similar, and in some ways opposite, to the theory of relativity, at least as far as my understanding of that theory goes. (a few, more knowledgable people than myself, also made that comment on the other site).

So...we had the big bang, and after we had a cloud of dust and gas in a vacuum. Some of the (charged?) dust found itself attracted to each other and bonded together to form the basis of planets. In doing so the bits of dust took up less space collectively than they did as individual particles and therefore pulled on the vacuum.

This process continued even after a perfect vacuum was achieved in space. Because space couldn't stretch beyond a perfect vacuum, and yet the dust continued to join together taking up less space, so space got stretched locally around the formations. This localised stretching caused a distortion of space that sucks everything in, in order to try to return balance and equilibrium to space.

Paradoxically gasses that got sucked in are not dense enough to fill the void, so we end up with a pressurised atmosphere within an area of greater vacuum.

So what I'm suggesting is that the formation of the planets, or the condensing of matter, pulls on space and distorts it, causing gravity.

I know I'm fighting way above my weight coming on this site because I'm not a very academic person, but I do like to think about such things. And so, while I have used a lot of poetic license to fill in the holes in my knowledge, the main premise that gravity is space being distorted through being stretched or pulled (through the condensing of matter) makes very simple sense to me, so I'll be interested in any comments.

Regards,
L_D

 


 

another_someone

  • Guest
gravity theory...again
« Reply #1 on: 10/03/2007 12:42:04 »
So...we had the big bang, and after we had a cloud of dust and gas in a vacuum. Some of the (charged?) dust found itself attracted to each other and bonded together to form the basis of planets. In doing so the bits of dust took up less space collectively than they did as individual particles and therefore pulled on the vacuum.

In the earliest phases of the Big Bang, there would not have been anything like dust and gas, so I imagine you are talking about a later phase, when the universe already had cooled down enough to form dust (which is solid) and gas?

So you think that matter that is smaller than a planet does not have gravity?

Or are you saying that each atom has its own gravity - which is fine?

This process continued even after a perfect vacuum was achieved in space. Because space couldn't stretch beyond a perfect vacuum, and yet the dust continued to join together taking up less space, so space got stretched locally around the formations. This localised stretching caused a distortion of space that sucks everything in, in order to try to return balance and equilibrium to space.

Not sure what you mean by there being a perfect vacuum?

On a macroscopic scale, nowhere is a perfect vacuum, not even in the gaps between the galaxies.

Or are you merely talking about the spaces between the atoms.  In that case, the classical physics view might regard that as a vacuum, but quantum physics would not even view that as a vacuum.  Then again, there are still problems in working out how gravity works at a quantum level.

Paradoxically gasses that got sucked in are not dense enough to fill the void, so we end up with a pressurised atmosphere within an area of greater vacuum.

If you are talking about gasses, then it seems you are not talking about the gap between the atoms, but rather the gap between large scale matter - and as I said, nowhere is a perfect vacuum (although some places might get pretty close).

So what I'm suggesting is that the formation of the planets, or the condensing of matter, pulls on space and distorts it, causing gravity.

That matter distorts the space around it is I suppose what you meant when you suggested that you have similarities between your theory and general relativity, but you are looking at it only from the point of view of large scale visible matter, and have not really looked at matter at the atomic and sub-atomic scale, and asked how one atom (or one neutron) might effect its neighbour.  It is true that at the sub-atomic scale, there are far more powerful forces that effect these particles than gravity does, so gravity is not a major player; but you still have to ask how these particles are creating gravity, not merely how the planets create gravity, because the planets are just collections of atoms, so you must be able to extrapolate down to the smallest scale.
 
I know I'm fighting way above my weight coming on this site because I'm not a very academic person, but I do like to think about such things. And so, while I have used a lot of poetic license to fill in the holes in my knowledge, the main premise that gravity is space being distorted through being stretched or pulled (through the condensing of matter) makes very simple sense to me, so I'll be interested in any comments.

Regards,
L_D

 

If you don't ask, you wont learn - and the main thing is to keep on thinking about ideas, and learning from whatever source you can.

By the way, I am not one of the heavy weights here either (except when I weight myself on the bathroom scales) - there are people here who can run rings around me in terms of mathematical rigour.
 

Offline L_D

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
gravity theory...again
« Reply #2 on: 10/03/2007 16:19:43 »
Thanks for the great response another-someone. It's given me plenty of direction.

I knew "perfect vacuum" was incorrect and poor choice of words, it probrably would have been better if I'd talked about the fabric of space.

For example, what if the big bang stretched the fabric of space to the limit it could possibly be stretched uniformly. However matter, perhaps through it's formation or subsequent cooling or other process, condensed or contracted within this "already stretched to the limit" fabric of space, thereby pulling on the fabric of space even more.

So because space had to stretch more, but couldn't do so uniformly, it stretched (distorted) locally around matter. (giving us gravity)

I can visualise exactly what I mean, but I don't have the expertise or knowledge to put it forward as a proper theory. Hopefully what I've just written makes a bit more sense than the original post (it's a work in progress).

It's very late here so I must go sleep.

Regards.

 
 

Offline chimera

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 475
    • View Profile
gravity theory...again
« Reply #3 on: 10/03/2007 19:03:41 »
Maybe check my personal favourite, bit controversial, but IMHO lots better than the usually held view, esp since I more or less arrived at the same conclusions independently, naturally [ahem] - think you will like it, if I read you right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Physics
 

another_someone

  • Guest
gravity theory...again
« Reply #4 on: 10/03/2007 21:27:27 »
Maybe check my personal favourite, bit controversial, but IMHO lots better than the usually held view, esp since I more or less arrived at the same conclusions independently, naturally [ahem] - think you will like it, if I read you right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Physics

Seems to have a lot that is similar to the generic notion of digital physics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

There are a wide range of differing theories, which demonstrates how immature the field is, but it nonetheless does sound intriguing.
 

Offline L_D

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
gravity theory...again
« Reply #5 on: 11/03/2007 13:56:47 »
Maybe check my personal favourite, bit controversial, but IMHO lots better than the usually held view, esp since I more or less arrived at the same conclusions independently, naturally [ahem] - think you will like it, if I read you right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Physics [nofollow]

Thanks chimera, I just had a look and it is similar to what I was trying to get at, although not exactly the same. I will have to have a more indepth look and see if it can't win me over.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum

gravity theory...again
« Reply #5 on: 11/03/2007 13:56:47 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length