0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

But can we destinghuish that effect from something we might attribute to antigravitational forces?

I don't care whether or not we can destinguish the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron from antigravity.Ahem, that's the whole point of the conjecture and if you ''dont care''then don't take part.

Given your definition, the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron is an antigravitational force.(Indestinguishable) - is the word you are looking for. On higher levels (macroscopic levels), the indesinguishability may quite indeed dissipate.

we can distinguish between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force between them.You're just not getting it are you? How can i put this another way......right... imagine we think we know nothing - we don't know what a macroscopic world is. In fact, we are pointlings... tiny creatures that exist. Being so tiny, it has taken many of the pointlings many years to understand that there maybe another force other than their little innate charges. They found out, that their mass also contains a gravitational charge, and they where overwhelmed by this, because they thought their mass was wholey down to ther charge. But one day, one pointling decides to have a radical thought... what if there is an antigravitational force...? The rest of them laughed at him and said, ''don't be stupid... we are very small and such things do not matter.''But he pondered this antiforce, and he could imagine massive objects which made his tiny world, al repelling each other in this antigravitational force, so he said the next day... there is one way to test it. Get my friend positron and the boy from down the road... what's his name... proton... that's it. Now... if they as we know, cannot come together, could someone who is much larger than us know?So the story has a twist. One day, a man discovers the wierd repelling world of particles. He starts to write out mathematical formulea, decribing what he sees... gives them innate properties like charge - which covers also a gravitational charge. But the man realizes that he knows next to nothing about gravity unlike the other forces. The closest thing he could ever imagine being similar to an antigravitational force is something a bit like how a proton and a postron try to meet... they just don't.

So a conjecture was proposed... what if the world where positrons and protons repelling each other was not only like antigravitational forces, but is by definition the only kind o antigravitational forces there is?

The name antigravitational forces is misleading. It doesn't necesserily have to mean that charge is not involved. But if it was on the scale of planetery systems, then it must cancel out and gravity (a positive attractive gravity) is finally observed. But the ''Repulsive Principle'' states that antigravitational forces are indestinguishable between a proton and a positron (which both contain a mass) - so whether or not true antigravitational forces on the macroscopic level exist, is what i am hoping for the future to find out.

Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 07/12/2009 03:50:59I don't care whether or not we can destinguish the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron from antigravity.Ahem, that's the whole point of the conjecture and if you ''dont care''then don't take part. What I am trying to understand is if you even have a conjecture here. I'm not sure whether or not you are using technical terms you have invented or not, since if you are simply misspelling words then you aren't making any sense. (1)QuoteGiven your definition, the electromagnetic force between a proton and a positron is an antigravitational force.(Indestinguishable) - is the word you are looking for. On higher levels (macroscopic levels), the indesinguishability may quite indeed dissipate.I don't know the word, you are going to have to define it. But given your definition of "antigravitational force", electromagnetic force is a kind of antigravitational force, but this is trivial.Quotewe can distinguish between the electromagnetic force and the gravitational force between them.You're just not getting it are you? How can i put this another way......right... imagine we think we know nothing - we don't know what a macroscopic world is. In fact, we are pointlings... tiny creatures that exist. Being so tiny, it has taken many of the pointlings many years to understand that there maybe another force other than their little innate charges. They found out, that their mass also contains a gravitational charge, and they where overwhelmed by this, because they thought their mass was wholey down to ther charge. But one day, one pointling decides to have a radical thought... what if there is an antigravitational force...? The rest of them laughed at him and said, ''don't be stupid... we are very small and such things do not matter.''But he pondered this antiforce, and he could imagine massive objects which made his tiny world, al repelling each other in this antigravitational force, so he said the next day... there is one way to test it. Get my friend positron and the boy from down the road... what's his name... proton... that's it. Now... if they as we know, cannot come together, could someone who is much larger than us know?So the story has a twist. One day, a man discovers the wierd repelling world of particles. He starts to write out mathematical formulea, decribing what he sees... gives them innate properties like charge - which covers also a gravitational charge. But the man realizes that he knows next to nothing about gravity unlike the other forces. The closest thing he could ever imagine being similar to an antigravitational force is something a bit like how a proton and a postron try to meet... they just don't. But your story doesn't even have the most basic internal logic. If we know the mass of these particles and we know their electric charge then in any interaction between them we can effectively account for both of these forces and look for anything left over. There is no room for any extra force, except for when we get to the level of the nuclear forces. (2)QuoteSo a conjecture was proposed... what if the world where positrons and protons repelling each other was not only like antigravitational forces, but is by definition the only kind o antigravitational forces there is? Are you saying that there is no force that repels mass except electromagnetism? (3)QuoteThe name antigravitational forces is misleading. It doesn't necesserily have to mean that charge is not involved. But if it was on the scale of planetery systems, then it must cancel out and gravity (a positive attractive gravity) is finally observed. But the ''Repulsive Principle'' states that antigravitational forces are indestinguishable between a proton and a positron (which both contain a mass) - so whether or not true antigravitational forces on the macroscopic level exist, is what i am hoping for the future to find out.This still doesn't make sense. If this antigravitational force is simply electromagnetism, then obviously it's the same for both, because they have the same charge. If it is something else then it doesn't seem to exist at all. If it was going to be something that depended on mass then it should be measurable because the positron and the proton have a significant difference in mass.

Your principle is insanely trivial. You have defined any force that repels mass as being "antigravitational force". So what? Why do we need this piece of definition. Absolutely nothing in physics changes, nor will it ever change, based on this definition.

Let me propose a different twist. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is simple concept. At a given point away from a mass there is a delta change in space and time. This is the essence of the force. Its a natural occurrence so we can cause "antigravitational force" once we understand the reason behind the change in space and time in the same way we could cause unnatural electrical discharges once we understood electromagnetic interactions.My concept is throw away the concept of space and to explain everything in terms of subspaces. Two spinning subspaces, perpendicular to each other, creates space with the gravity between them. This gravity space adds with all of the other gravity spaces to create the universe. This is the question on how gravity adds to itself. The quark theory like my own has particles made from larger particle (Matter-Antimatter) both having positive gravity and yet the composite particle has only the gravity of the Matter-Antimatter difference. The energy that is given up matches the change in the gravity. How is the gravity changed and at what rate?

Quote from: PhysBang on 07/12/2009 12:34:20Your principle is insanely trivial. You have defined any force that repels mass as being "antigravitational force". So what? Why do we need this piece of definition. Absolutely nothing in physics changes, nor will it ever change, based on this definition.So? Was not Einstiens elevator theory quite trivial?

WRONGIt was a gravitational distinguishabity - it was the corner stone of physics, or atleast his own theory which has worked remarkably well.

Nope - you said he did not use the elevator experiment to help or not help being the case, to dinstinguish gravitational forces with that of acceleration.

And how did Einstein enact this similarity between gravity and acceleration? Through the demand that physical laws be written in a generally covariant form.Note too that the elevator example does not include rotation, which is still an absolute acceleration in general relativity.So, what can we possibly do with your repulsive principle?

Why not?

If there is somewhere in the fudamental universe we cannot destinguish the forces by my definition, then the definition itself could hold as true as saying that on a cosmological scale, there could be an antigravitational repulsion in the form of antimatter in the distant and yet not observable universe.

Is this a kind of prediction you wanted me to assert? Because it's only a postulation, but my principle holds true that is until we find an actual antigravitational mass.

Quote from: Mr. Scientist on 11/12/2009 13:55:42Why not? Well, because we can already imagine all kinds of things. Simply declaring that all repulsive forces are antigravitational forces adds nothing. (1)QuoteIf there is somewhere in the fudamental universe we cannot destinguish the forces by my definition, then the definition itself could hold as true as saying that on a cosmological scale, there could be an antigravitational repulsion in the form of antimatter in the distant and yet not observable universe. Antimatter is well understood and we know its gravitational properties and its electromagnetic properties quite well. We can indeed distinguish between them on the basis of behaviour and measurement. (2)QuoteIs this a kind of prediction you wanted me to assert? Because it's only a postulation, but my principle holds true that is until we find an actual antigravitational mass.What principle? Could you please restate, clearly, what you imagine your principle to be?

(1) - That's your opinion. But one which is quite cloudy, because if you follow your own logic, you would not be asking the questions you are unless it were so easy.

(2) - On the microscopic scale, we believe we do understand. But as i have made more than clear, we have not tested any of the antimatter properties (incuding) their effects on macroscopic scales, and thus your own postulations against the principle does not hold.

(3) - I hate repeating myself more than three times. Please read the OP again.